Here is an interesting case.
Stamp RJ of plate 176 is one that has special mention in Statham.
He notes a non-coincident repair by re-entry, and illustrates the duplication of the outer line of the R square and of the major SW pointing ray of the right star.
Part of the commentary is 'R is closer to the right side of the square'.
What an understatement!
The illustration shows state 1 next to two repaired stamps.
The duplication is clear, especially on the example scanned larger.
The position of the checkletter R is significantly altered, and its tail is a completely different shape.
The checkletter J is also different.
It seems clear that both letters have been recut.
I am confident the allocation of these stamps to plate 176 is correct.
This unit is apparently known to have been repaired a second time.
For this reason I am unsure at this stage whether the two examples are state 2 or 3.
An interesting stamp - one to look out for.
Interestingly, I found both the scans of repaired stamps in places where they were described as plate 155.
Stamp RJ is missing from the 155 Imprimatur sheet, which doesn't help in identifying examples, but for the record I have included in the image above three examples of RJ from plate 155.
I suspect they are all state 3 prints, but the letter positions can be made out fairly well despite all three having cancels on top of them.
That two same stamps have been misplated as 155 makes me wonder if this is an error carried forward from another source.
Possibly the Gardner-Hill reconstructions had this wrong?
Stamp RJ of plate 176 is one that has special mention in Statham.
He notes a non-coincident repair by re-entry, and illustrates the duplication of the outer line of the R square and of the major SW pointing ray of the right star.
Part of the commentary is 'R is closer to the right side of the square'.
What an understatement!
The illustration shows state 1 next to two repaired stamps.
The duplication is clear, especially on the example scanned larger.
The position of the checkletter R is significantly altered, and its tail is a completely different shape.
The checkletter J is also different.
It seems clear that both letters have been recut.
I am confident the allocation of these stamps to plate 176 is correct.
This unit is apparently known to have been repaired a second time.
For this reason I am unsure at this stage whether the two examples are state 2 or 3.
An interesting stamp - one to look out for.
Interestingly, I found both the scans of repaired stamps in places where they were described as plate 155.
Stamp RJ is missing from the 155 Imprimatur sheet, which doesn't help in identifying examples, but for the record I have included in the image above three examples of RJ from plate 155.
I suspect they are all state 3 prints, but the letter positions can be made out fairly well despite all three having cancels on top of them.
That two same stamps have been misplated as 155 makes me wonder if this is an error carried forward from another source.
Possibly the Gardner-Hill reconstructions had this wrong?
