Two 1910 Die Proofs? Help please!

#1 · October 3, 2025, 12:30 pm

Quote from Steve on October 3, 2025, 12:30 pm
I have received the following from Shelton Botha who is looking for some advice. Can you help him, please?

Shelton writes. "I have come across some lovely stamps and two interesting pieces in my collection which has been ongoing in my family for three generations. Please see the photos attached. I have what looks like two die proofs, printed on thick glazed card with what seems to be die impressions on them. I have photographed them with the actual stamps.

I have read an article by Russell Boezak and find these proofs remarkably similar to the dies used in his article down to breaks in borders etc. Both of these items feel almost embossed and when put under a microscope the paper looks almost like cracked marble on the glazed side and slightly rougher in texture on the back side with an almost cream colour. The back of the one with the value at the bottom has a horizontal piece of paper stuck to it over about 40% of the back.

Can you offer any more information on this as I have thoroughly enjoyed reading about them.

I look forward to hearing from you and will be happy to share any photographs or information I have on my entire collection.

I live in the UK but my family originates from South Africa."

Thanks for contacting us. I am no expert on this subject and hope that one of our readers can help you. There are several different die proofs associated with the 1910 Opening of Parliament issue, also Colour Trials, Specimens and Publicity Cards. Die proofs are usually uncommon but with regards to this 1910 2½d commemorative there area quite a few, many of them showing small differences in the design.

My first thought was that this may be a cut-up reproduction of a die proof. This is always a possibility. Reproductions of the die proofs exist in various formats. I have seen a miniature sheet cut-up and claiming to be the real thing before. In the absence of being able to obtain a genuine die proof at a reasonable price cutting up a printed facsimile makes a very convenient and affordable fake alternative.

1976. PFSA Miniature Sheet, possibly the origin of this posts 'die proofs'.

You have obviously studied this much more closely than me. The first thing that I notice is that there are differences between the issued stamps in the block of six 4th November 1910 'Opening of the Union Parliament' (very nice, as is!) and your "die proofs". (I italicize your comment because I do not know enough to agree or disagree with your assessment of these.) The final design of this stamp issue can be seen in the block of six. Your two examples show the colony names around the King Geo V whereas in the final issue they are part of the bottom of the indivual colony armorial shield. These have been moved into the central design to make space for them below. This is all in keeping with the various stages the die proofs went through. Yours could be genuine or cut-up reproductions of the orginal die proof.

These appear to be much the same as the die proofs that Russell Boezak shows on page 6 of his dispaly. To see Russell's Display, CLICK HERE.

I am sure that if we had the services of Dr Chris Board RDPSA to draw on this matter would be quickly resolved. Sadly this is no longer possible.

Because you sent a photo and not a scan the image was huge and I have had to reduce it down to something more manageable. What I have done is taken the original phots images and made a compilation, below, so that one can zoom in to see the detail. Again, the first thing I notice is that there appears to be a size discrepancy between the 'die proofs' and the issued stamp. As stated previously, this is par for the production course. I suspect that any distortion here is more to do with the aspect ratio of the photograph than anything else. My guess would be that sizewise the image is the same. A decent scan would show this.

What is apparent here is that the engraving between the two 'die proofs', left, and the finished stamp are different. In the two 'die proofs' the king's face is made up of continuous lines wheras in the issued stamp is short lines and dots. Is this an issue of any importance?

As stated, I do not know enough about this subject to give you a qualified philatelic answer. I prefer quations about history!

I have received the following from Shelton Botha who is looking for some advice. Can you help him, please?

Shelton writes. "I have come across some lovely stamps and two interesting pieces in my collection which has been ongoing in my family for three generations. Please see the photos attached. I have what looks like two die proofs, printed on thick glazed card with what seems to be die impressions on them. I have photographed them with the actual stamps.

I have read an article by Russell Boezak and find these proofs remarkably similar to the dies used in his article down to breaks in borders etc. Both of these items feel almost embossed and when put under a microscope the paper looks almost like cracked marble on the glazed side and slightly rougher in texture on the back side with an almost cream colour. The back of the one with the value at the bottom has a horizontal piece of paper stuck to it over about 40% of the back.

Can you offer any more information on this as I have thoroughly enjoyed reading about them.

I look forward to hearing from you and will be happy to share any photographs or information I have on my entire collection.

I live in the UK but my family originates from South Africa."

Thanks for contacting us. I am no expert on this subject and hope that one of our readers can help you. There are several different die proofs associated with the 1910 Opening of Parliament issue, also Colour Trials, Specimens and Publicity Cards. Die proofs are usually uncommon but with regards to this 1910 2½d commemorative there area quite a few, many of them showing small differences in the design.

My first thought was that this may be a cut-up reproduction of a die proof. This is always a possibility. Reproductions of the die proofs exist in various formats. I have seen a miniature sheet cut-up and claiming to be the real thing before. In the absence of being able to obtain a genuine die proof at a reasonable price cutting up a printed facsimile makes a very convenient and affordable fake alternative.

1976. PFSA Miniature Sheet, possibly the origin of this posts 'die proofs'.

You have obviously studied this much more closely than me. The first thing that I notice is that there are differences between the issued stamps in the block of six 4th November 1910 'Opening of the Union Parliament' (very nice, as is!) and your "die proofs". (I italicize your comment because I do not know enough to agree or disagree with your assessment of these.) The final design of this stamp issue can be seen in the block of six. Your two examples show the colony names around the King Geo V whereas in the final issue they are part of the bottom of the indivual colony armorial shield. These have been moved into the central design to make space for them below. This is all in keeping with the various stages the die proofs went through. Yours could be genuine or cut-up reproductions of the orginal die proof.

These appear to be much the same as the die proofs that Russell Boezak shows on page 6 of his dispaly. To see Russell's Display, CLICK HERE.

I am sure that if we had the services of Dr Chris Board RDPSA to draw on this matter would be quickly resolved. Sadly this is no longer possible.

Because you sent a photo and not a scan the image was huge and I have had to reduce it down to something more manageable. What I have done is taken the original phots images and made a compilation, below, so that one can zoom in to see the detail. Again, the first thing I notice is that there appears to be a size discrepancy between the 'die proofs' and the issued stamp. As stated previously, this is par for the production course. I suspect that any distortion here is more to do with the aspect ratio of the photograph than anything else. My guess would be that sizewise the image is the same. A decent scan would show this.

What is apparent here is that the engraving between the two 'die proofs', left, and the finished stamp are different. In the two 'die proofs' the king's face is made up of continuous lines wheras in the issued stamp is short lines and dots. Is this an issue of any importance?

As stated, I do not know enough about this subject to give you a qualified philatelic answer. I prefer quations about history!

#2 · October 4, 2025, 11:38 am

In order to find an answer to this, I emailed Shelton Botha and CC'ed Russell Boezak and the Lester, (SACS ), both of whom have fine displays on the subject of the 1910 Opening of Parliament 2½d commemorative stamp.

"Hi Shelton,

Thanks for the email with image. I have put it up in the Forum on the SAPC website.

I am glad that you enjoyed Russell Boezak's display. I have CC'ed him on this email. It is several years since we were last in touch. I hope his email is still active. Given that you refer to his display Russell is probably the best person to start with. Others you can try are Rob and Lyn Lester of SACS. They have an extensive 1910 Opening of Union Parliament Collection though I am not sure if this runs to die proofs. I have also CC'ed them, There may be some info on die proofs on the SACS website and or in old copies of the Springbok magazine. For any ex-South African living in the UK who is interested in the old country's stamps SACS offers a lot.

I am a South African living in Cambridge. Go Bokke!"

Russell replied: "Many thanks Steve and good to meet you Shelton. Your images appear to show that you have what is known as a "pull" but it has to be seen up close as it were. Was that the only 1910 material you had? Were there any expertizing certificates, proof of purchase at auction or otherwise provenance attached? I would certainly suggest you take it with to one of the UK meetings so that Rob and Lyn Lester could have a look and possibly Chris Board as well".