Unless Australia issued some special stamps with watermarks later on, it looks to me like the last stamps to have watermarks were the shilling and pound definitives issued in 1963 (Scott #375-379).
The last watermarked stamps of Australia were from the first Queen Elizabeth II definitives; the 3½d (issued April 21, 1953) and the 6½d (issued June 23, 1954). Stanley Gibbons 263 & 263a
That's not correct.
Australia issued several more watermarked stamps after those two stamps:
Gibbons #282; Scott #279 (issued 1955)
Gibbons #327; Scott #331 (issued 1961)
Gibbons #356-360; Scott #375-379 (issued 1964)
How embarrassing! You're right Michael.
SG 282.
SG 327 (middle stamp)
SG 356 - 360
The 5 pre-decimal Navigators are in a set of 14.
I have some of the King George V stamps watermarked sideways. Naturally, Scott's doesn't list those. Does anyone know if those are listed anyplace?
Thanks!
Dave
"I have some of the King George V stamps watermarked sideways. Naturally, Scott's doesn't list those. Does anyone know if those are listed anyplace? "
Thanks! I guess I'll just have to have a look at a newer catalog!
Dave
I have a collection of the multiple reign scenery sets of Ceylon ( Now Sri Lanka)
KG V, KG VI, and EII, that I accumulated when I still used Scott and the sideways right or left and inverted watermarks are listed. But the Gibbons cats will list them better.
There are also some perforation varieties to play with.
Hi Everyone;
@ daveanddeb;
Sometimes the sideways watermarks altho not given a Scott's catalog number or minor variety
designation (XXXa) are because they were intentionally made that way for Booklet panes.
Those cases are usually noted by Scott's in fine print near the bottom of that set of definitives.
Just Sortin'....
TuskenRaider
Also, Scott lists the booklets at the end of the Great Britain listing.
Funnilly enough Gibbons doesn't mention in the "Red" book inverted watermarks for all issues while it does mention sideways - although not always sideways inverted.
I think the logic is that sideways watermarks are normally deliberate - for booklets,coils etc while inverted ( and sideways inverted ) could be created accidentally by feeding a sheet through the printing machinery upside down ( and hence is unintentional ). Obviously since the days of continuous reel printing this no longer applies. Also the old "Elizabethan"( yellow) catalogue, and the GB specialised catalogues do mention these.
SG appears to act quite arbitrarily about what is and is not listed in the different catalogues ( other than the simplified which in my opinion is virtually useless to anyone who has more than a passing interest in stamps).
Malcolm
I can understand not specifying that a stamp has sideways watermarks if that is the only way it was produced, although in that case, the watermark might inadvertently be "inverted" and thus look like it's top points both left and right, as with so many UK stamps. And depending on how the blocks destined to be trimmed and assembled into booklets are arranged on the initial uncut sheet, water marks would be both pointing left and pointing right.
Then were an example to surface with the watermark upright, the sideways should be the prime number and the upright, ( normal to some eyes.) or if inverted, should be the variant.
Some Norwegian stamps exist watermarked with a series of posthorns with the mouthpiece left, right, top or bottom.
Some such arrangements are on propose while others are from when the paper was inserted incorrectly.
"the simplified which in my opinion is virtually useless to anyone who has more than a passing interest in stamps"
Can someone tell me what yer did Austraila stop making watermarks on stamps ? Thanks Devil Dog
re: Water marks
Unless Australia issued some special stamps with watermarks later on, it looks to me like the last stamps to have watermarks were the shilling and pound definitives issued in 1963 (Scott #375-379).
re: Water marks
The last watermarked stamps of Australia were from the first Queen Elizabeth II definitives; the 3½d (issued April 21, 1953) and the 6½d (issued June 23, 1954). Stanley Gibbons 263 & 263a
re: Water marks
That's not correct.
Australia issued several more watermarked stamps after those two stamps:
Gibbons #282; Scott #279 (issued 1955)
Gibbons #327; Scott #331 (issued 1961)
Gibbons #356-360; Scott #375-379 (issued 1964)
re: Water marks
How embarrassing! You're right Michael.
SG 282.
SG 327 (middle stamp)
SG 356 - 360
The 5 pre-decimal Navigators are in a set of 14.
re: Water marks
I have some of the King George V stamps watermarked sideways. Naturally, Scott's doesn't list those. Does anyone know if those are listed anyplace?
Thanks!
Dave
re: Water marks
"I have some of the King George V stamps watermarked sideways. Naturally, Scott's doesn't list those. Does anyone know if those are listed anyplace? "
re: Water marks
Thanks! I guess I'll just have to have a look at a newer catalog!
Dave
re: Water marks
I have a collection of the multiple reign scenery sets of Ceylon ( Now Sri Lanka)
KG V, KG VI, and EII, that I accumulated when I still used Scott and the sideways right or left and inverted watermarks are listed. But the Gibbons cats will list them better.
There are also some perforation varieties to play with.
re: Water marks
Hi Everyone;
@ daveanddeb;
Sometimes the sideways watermarks altho not given a Scott's catalog number or minor variety
designation (XXXa) are because they were intentionally made that way for Booklet panes.
Those cases are usually noted by Scott's in fine print near the bottom of that set of definitives.
Just Sortin'....
TuskenRaider
re: Water marks
Also, Scott lists the booklets at the end of the Great Britain listing.
re: Water marks
Funnilly enough Gibbons doesn't mention in the "Red" book inverted watermarks for all issues while it does mention sideways - although not always sideways inverted.
I think the logic is that sideways watermarks are normally deliberate - for booklets,coils etc while inverted ( and sideways inverted ) could be created accidentally by feeding a sheet through the printing machinery upside down ( and hence is unintentional ). Obviously since the days of continuous reel printing this no longer applies. Also the old "Elizabethan"( yellow) catalogue, and the GB specialised catalogues do mention these.
SG appears to act quite arbitrarily about what is and is not listed in the different catalogues ( other than the simplified which in my opinion is virtually useless to anyone who has more than a passing interest in stamps).
Malcolm
re: Water marks
I can understand not specifying that a stamp has sideways watermarks if that is the only way it was produced, although in that case, the watermark might inadvertently be "inverted" and thus look like it's top points both left and right, as with so many UK stamps. And depending on how the blocks destined to be trimmed and assembled into booklets are arranged on the initial uncut sheet, water marks would be both pointing left and pointing right.
Then were an example to surface with the watermark upright, the sideways should be the prime number and the upright, ( normal to some eyes.) or if inverted, should be the variant.
Some Norwegian stamps exist watermarked with a series of posthorns with the mouthpiece left, right, top or bottom.
Some such arrangements are on propose while others are from when the paper was inserted incorrectly.
re: Water marks
"the simplified which in my opinion is virtually useless to anyone who has more than a passing interest in stamps"