T PERFIN on 4d VIOLET KGV DEFINITIVE

[Ross Ewington]

I am indebted to TPS discussion forum member Nick Steenholdt for giving me the opportunity of examining and scanning
these examples of two used 4d violet KGV definitives perforated T.


There was some discussion recently about examples of the 4d violet KGV defin used in Tasmania at Stampboards.com which prompted me
to start this topic.

Although no records verifying that the 4d violet was supplied to Tasmanian post offices have been found, at least one postally
used example with a Hobart cds exists. This example was reported in ACCC (Australian Commonwealth Collectors Club) Bulletin 2007 article 3398


Some plausible reasons for it's use at Hobart include 1) it was sent from the mainland as payment for a reply by registered post .... Tattersalls
for instance would have received numerous stamped, addressed envelopes from punters; 2) it was used to pay a small debt (as postage
stamps often were) and the recipient then used it for postage or 3) a visitor (such as a travelling salesman, manufacturer's agent or suchlike)
from the mainland brought the stamp with them for mailing orders, etc back to "head office".

Now back to the topic .... the T perfins. The example at left above is a poor forgery .... discounting the mainland postmark for a moment,
I have never seen a T perfin where the "crossbar" is quite this crooked! The example at right however, I believe to be the genuine article. Not only does it
have an obvious Hobart GPO machine cancellation but the perfin itself is quite OK. This is indicated by the poor punching of three of the holes that make up
the vertical bar (quite a common occurrence and difficult to fake) as well as the slight "V" appearance of the horizontal bar (and uneven spacing of the holes)
which I have seen on stamps from this period many times before. I will have a hunt through my "spares" of KGV defins with T perfins on KGV defins and see if I
can come up with a similar "registration" of the perfin that I can post in this topic.

The question still to be answered of course is "where did the Tasmanian Government acquire the stamps"? My thought on the matter is similar to
reason 2 above "explaining" the existence of the used example without perfin. Namely, that a debt to the State Treasury was paid in postage stamps
and that these stamps were subsequently perforated "T" and issued to a government department in Hobart for use on official mail.

Of course, if another example of a 4d violet perf T is found up with a genuine postmark from somewhere else in Tasmania, my theory may be then seen to be full of holes!!

If you have any examples of the 4d violet KGV defin used in Tasmania (with or without a T perfin) please post some images here. Comments, new information,
differing opinions, etc are most welcome ... that's why we are here !

[Geoff Wotherspoon]

Front view

4d Violet perf T rs.JPG (235.02 KiB) Viewed 5170 times

Rear view

4d Violet perf T rev rs.JPG (142.16 KiB) Viewed 5170 times

I have recently come across this example of the KGV 4d Violet perf T. My knowledge on the Perf T and Tasmanian cancels is close to zero, I have contacted Ross and he suggested I post some images so comment can be made on both the cancel and the parf T. I have closely examined this item and it appears to have in the LLC the top of an S ( TAS ) which gives me some hope, and have compared it against the HAY NSW cancel and there seems to be some differences - I am hoping it might be a GRAY - TAS cancel. As I say I am learning about these things so any help is appreciated. New bulletin board member Geoff.

[Ross Ewington]

Thanks for your post Geoff

I'm fairly certain that the postmark is not of Tasmanian origin and worse news still I'm afraid, I'm also fairly certain that the T perfin has been faked.
I'll draw your post to the attention of another perfin specialist for a second opinion.

[David Coath]

Dear Ross, Nick and Geoff

Sorry if I am a little clumsy I do not post very often. I would also say that although I am a perfin collector, and I have a sound T collection my collecting and study is focussed on private perfins. Having said that I have seen a lot of T's and other Official patterns.

I agree with Ross the top left example of the 4 d is odd. The angle of the cross bar of the T is wrong. The way these were struck tends to create cross bars much nearer 90 degrees to the vertical line of the T.

Apart from that it looks fine and the number of pins and the separation of the 2 parts of the T are consistent with what you would expect to see. I have 3 thoughts

1 Am I right in saying that you are suggesting that the postmark is a non Tasmanian one. I cannot confirm this myself but if there were T patterns on these issues I would expect to see 100 with Tasmanian postmarks before I saw my first with an interstate postmark. So please pardon my ignorance but I cannot tell the postmark on this stamp. The smudging in the bottom right hand corner could be the end of the full word "Tasmania" but I have no idea if this is consistent with the period. If it says Tasmania then I do not give up hope on this pattern because of my 2 rd thought

2 I note a slight crease line somewhat parrallel to the cross bar. In my VG studies I have seen odd variations in patterns caused by crease lines as they can twist the pattern. If this is a crease line that was present when the sheet was punctured it could have pulled the right hand side of the stamp down and the cross bar would be closer to a 90 degree angle and this would dispell some of Ross' justified skeptisism

3 The forged patterns of T's I have seen have been by people who did not know how this pattern was formed and they have tended to look like T's struck from a single head. This does not look like the forged ones I have seen. If it is bogus the forger is aware of the nature of this pattern. Perhaps he (like me ) has read David Andersens book

David

[David Coath]

Dear All

With respect to the 2 rd one which Geoff hopes is a postmark from Gray (?) Again I am not sure as I have no expertise in the area of postmarks.

But if it is a valid Tasmanian postmark then I think we need to view it posatively . It is a 5 x 5 which is appropriate for the period and although the bottom pin is stretched and the top left pin of the cross bar is somehwat out of allignment it is not the worst looking T I have seen.

Again the detail of crossing the upright and cross bar is characteristic of the 2 part process that creates a T.

Ross what do you think the postmark is

David

[Geoff Wotherspoon]

Hi Ross / David

I have a scan of a damaged 2d Orange Perf T with the same angles etc which I can post.
Today I received Prestige catalogue Auction 167 where lot 171 is a MUH corner block of 4 3d Olive Roos where all 4 perf T's are different including the aglignment of vertical to horizontal. Until today I had no idea that they were so different and that it was a 2 stage process. If 2d Orange scan is appropriate I will make smaller and post in relevant thread.

Geoff

[Ross Ewington]

thanks Geoff ...your scan of the 2d could be of use (a 600dpi image will be fine)

John Hardinge has confirmed that the postmark is not of Tasmanian origin.

[Ross Ewington]

I've had another look at Geoff's perf T 4d violet now that it's definite that it's not a Tassie postmark thereupon.

I am convinced that that the bottom hole of the vertical row is 'impossible', i.e. it appears to be a doubled puncture
and that top hole thereof is too strange a shape to have been created by a pin of a line perforator. Also, I think that the far
RH puncture is possibly too far out of alignment.

The method by which the T perfin was produced was different to that employed to make the VG perfin in that the sheets were never
folded before perforating and they were usually done on small bundles of sheets which would minimise the chance of paper
slippage although I would agree that it doesn't obviate the possibility of that happening.

My conclusion: although it's a much better 'job' than Nick's example in the first post above (LH image). this perfin is also a forgery

[Geoff Wotherspoon]

Hi, the quality of the response to this matter is of great substance, for which I am greatful for, but I hope to add a few more elements to the equation.
1. The image of a 2d Orange with a cancel used in the same period. The profile of the S in TAS is the same as in the lower left hand corner of the 4d Violet.
2. I have compered the lettering and positioning against a HAY NSW cancel and they are different, so how many town cancels are there with a 4 digit name ending in AY and how many states are there in abbreviated format ending in S.
3. The image of the 4d Blue is another example of the angled top member.
4. I note in the few perf T stamps that I have the vertical member has the top hole slightly offset to the left, could it be in this instance that this part of the pin punch was used as the horizontal member.

As I say most of this is new to me, but looking to ask all the questions I can think of.

[Ross Ewington]

Hi Geoff,

sorry, but I cannot see an 'S' (or any part thereof) as part of the datestamp on your 4d violet.

I think I can find the town name on that datestamp but I can't remember which mainland state it's from.
As previously indicated, it's not a Tassie postmark of which John Hardinge is aware (and me too). I'm
fairly confident that the first letter of the town name is an 'O' and that there are only 4 or 5 letters.

Your 4d blue is genuine and the 'crooked' vertical row is interesting and worth pondering on a little. You will notice that
all the pin-holes are circular (or nearly so) and fairly evenly spaced ..... the poorly punched hole is a characteristic
of T perfins from 1902 through to 1975 (more common in some periods) and would be extremely hard
to fake.

[Geoff Wotherspoon]

Ross

On reading your thoughts on the perf T on the 4d Violet, may be there is another possibility.
If we count the holes from bottom to top and from left to right, as 1 to 5, the in the vertical member:
a. hole No. 1 has had the punched paper residue torn away leaving the top of the hole as a clear
circular shape and the bottom as the tear away.
b. The 5th hole is the one that intersects with the horizontal member creating the double overlaying
hole shape.
I have included the 1920 HAY NSW cancel as one of a few alternatives that I can think of, the cross bar of the A is
higher and the double inner ring are different, and of course the distinct profile of the right hand member of the W of NSW.

Clearly if there is anywhere in existance a copy of the GRAY cancel of this era it would help clarify this situation.

[Ross Ewington]

Geoff

I thought that we had already dismissed the postmark as being from GRAY (or from anywhere else in Tasmania for that matter)

The GRAY postmark illustrated below was in use until 1942 ...... you can see why I didn't pursue the possibility that it was a Gray postmark.

[attachment=0]Gray_type_1.jpg[/attachment]

...anyway, hopefully now it's "QED" about what it's not Tasmanian postmark-wise.

Regarding your T perfin, it's not the intersection of the 'bars' that present a possible 'question mark' ....... it's the bottom hole of the vertical which in
my opinion was not produced using a line perforator. What could be useful would be a 1200dpi scan of just both sides of this 'hole in question'.

[Footnote: I have removed 'HAY' from this post as there is a possibility that were may have been more than cds postmark in use there during the
1920s ...... until we can establish this was or wasn't the case, there is still a chance that the postmark is from HAY]

[Jeffharris]

Hello Ross,
There were two towns in SA at that time which started with "O" and were fairly short. One was Olary which is located on the Barrier Highway and the other was Owen. At that time Olary would have been [and still is] a very small town, whereas Owen [which is located on the Adelaide Plains near Balaklava] was a reasonable size town and probably would have used a large quantity of 4d. KGV stamps. As a matter of interest, Olary's last use of a Square Circle cancel is recorded as 1921, the same year the 4d. Violet KGV was first issued.