David, the 4d is maybe the only real "trick-question" - it's got an inverted CA wmk, otherwise very normal. I have a lot of Lagos by now, and that's the only such case I've found, though the latest Gibbons lists 1 inverted and 1 sideways wmk Vickie, at around 100 pounds per. The 1sh is of primary interest to me over all those other items, and here is where you might know a lot more than I. Also, this part is no longer anything but what I know from direct study & Gibbons 2007: First, the 1st Lagos issue is 12.5, not 14, and this one is pecisely 12.5 too. Second, I have 2 other 12.5 CCs with the same 'L' cancel, and one of them is a 1sh. You are generally right, though, the P.14 CCs almost all have that 'L' cancel, and very few of the 12.5s do - but they do exist.
Third, what I found is (re: Gibbons 2007) unless forged, the Feb 75 issue of the 1sh, with value "one shilling" 15.5 mm long, and at a premium of 100 pounds+. The normal 1sh, with re-sized value, issued July 75, has "one shilling" 16.5 mm long. 1 mm is a large difference as you know, and easy to see close up. The "kearning" (the spaces between characters in "One Shilling") are nearly perfect too, and on both lengths.
Even better, more direct: Say you place the 'O' (of "One") Feb 75 1sh stamp directly in line above the July printing's 'O' - when you do that, the 'H' near the center are way off from each other, and finally, the 'G' at the end is way, way off from the Feb printing: 1 mm off, in fact. Finally, I measured directly, and I got 15.5 (+/- a tiny bit) on the one scanned, and 16.5 (+/- a tiny bit) on the one I didn't scan. I can scan them together, if you want, though it's still hard to measure in a scan with that darned cancel. But you can see the 2 'L' cancels on both 1875 1sh 12.5s, if nothing else.
I don't have a doubt these are what Gibbons refers to (numbered in 2007 #8 and #8a), only that the shortie 1sh from the Feb 75 stamp might be altered by fakery, possibly. (A grossly ugly forgery, if so, though...) Anyway, does this make any sense, what I'm tryinmg to explain here, David?
|