£1 QV Tablet overprinted REVENUE - postal usage?

[Ross Ewington]

This example of a £1 QV Tablet overprinted REVENUE was offered for sale by public auction in Australia during January 2010.

£1 QV revenue with de.3.00 cds.jpg (23.59 KiB) Viewed 7549 times

In the catalog it is described (succinctly) as a "1900 REVENUE opt QV Tablet £1 Postal Fiscal. VFU. SG F39 cat £140" [ESTIMATE: AU$170]

The Stanley Gibbons catalog (from which a cat. no. and c.v. are quoted) clearly states: "It was not intended that stamps overprinted with
Type F6 (REVENUE) should be used for postal purposes, but an ambiguity in regulations permitted such usage until all fiscal stamps were invalidated
for postal purposes on 30 November 1900 (emphasis added to date).

The purpose of this post is not to debate whether the describer's "elasticity" with the postmark date to proclaim a postal usage (even though the
catalog text quoted above is immediately below the catalog listing of SG F39) is "right" or "wrong", but to discuss as to what type of Tasmanian collection is this
stamp suited.

This are a few observations regarding this stamp:

1) the Queenstown postmark date DE 3 00 is postal albeit three days after invalidation;

2) a good proportion of used £1 QV Tablets SG225 are found with Queenstown cds postmarks (while this statement is purely anectdotal, I am sure most collectors
of Tasmanian stamps and/or postmarks would agree). Other usages of the £1 QV Tablet are seen with Strahan, Zeehan and Burnie cds postmarks (similar
"heavy lifting" mail towns to Queenstown;

3) due to the plethora of "last day souvenirs" that were produced on 30 November 1900 (mainly at the the Hobart GPO), it can be assumed that the
date of invalidation of revenue stamps for postal purposes had been widely promulgated prior to the date. I do not believe that post office staff in
Queenstown (despite the remoteness of location at the time) would have been unaware of the change of usage;

4) the "stamp in question" was produced solely for the collection of stamp duty and is therefore strictly a revenue stamp;

5) I can only recall having seen several examples of the £1 stamp postally used within the period of validity and all but one of them were cancelled
on 30 NOV 00 indicating that they were most probably cancelled-to-order.

Therefore, I regard this stamp to be a revenue stamp used incorrectly for postal purposes.
My opinion is that it deserves a place in a collection of Tasmanian revenue stamps but not in a collection of Tasmanian postage stamps.

Do you agree or disagree? Please post your comments below. If you have an image of the stamp postally used outside the period of validity, please share
it with us in this topic.

[Revenuer]

My thoughts are that the below stamp should be burned!

ALL these dates close to the end of fiscal/postal use are purely philatelic. It is a crying shame that we now have to pay for the greedy collectors of the past.

Attached is a Hobart postal canceller back dated 4 years as this 1d overprint never came out till 1904 another bin job!!

Dave

rubbish.jpg (38.67 KiB) Viewed 7545 times

[Revenuer]

pound1.jpg (48.19 KiB) Viewed 7539 times

Elsmore Copy
--

pound2.jpg (37.19 KiB) Viewed 7539 times

Butler copy
--

pound3.jpg (22.53 KiB) Viewed 7539 times

Kiddle copy
--

pound4.jpg (16.05 KiB) Viewed 7539 times

Ingles copy
--

pound5.jpg (16.56 KiB) Viewed 7539 times

Ingles copy

--

Dave

[David McNamee]

David McNamee pair

Bill Lloyd-Smith has done a lot of work in this area, and his work generally supports ONLY the 3d Platypus o/p REVENUE as being available on 30 November 1900 at the PO. All other stamps o/p REVENUE that have a postal marker are backdated genuine cancellations made for the hobby.

[bill]

This looks interesting! In response to the comments made above, I reply as follows.

Ross shows a £1 with Queenstown postmark date DE 3 1900. Where was this example
offered if I may ask? Strictly this usage was illegal since postage and revenue stamps
had been separated so that the last day of interchangeability was Nov 30 1900. As from
Dec 1 1900 postage and revenue stamps were strictly separate.

The normal £1 (without Revenue) is often seen with cancels from places like Burnie, Zeehan
and Strahan. They were available before Nov 1900 for bulk postage charges. My guess is
that in those days, the docket with the high value stamps was given to the customer after
he/she paid the charges for large numbers of letters as bulk mail. (After Federation, the
rules were changed so that the docket was held by the Post Office and eventually burned.)
It would be nice to check in the old postal guides (at State Library in Murray St, Hobart,
I think?). The set is incomplete but still handy. I saw them at the Art Gallery and Museum
a long time ago.

Most examples of the £1 Revenue that I've seen are CTO with Nov 30 1900 Hobart but I've seen
it with Burnie as well. Queenstown is news to me. In those days, Queenstown was quite remote.
The Lyell Highway that runs past Lake St Clair west to Queenstown didn't exist so you had to
take the train from northern Tasmania or travel to Strahan by ship and then go on to
Queenstown, perhaps by that rack railway. (Someone may wish to fill the gaps here!)

Likewise, I've seen dates of Nov 26 on the £1 Revenue.

The Royal Collection contains a cover with the 3d, 2/6, 10/- and £1 all overprinted Revenue.
I don't doubt the authenticity of the cover, even though it is probably philatelic.

The Australian Philatelist in late 1903 published a letter from the Deputy PMG in Hobart on
this topic. It says that the 3d, 2/6, 10/- and £1 with Revenue were available for about 14
days in November 1900. While the actual dates of issue are still unclear, there is no doubt
that these four stamps were available for postage in November 1900. The law is very clear
on this. At the same time, it is clear that nearly all examples are philatelic as Ross, Dave
(aka Revenuer) and David McNamee all point out. The pair illustrated by David McNamee
looks impressive, even though it is almost certainly CTO.

In practical terms, the three higher values would represent a substantial amount of money,
particularly the £1. The working man was probably getting less than £2 per week in wages
per week! (The Harvester judgment of 1906 awarded 42/6 per week to a working man
with wife and children.) The 3d would be readily accessible simply because of the low
cost at the post office. A number were used on mail, mostly by philatelists.

A similar case exists for Victoria in 1901 where the 1d and 3d inscribed Stamp Duty were
issued in new colours in June 1901. They were meant to be used fiscally but they were
valid for postage until 30 June 1901. Most postally used examples are philatelic. This
matter is dealt with in the June 2009 issue of Philately from Australia.

These stamps would certainly belong to a revenue collection of Tasmania. Without them,
you don't have a representative collection of Tasmanian revenue stamps. As for a postage
stamp collection, a specialised collection should include examples if possible. This is due to
the fact that they were legally permissible for postage, albeit briefly. The general collector
of Tasmanian postage stamps need not worry so much. However, we ask the following
question. Should the general collector of Victorian postage stamps include the 1d and 3d
Stamp Duty colour changes of June 1901? The main difference is that they were amenable
to normal postal use on letters but the Tasmanian Revenue overprints were not (except for
the 3d). It's worth thinking about. Also, see P from A for June 2009.

As for other denominations, it is safe to say that no other values or printings were ever
available for postage. The printings of 1d, 6d, 1/-, 5/-, 10/- wmk TAS were done for
the Commissioner of Stamp Duties and were first issued on 1 Dec 1900. Hence they
could not ever be valid for postage. I have seen a few of the lower values up to 6d with
the old style barred cancels (including the 2d of 1903) and also 6d and 1/- with the Scamander
datestamp of Nov 14 1900 (looks very philatelic). Hugh Campbell recorded a 1d with similar
cancel but I don't know where that one is. (Article cited in Tinsley's book)

Likewise, the 1d on 3d of 1904 as shown by Dave with Nov 30 1900 Hobart postmark is
philatelic. It's virtually fraudulent but I would not like to burn this stamp! It looks nice
but anyone 'in the know' would realise at once that it was done by favour. I know of at
least two examples of this concoction.

Dave has illustrated two examples of the £1 with Revenue handstamp. Is the postmark
over the handstamp or under it? I have never heard of a fiscally used copy. P from A
of June 1999 queried the status of this variety. Any comments, please?

The Courier No. 35 and No. 36 contain a good deal of information on these issues.
There is quite a bit of discussion in P from A starting from 1992. There's also the
article in March 1998 of P from A and a couple of others in that journal.

I hope these somewhat lengthy notes help.

Bill

[Ross Ewington]

Thanks Bill ..... lots to be "going on with" there!

Here's a link to the catalog listing of "the stamp in question" - the auction has now been held.
http://www.statusint.com/detail.php?id=1375

Slightly "off topic" .... Bill, what do you think the "status" of this item to be offered at public auction
in Melbourne on Friday, February 12th 2010. Genuine postal use? Per Favour? Back dated? or ......

Have you ever seen this item or anything similar postmarked at Cleveland before?
[attachment=0]st george revenue pair at cleveland.jpg[/attachment]
Here's a link to the auction listing: http://www.prestigephilately.com/catlot ... tas&lim=20

[Revenuer]

Just found this cancel over a pen date in my Tas revs book...Dave

rubbish.jpg (51.04 KiB) Viewed 7506 times

[bill]

What is the pen-written date underneath that TASMANIA between 8 bars if I may ask?
It is not easy to see from the image.

This is the first example of barred TASMANIA on a £1 Revenue that I've seen. I have
encountered examples on 1d, 2d, 3d and 6d. Does it exist on the Dragon REVENUES?

Bill

[Revenuer]

Can't work the date out sorry Bill.

Had a look at my Dragon REVENUE overprints and can't see a copy but i do have the attached card of odds on straight Dragons.

Dave

odds.jpg (62.96 KiB) Viewed 7497 times

[Revenuer]

One question not addressed. If you could backdate the canceller par favor why do it to the last day why not not date it 6 months inside the fiscal postal period.
Dave

[bill]

In response to the last query from Revenuer on backdating the canceller,
I don't think there would be any point in backdating 6 months. Wouldn't
this amount to a date in May 1900? The legislation was only passed in
late October so that preparations for new revenue stamps began around
the beginning of November.

So a plausible attempt at backdating has to be limited to November 1900.
See the article in The Courier No. 35 for details. Also try PfromA (Mar '98).

Bill

[bill]

In respnse to Ross's comments on the 2/6 imperf at the next Prestige auction (12 Feb 2010),
here are a few comments that may help.

Ross has told me that Cleveland is a very small place on the Midland highway connecting
Launceston and Hobart. It is hard to believe that someone there would want to post a
heavy article needing 5/- or more of postage from this hamlet. I don't know if these
stamps were even available at Cleveland, even in perforated condition, let alone in
imperf condition during late November 1900. There was a lot of activity at this time
just trying to print off a supply of revenue stamps in time for December.

The cancellation doesn't seem to tie the pair to whatever article is was allegedly
affixed to. It doesn't look like genuine postal use. I have seen fiscally cancelled
copies of this imperf variety and I doubt if any got sent to Cleveland. It is hard
to be sure of this item but it may have been backdated as Ross suggests. The
number produced in imperf condition is not known with certainty, although the
Weisz catalogue in Australian Philatelic Record circa 1921 says 120. I don't know
where Weisz got that figure from as he didn't give any sources.

This item looks nice but is it really postal use? That is doubtful and that's all I know.

Bill

[John Shepherd]

Why isn't the 1 pound a genuine postal use 3 days late?

It doesn't look CTO. The postal clerk may have known about the 'cut-off' and let it through. The customer would not have been happy if he was not allowed to use his 1 pound and the clerk may not have cared.

There is a case to be made for backdating cds at Hobart, but elsewhere in the State is a different matter.

[Ross Ewington]

As I stated in my first post creating this thread:

I regard this stamp to be a revenue stamp used incorrectly for postal purposes.

It cannot be "a genuine postal use" as the revenue stamp was invalid for this purpose on December 3rd 1900.

As the post office in 1900 was run as a very "tight ship", I cannot believe that a postal clerk at one of Tasmanian's largest post offices of the period would not have known about the invalidation of revenue stamps for postal use as of DE 1 00.

I can believe however, that a "blind eye" may have been turned in such a isolated and close community regarding the use of this stamp....but if such a misdemeanor did occur, the declaration of "a genuine postal use" still cannot be made.

[John Shepherd]

The possibilities for the 1 pound Revenue are:

1. CTO/per favour;
2. Backdated;
3. postally used in Dec 1900.
4. The pmk is forged.

The first two seem unlikely as the strike is rather messy. No one seriously suggests the 4th possibility. That only leaves the third possibility - postally used.

If postal clerks at "large" Post Offices and "very tight ships" wound back cancellers - which they did - why is it so hard to believe that a Revenue was allowed to pass 3 days late? It could have been taxed at the other end for all you know.

The short answer is this - if the stamp came off a parcel then it was by defnition postally used - unless anyone can establish it is CTO or backdated.

[John Shepherd]

The heading of this thread askes the question: "postal usage?". The answer can only be "yes".

Government Notice No.397 (Treasury, 14th November 1900) issued by the Treasurer Stafford Bird stated that certain postage and revenues may not be interchangeable on and after 1 December 1900. Included in the list was "Queen's Head 1 [pound]".

Agree so far?

The Notice continued (and I quote exactly for those that don't have a copy of the Notice): "Persons having these Revenue Stamps in possession may exchange them at the Post Office for Postage Stamps at any time during the month of December".

The 1 pound scanned at the top of this thread does not look CTO (or backdated). No one has put their hand up to suggest it is CTO.

No doubt what happened was:
1. customer goes into Queenstown Post Office with a 1 Pound opt Revenue on 3 Dec 1900.
2. they are told that they can not use it but it can be exchanged for a 1 Pound postage stamp.
3. Queenstown doesn't have any unoverprinted 1 pounds on that day so the customer is allowed to use the stamp. The clerk figures that this is permissable due to the one-month change-over period.

If the stamp is not CTO then it can only be postally used.

Why would a 1 pound stamp (a small fortune in 1900) be backdated with an appalling strike three days too late? Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

[bill]

Re: £1 used at Queenstown on Monday 3 December 1900.

Regarding the £1 Revenue at Queenstown, I doubt if the customer walked in with
a copy of that stamp (either with or without overprint). That day was a Monday
as you can check via an online calendar or typing 'cal 12 1900' on a Unix system
via a PC. Perhaps the Queenstown post office had just received its supply of new
Revenue stamps. There is no way that a £1 postage stamp (without Revenue) would
have been issued by the post office in exchange for the Revenue version held by a
customer.

What could have happened is that a customer had some transaction requiring high
postal charges amounting to £1 or more and the postal clerk issued the required
stamps for this purpose, including the £1 stamp in question. How could this be?

There was an official notice in November 1900 that was widely publicised in the
press to say that certain stamps had been withdrawn and could not be used for
postage after 30 November 1900. The public could exchange their holdings of
these withdrawn stamps for current postage stamps during December 1900.
The old stamps in question were the £1 Tablet, 2/6, 5/- and 10/- Dragons
and the Platypus series.

The month of December was intended to allow the public to hand in old stamps
of the types no longer allowed for postage and receive equivalent stamps in face
value that were available for postage. The public notice was not meant to allow
the use of revenue stamps for postage but it is possible that some postal clerks
could have misinterpreted the rules. In particular, the postal clerk at Queenstown
could have misunderstood this notice. Could this explain the issue of that £1 for
postal use?

Thus we could describe it as 'postal use' but not authorised by the then new rules.
The stamp looks postal, not CTO. The correct procedure would be for the clerk
to issue sufficient stamps of lower denominations, say 10/-, 5/- and 2/6 to the
customer to pay the required charges. The £1 was not meant to be issued as it
had been withdrawn. We have an example of incorrect postal use.

Bill

[Geoff Dane]

I think the original question was where in the collection would you place this item? The options seem to be postage stamp, revenue, postage and or revenue and then whether its a valid use or a contrived item. Personally I would probably summarise a lot of the discussion here and add the stamp under postage (and or revenue) items.

Making my own pages means that its possible to add odd / unusual /interesting items with a write up or comment attached. This means having more than an accumulation with references elsewhere. For me the collection develops as knowledge and write ups get included in the albums.

This BB is a great place to find things out and through it I learn and get a lot more fun out of collecting and describing material.

On the other hand I might stick it in the revenues as thats more likely its use (but is was in theory a postage stamp so maybe not).

[John Shepherd]

Bill - how can you exclude a customer affixing a 1 pound Revenue and taking it to the post office? You can't. The official instruction explicitly recognised that customers will already have 1 pound revenues in their possession. It can not be excluded that some of the mining companies would have a stock of stamps rather than rely on the post office.

There is no way that a £1 postage stamp (without Revenue) would
have been issued by the post office in exchange for the Revenue version held by a
customer.

Read the instruction which states:

"Persons having these Revenue Stamps in possession may exchange them at the Post Office for Postage Stamps at any time during the month of December".

This is the instruction from the Treasurer Stafford Bird, so you need to rethink your post.

Bil, how does 3 Dec 1900 being a Monday support your argument? It doesn't. You seem to try to suggest that 3 Dec 1900 being "a Monday" was the first day of the new system - it wasn't, it was the THIRD day. The Post Office was open seven days a week. What is the relevance of the day being "Monday"? Your post dwelled on this at some length but didn't go anywhere.

It is possible that after the instruction was issued in November there was a rush by companies in Queenstown to change over their stocks of 1 pound stamps, which may have lead to a temporary shortage by 3 Dec 1900. We don't have stamp issuing records so it can not be taken past a suggestion. But we do know from Letter Bills from the 1880s that it wasn't uncommon for P.O's to run out of certain values and request extra supplies from nearby offices.

Everyone seems to agree that this is a postal use, albeit 3 days late. The scenarios about this came to be can be summarised as follows:

1. Customer lodges parcel with 1 pound Revenue already affixed. Queenstown had run out of 1 pound without opt.
2. Customer lodges parcel and brings with him a loose 1 pound revenue from the mailroom. Queenstown had run out of 1 pound without opt so could not be exchanged as per instructions. The 1 pound rev is used.
3. Customer lodges parcel with 1 pound Revenue already affixed. P.O. clerk notices but lets it go as it is too much trouble to take off.
4. Customer lodges parcel and P.O. affixed 1 pound revenue by mistake.

Bill's "scenario 4" above, that it "was a mistake", is possible but it cuts across Ross's suggestion that the P.O. was a very "tight ship" that doesn't make mistakes like this. And it ignores the exchange provisions in the Instruction.

All of the above does not exclude that the article was taxed at Burnie, Launceston or Hobart but since it is not on cover we won't know.

As for "where does the stamp belong"? - in a revenue collection. If it is in a traditional collection a judge will say "get one used within period".

[Revenuer]

No rights or wrongs with this stamp where exhibiting goes, a judge could be easily bluffed either way [and probably would not care anyway, it’s not important enough] whereas any collector who owned it could place it wherever he wanted to, it would be his choice, be it in his postal collection or his revenue collection.

Exhibiting it? then he has two choices:

Written up as a ‘Postal Fiscal’.

1. Traditional - Postal use of a Fiscal issue - Receiving cancel [hence late date].

2. Revenue - Postal use of a Fiscal issue - Par Favour.

end of.

All else regarding this stamp is just guess work so please let’s end it here.

Dave

[Ross Ewington]

yes, Dave .... good idea .... lets end it here! As they used to say on The Goon Show ..."it's all quite confusing really" (or has become unnecessarily so!)

Lucky we didn't discuss whether the buyer paid too much or not as well!!

[bill]

I respond as follows, especially to John Shepherd.

We need to state very clearly what we mean by the £1 Revenue stamp. Is it the £1 without Revenue
overprint as implied by John or is it the £1 with Revenue overprint? I am well aware of the official
notice from Stafford Bird as I have read it many times. I've studied this topic in depth.

Revenue stamps in the notice meant stamps of any of the following:
£1 Queen's Head (no overprint)
2/6, 5/-, 10/- Dragon (no overprint)
1d, 3d, 6d, 1/- Platypus (no overprint)

These stamps were not available for postage as from 1 December 1900. That is perfectly clear.
The post office could not issue or accept any of these eight listed stamps for postage at all.

The system started on 1 December 1900 as I know very well. I never suggested that Monday
3 December was the first day of the new system. You could even go to the post office for a
short time on Sundays (before or after the church service). Queenstown was remote in those
days so it would take a few days to get there from Hobart. A Tasmanian reader could advise
on this matter in detail.

The four scenarios look a bit muddled but it is easy to work out what is meant.

"1. Customer lodges parcel with 1 pound Revenue already affixed. Queenstown had run out of 1 pound without opt.
2. Customer lodges parcel and brings with him a loose 1 pound revenue from the mailroom. Queenstown had run out of 1 pound without opt so could not be exchanged as per instructions. The 1 pound rev is used.
3. Customer lodges parcel with 1 pound Revenue already affixed. P.O. clerk notices but lets it go as it is too much trouble to take off.
4. Customer lodges parcel and P.O. affixed 1 pound revenue by mistake."

In #1, surely John means the £1 without overprint (but now a revenue stamp). So what if Queenstown had run out
of £1 without overprint? It was not valid for postage any more.
In #2, a loose £1 (with or without overprint) was no good for postage. A loose £1 without overprint could be exchanged
for, say, two 10/- Queen's head stamps. The supposed lack of £1 without overprint is irrelevant.
In #3, does John mean a £1 without Revenue? Actually, it's the only reasonable interpretation. It's important to be clear.
I can well believe that the clerk couldn't be bothered to take the stamp off so ignored the error.
In #4, the customer acted wrongly by affixing a £1 stamp. I presume John means a £1 without overprint.

Actually, I had in mind the possibility that the clerk affixed the £1 stamp but in error.

In any case, the usage seems to be illegal.

This stamp could belong in a revenue collection or a postage collection, provided the owner clearly
explains the circumstances of this usage. This is one of the challenges of our hobby!

[Revenuer]

For those reading this thread Bill has clarified the mix up in the £1 stamps, which made it confusing to read. Thanks Bill for sorting this out.

[Ross Ewington]

...this topic may be worth revisiting a little after a "cooling off period" of a month or so.

[attachment=0]£1 QV.jpg[/attachment]
I have now located three £1 QV Tablets with Queenstown cds postmarks from November/December 1900.
Here's an image of one of them (sorry that I can't illustrate them all but the others were described in various auction catalogs
and no longer have the illustrations available (that I could find)

....... a large PO like Queenstown out of £1 stamps on December 3rd?? ....hardly likely!

As Bill mentions, even if they were they were "fresh out", they could have exchanged the £1 REVENUE for 2x 10/- Tablets
(or a mixture of other high value postage stamps) anyway. The idea that a postal clerk knowingly accepted the £1 REVENUE for
postal use is quite fanciful in my opinion.

[bill]

This is an interesting example that Ross has turned up with two other
examples existing as well.

This stamp was still available for postage on 7 November 1900. By then
it had actually been withdrawn from sale but copies in the hands of the
public could still be used up to 30 November 1900. During December,
people could still swap copies of that stamp for postage stamps with
aggregate face value to match.

Would Ross be able to say what auction catalogues this and the other
two examples had these offerings?