10/- George and Dragon (1889 printing)

[bill]

This post relates to the 1889 printing of the 10/- George and Dragon.

This printing is briefly described in Basset Hull's book. No printing numbers
are given but it is likely to be circa 12,000 (first noted by Andrew Wilson).
This printing is fully listed in Craig and Ingles' catalogue but most other
catalogues do not distinguish this printing. The later edition published
by Craig in 1997 also recognises the 1889 printing of the 10/-.

According to Basset Hull, this stamp exists both perf 11.4 and 11.8. Note
that I am using the exact measurements of Craig and Ingles, whereas the
catalogues often say 11¼ in lieu of 11.4 and 11¾ in lieu of 11.8. I have
seen quite a number of these stamps perf 11.8 but none with perf 11.4.

If you have an example perf 11.4, I would ask you to check it using an
Instanta gauge (available from your local stamp dealer) and also check
the colour. The 1889 printing should be somewhat reddish salmon. It
helps to check the dates on used copies. It also helps to compare with
examples used prior between 1880 and 1888 (which means the salmon
shade), just to make sure you have the right shade.

My question is whether the 1889 exists perf 11.4.

By way of comparison, the 1888 printing of the 2/6 George and Dragon
only exists perf 11.8 as far as I know. It is only catalogued perf 11.8.
This machine was in use about this time so it seems plausible that all
of the 50-odd sheets of the 1889 printing of 10/- should be perf 11.8.

Over to you.

[Revenuer]

Bill
I have carefully checked my collection as 11.4 & 11.8 are very close and out of a possible 32 copies from the 1889 printing i have 3 measuring 11.4.
Dave

[bill]

Dave

Thanks for going through your 10/- dragons from the 1889 printing.
With 29 of them being perf 11.8 and only three being 11.4, the 11.4
version seems to be very scarce.

Would you be able to put up a scan of the 11.4 version? It would help
if an 11.8 copy is shown next to the 11.4 example. The quality of the
perforation holes may be relevant.

Bill

[Revenuer]

Bill
Perfs are the same as all the other 11.4's nothing different no new pins or cleaner cut holes.

A lot of my collection came from Hull's original work books so quite possibly i have just perfed the exact same as Bassett himself!

Dave

[paulsozstates]

Are fiscally used copies of this less valuable than one that has been cancelled?

I just notice a lot on ebay and interested in people's thoughts of what to look out for etc.

[admin]

I am really not sure ( which is not a lot of help to you), but this is an interesting question and the answer will depend on the prevailing regulations for payment of stamp duty at the time.
After the first Stamp duty act in 1863 there was initially only one way to pay duty - using an adhesive stamp.
In the late 1860s I would say fiscally cancelled stamps ( the Act required the date and a signature to be written across the stamp) particularly low value chalons are more common and worth less than a postaly used example. A few years later embossing machines were made available to Govt Departments to indicate payment of Duty, which would have reduced the use of adhesive stamps for this purpose, and in 1870 a system of Duty Inspectors was introduced so that duty could be signified by the signature of an Inspector, again reducing the use of adhesive stamps for payment of duty. In the early 1880s the use of embossing machines became more wide spread as this method of showing payment of duty was available to the private sector, not just Government Departments ( the platypus embossed duty stamps)
In May 1880 the Act was changed so Duty stamps could only be used to pay duty but two years later this provision was reversed and duty and postage stamps became interchangeable again.
The point of quoting these various provisions of the Stamp Duty Act is that depending on what period you are considering, postaly used duty stamps are more or less likely to be seen, and likewise duty stamps are also more or less likely to be seen compared with other forms of showing duty payment. The use of embossing machines and signatures must have caused a significant reduction in the use of adhesive stamps to pay duty.
So in 1889 Duty stamps could be used interchangeably for postage, and the 10/- was the only stamp at this rate available for payment of postage. However, how may items were posted at a 10/- rate? Very very few I suspect.
My guess is that a postaly used 10/- George and Dragon is quite scarce and fiscal cancels would be more common. This is just an educated guess so don't bet your house on it. I am not sure about payment for telegrams but that's another thing to consider.

Others may be able to offer a more definitive opinion.
Pete

[David McNamee]

The legitimate postal use of any of the high value St George & Dragon stamps (2/6, 5/-, 10/-) is rare, outside of philatelic franking of a few registered letters with the 2/6, because there was little need for that much postage. In addition, there are a number of the high values with suspect postal cancels off cover. I have a 10/- pair on piece from a registered parcel. I have never seen a 5/- on cover or piece that looks like it actually did go through the post. The St George & Dragon high values were produced to satisfy stamp duty requirements, and collecting them on documents is a fascinating look into commercial activities in late 19th century Tasmania. They did satisfy the infrequent demand for high value postage until the Tablet/Key Plate De La Rue high values were produced.

The image shows a pair of 10/- and a 3d St George & Dragon canceled Hobart in 1896, the duplex obliterator on each of the 3 stamps. On the pair is an additional strike of the oval REGISTERED LONDON. The piece is made of stiff card, so it was part of a heavy (and valuable) parcel sent at letter rates (in order that it could be Registered).

tas_1896_parcelsm.jpg (139.46 KiB) Viewed 2600 times

[bill]

Regarding impressed duty (Pete's query), we refer to Basset Hull, Chapter XVIII.

Impressed duty first appeared on the scene on 1 November 1865 but only for
Government cheques. This system was extended to unofficial cheques early
in 1872 but AFBH does not give an exact date. All the same, all the Chalons
are seen frequently with fiscal cancels. Duties higher than 1d still had to be
paid using adhesive stamps. The earlier Sideface stamps are often seen in
fiscally used condition, although some values don't seem to be common thus
(e.g. 8d, 9d, 10d).

Impressed duty stamps of higher values than 1d only appeared in May 1880.

I agree that postally used higher values are hard to find among the St George
and Dragons. One postal use for them would be on parcels of precious metals
(gold, silver mainly, possibly also osmiridium) or parcels containing Treasury
Bills. These parcels would not be seen by the general public. David's example
may be from such a parcel.

Telegraph use of stamps did not commence until 1896. An article in PfromA
some years ago discussed that matter. Also, the PMG's report for 1896 said
that the usage of stamps increased considerably because stamps were to be
used on telegrams henceforth. Such stamps should not have survived.

A few 2/6 and 10/- St George and Dragon stamps could have been used for
telegrams but these should not have survived. (NB The 5/- St George and
Dragon was largely exhausted before 1896.)