NSW Imperf Diadem 5 Pence Watermark Query

I have seen posts re perforated Diadems and not typical watermarks. It seems that the edge watermark does show indications on those sheets of "New South Wales" or similar appearing. But did it happen also with earlier in imperfs? I have an Imperf 5d I purchased decades ago which I had always considered may be a later reprint purely based on the watermark (it is unused but was not super expensive <$100). It is clearly an edge stamp but I am unaware if this explains the watermark which I am okay with assuming is of a later paper, but I don't know and would like to. If any of you have info which settles my mind I would be appreciative. It does have some gum but is mostly greatly disturbed/previously hinged. I have never wanted to wash it. Thanks in advance.

Hi HarbingerHamster,

Yes, the imperfs had the marginal markings also, but not the 1903 printings on SG Wmk 65 paper, imperfs of which are listed in SG, but as a pair.

In your stamp, you can see the NSW of the watermark (crown over NSW) at the bottom of the stamp as it has been presented. It's SG watermark 40. It's known imperf and listed as SG233e, again as a pair.

Yours might be a genuine imperf but it's not an original imperf from the 1855 printing, which had the double line 5 watermark.

Fairdinkumstamps may be able to shed some more light!

Hope this info helps

Thank you Bobby De La Rue,
That does help me a bit I think, I have always assumed it may be a later reprint and I think that concurs with your view. Definitely no double lined 5 to be seen on this one.
Curious that you say it might be a "genuine" imperf as I can't imagine it could be anything else. Yes not from the period of the original printing, so I guess if it is a reprint I just need to understand from when.
Thanks for your reply.

It's not a reprint as such. It's an example issued in the normal course of things. The plate for the 5d was in use for over 50 years!

The number of 5d and 8d diadems that have had their perforations trimmed off so as to be as imperf is staggering.

The only aspect that I can think of is that, as yours is a marginal example, and if the issued stamps were perforated all round before issue (and I'm not certain one way or the other on this point), then yours might be the real deal.

That said, search ebay for '5d diadem' and see the perforated examples that have an imperf margin. I saw three and they're below. Note the third one - amazing it hasn't been a victim of the scissors!

Thank you again,
I am very appreciative of your information. I see what you mean and those examples show the various possible scenarios well.
I had never considered it may not be imperf due to the selvedge at the top. I am still inclined to think it is not tampered with but I can't be certain. Only know it has remained as is for the past 25 years I have had it.
This has assisted me greatly. Best,

Hi Bobby De La Rue,

I am still digesting your info (yes I take my time :) and I agree that the third example in your reply looks like it must have tempted someone to scissor (or still may, who knows?) although I imagine the watermark would still tell on them?
I wonder if you or anyone knows (or how I can establish) exactly which years specific watermarks were in use for as that may help me place my 5d at least in that setting. My references only describe the watermarks but do not say which years they were in use for.
I wonder also whether if I measure my stamp width wise to include edge to edge paper it may settle the question in my mind as to whether it is truly imperf as I imagine a perf stamp trimmed. I don't know if the width between two lines of perfs was consistent enough for me to say it is not likely/unlikely that it was ever perforated as the width could not be what it is.
I don't know, but mostly I want to identify the stamp as one thing or another and place it in correct position in my small (and yes, somewhat carefully curated) collection.
Once again I do appreciate your time and information. Sorry for throwing my questions at you alone but you were kind enough to respond to my query. Best

Happy to help HarbingerHamster

The following is specific to the 5d only.

The double line 5 watermark was in use when the stamp was issued ie: 1855.

This watermark was replaced in 1884 (see Wmk SG36 & SG215)

The next watermark appears in 1890 (See Wmk SG40 & SG231)

The next watermark appears in 1903 (See Wmk SG65 & SG329)

The Australian Commonwealth Specialist's Catalogue says that the Wmk SG65 paper did not have marginal markings (which is why I said "but not the 1903 printings on SG Wmk 65 paper"), but having read the descriptions of the other NSW stamps listed, I believe they mean no markings in the margins on the printed side of the sheet.

The shade of your stamp gives me the impression it's from the 1903 printing, but I went against my instincts when I first replied, because I mis-read the ACSC. Apologies for that

The image below is from the Bell collection, lot 1208 (Abacus May 2013), described thus:

"1903-08 Diadems 5d deep blue-green horizontal marginal Imperforate Pairs BW #N33b (SG 329d) from the left & right of the sheet, the latter with a minor gum-thin, Cat $700 (£750)."



My gut says that the margins on your stamp are adequate to call it a genuine imperf.

That is correct, Bobby De La Rue.

In his comparison of the Type II and III Crown over NSW watermarks, the great G.J. Hutson states (on page 87) that "the marginal watermark remained unaltered".

He also mentions that the Type III is slightly smaller than the Type II watermark.

He gives the average width of 'NSW' as 14 mm on the Type II and 13 mm on the Type III.

HarbingerHamster, you might like to measure the width of your 'NSW' to provide more evidence one way or the other.

Thank you both Bobby De La Rue & Fairdinkumstamps,

This is excellent information to have, greatly appreciated. I will attempt to measure the watermark NSW tomorrow (I am going to have to look closely as I have found it difficult to spot exactly where it begins/ends in the past, you can see from my scan that the N&W are sort of spookily wonky rather than crisp lines). I will give it a shot and respond.
Thank you both.
PS: greatly appreciate the date info re the watermark usage also.

In keeping with Bobby De La Rue's mention of the existence of trimmed stamps, imperfs are ideally sought (and are catalogued) as horizontal pairs.

It might be worth having a microscopic look at regularly spaced protrusions or indents along the edge of single stamps.

This image shows a perf 10 stamp from the early 1890's (Type II Crown over NSW) between your two images, the red lines pointing to possible perf evidence along one edge:

I see what you mean about the possible perf evidence. I will look also at this tomorrow.
I also have a much higher resolution scan I made some time ago so can enlarge that and see if it makes anything more apparent. It may, but I will check. Thanks.

It's worth noting that the Wmk SG65 stamps do not exist perf. 10

Thank you both again,
I have measured the width (edge to edge) of the NSW watermark and I am pretty confident it is 14mm. I measured it by eye with a reliable ruler as I found it easier to discern the watermark by placing the stamp on a dark surface and eyeballing it (trying to manipulate my scan to being it up clearly just did nothing but may it appear wonky).
Obviously the stamp also has a partial E & the W in double lines which are easy to discern - from "NEW" toward the top selvedge but these and the NSW are upside down in orientation compared to the face of the stamp (so potentially inverted I guess), not that that is of concern to me at present.
I measured the paper width of the stamp by hand and am pretty sure it is a smidge over 26mm. The pic below shows my computer think it is closer to 26.5mm but that is just for your info. I also measured a couple of my perforated 5d Diadems and if I measure from the inside edge of the perfs on both sides they are pretty much the same (26mm). So I conclude that helps me not at all to determine whether it is a criminally trimmed perf stamp (at least in part as it may be) or imperf by nature.
Checking the actual edges 3 are good as in definitely cut clean (does not mean genuine imperf I know). The one edge which fairdinkumstamps pointed to as a possible concern sort of has me stumped. It is a rougher cut and has some trails of paper (minute from either a bad cut - knife on a poor surface or whatever - or poor trimming to remove perfs. I can't tell. I have made a clumsy digital perf gauge (stolen from a scan I made of the real one) but can't determine if it helps. My other perf Diadems of this value appear to me to be at times perf 11 or 10 3/4 (yes even then I can't say all edges come up the same on the two I measured today & I often disagree with my own previous determination I noted. Anyway can you tell me what else I may do just to put this to rest. Is there consensus on just one or two or three perfs for Crown over NSW 5d Diadems? if so do you see anything I might do to place my digital gauge anywhere on this to see the story.
Sorry for the length of this and for wasting your time. This stamp has niggled at me for years so I decided to seek help. The pic below is just a reference in my high res version I can move rulers and add perf gauges of whatever is of sundry interest to my madness.
Best.

Could you please explain what you mean by "Is there consensus on just one or two or three perfs for Crown over NSW 5d Diadems?" HarbingerHamster?

Hi Bobby De La Rue
What I meant was is there consensus or has it been determined that specific perforations exist for this stamp on the known watermark papers in the period of their use and those are the only known ones to consider.
Sorry if that sounds awkward. I am trying to determine if I just have to look for signs of say perf 10, 10.5, 11 or those in between or any others at all and can forget all others.
I probably can't see any tell tale signs but just wanted to see if any other than the standard perks listed in catalogues should also be considered.
Thanks again.

Thanks HarbingerHamster

Yes I believe every perforation variety for the 5d has been catalogued in Gibbons, but Hutson goes the extra mile and makes a distinguishment (is this a word? it ought to be!) where Gibbons says something like perf. 11x12 or 12x11.

Gibbons round up to whole numbers, so as an example, for the perf. 12 stamps in 1860, the gauge will measure 11.5 to 12 owing to the nature of the equipment in use back then.