Hi all, my first post to this forum so please be gentle.
I’ve googled and read many posts but can’t find an answer to my question. In the first allocation why are there so many different barred numbers for Hobart? I have four letters all dated 1859 with numbers 48, 61, 74 and 75.
Thanks you.
Multiple BN for Hobart
Multiple BN for Hobart
- Attachments
-
- 27AC5E05-56D1-46EB-B7A8-89DC1366188C.jpeg (479.5 KiB) Viewed 17123 times
-
- DBB3A3EB-23A9-48D4-A97A-E33C6D678B93.jpeg (524.66 KiB) Viewed 17123 times
-
- 7D8AA83E-5D10-41AC-8BC8-7E6681CC70FB.jpeg (560.35 KiB) Viewed 17123 times
-
- 5E3D33DF-FB39-406F-A295-648EC4A762F3.jpeg (488.58 KiB) Viewed 17123 times
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Its a good question and dont worry about posting questions here as no doubt there are others with the same query.
I cant necessarily answer this fully but when the first allocation numeral were first issued, they we provided to the offices in relation to the current volume of business. There were some small offices that did not receive a numeral at all.
Hobart received No 61 to 64 and Launceton 59 and 60.
Numerals 65 to 75 were initially held back and some allocated later.
Looking at the covers from this period theres no doubt that there is a very large proportion from Hobart and the larger number of numerals is not hard to understand.
68 was allocated to Hobart in October 1854 (according to David McNamee)
74 and 75 were also issued to Hobart some time after the initial allocation.
No 48 went first to Ouse, then to the Tasmanian Peninsular, Cascades then Impression Bay. When Impression Bay closed the numeral was transferred to Hobart . I dont have the exact date but it would be 1858-59.
The volume of mail increased quite substantially through the 1850s and 1860s so the assumption is the later numeral allocation was required to deal with an increase in mail processing at Hobart .
In other words, Hobart did not initially have all its final total of numerals but the later ones were issued either as spares of on return from elsewhere due to demand caused by increasing mail volumes.
For some reason, No 63 is not often seen and Askeland rates it as 2R though exactly why I do not know. The others have no rarity rating and are seen relatively often.
Pete
I cant necessarily answer this fully but when the first allocation numeral were first issued, they we provided to the offices in relation to the current volume of business. There were some small offices that did not receive a numeral at all.
Hobart received No 61 to 64 and Launceton 59 and 60.
Numerals 65 to 75 were initially held back and some allocated later.
Looking at the covers from this period theres no doubt that there is a very large proportion from Hobart and the larger number of numerals is not hard to understand.
68 was allocated to Hobart in October 1854 (according to David McNamee)
74 and 75 were also issued to Hobart some time after the initial allocation.
No 48 went first to Ouse, then to the Tasmanian Peninsular, Cascades then Impression Bay. When Impression Bay closed the numeral was transferred to Hobart . I dont have the exact date but it would be 1858-59.
The volume of mail increased quite substantially through the 1850s and 1860s so the assumption is the later numeral allocation was required to deal with an increase in mail processing at Hobart .
In other words, Hobart did not initially have all its final total of numerals but the later ones were issued either as spares of on return from elsewhere due to demand caused by increasing mail volumes.
For some reason, No 63 is not often seen and Askeland rates it as 2R though exactly why I do not know. The others have no rarity rating and are seen relatively often.
Pete
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Thanks very much for the detailed reply Pete but I must be missing a fundamental understanding of how the system worked, Why are more numbers required as the mail traffic increases? Why not use the same number if in the same town?
Also, why is there a ‘prepaid’ mark on the envelopes. Surely the franked stamp indicates that postage payment has been made.
I’m new to this so thanks for your patience.
Also, why is there a ‘prepaid’ mark on the envelopes. Surely the franked stamp indicates that postage payment has been made.
I’m new to this so thanks for your patience.
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
To some extent the following is based on supposition.
More cancelers would be needed as the volume increases simply because there would have been more than one person at the same time cancelling letters. Each clerk would need their own canceler. It could be also that there were different sections in the Office in different locations that canceled different type of mail but I am only guessing here.
The volume of letters through the Hobart GPO was surprisingly large being in the hundreds of thousands of items during this period and as it increased then more people might need to use a canceler at any given time
It might have suited the Post Office to be able to identify which section or person canceled particular mail by allocating different numbers to different people or sections but again I am only guessing here ( there is plenty of evidence of this use of different cancelers in different sections of the Post Office at different times).
I really don't know why they did not use the same number for Hobart and Launceton initially but bear in mind when the first allocation numerals were ordered, more numbers were provided than were initially needed. There were spares and No 48 initially allocated to Ouse was never intended for Hobart. It was sent to Hobart some years after the initial allocation as presumably there was a need in Hobart for another numeral, and 48 was available. Similarly 74 and 75 were initially spares so never intended for Hobart when the numerals were first issued. This type of re-allocation of spare numerals was common from 1853 right through to 1900.
As for the Prepaid handstamp, this was applied to both inwards and outwards mail.There were a number of details the postal clerk had to check to ensure the postage was correctly paid and once the clerk was satisfied the correct value of adhesive stamps has been applied, he would then stamp the letter as prepaid.
Pre-paid mail was then sorted into bundles while other mail such as un-paid mail or under-paid mail was sorted differently. These regulations are listed in the Regulations for Guidance of Post Office Department published along with the Post Office Act of 1853. You could say the Pre-paid stamp certified that everything was correct for the information of any post office clerk who had to deal with the letter.
The job of the postal clerk was to check that:
The Pre-paid handstamps in this period were used between 1855 and 1870 according to John Hardinge, even though postage was now shown by an adhesive stamp.
Pete
More cancelers would be needed as the volume increases simply because there would have been more than one person at the same time cancelling letters. Each clerk would need their own canceler. It could be also that there were different sections in the Office in different locations that canceled different type of mail but I am only guessing here.
The volume of letters through the Hobart GPO was surprisingly large being in the hundreds of thousands of items during this period and as it increased then more people might need to use a canceler at any given time
It might have suited the Post Office to be able to identify which section or person canceled particular mail by allocating different numbers to different people or sections but again I am only guessing here ( there is plenty of evidence of this use of different cancelers in different sections of the Post Office at different times).
I really don't know why they did not use the same number for Hobart and Launceton initially but bear in mind when the first allocation numerals were ordered, more numbers were provided than were initially needed. There were spares and No 48 initially allocated to Ouse was never intended for Hobart. It was sent to Hobart some years after the initial allocation as presumably there was a need in Hobart for another numeral, and 48 was available. Similarly 74 and 75 were initially spares so never intended for Hobart when the numerals were first issued. This type of re-allocation of spare numerals was common from 1853 right through to 1900.
As for the Prepaid handstamp, this was applied to both inwards and outwards mail.There were a number of details the postal clerk had to check to ensure the postage was correctly paid and once the clerk was satisfied the correct value of adhesive stamps has been applied, he would then stamp the letter as prepaid.
Pre-paid mail was then sorted into bundles while other mail such as un-paid mail or under-paid mail was sorted differently. These regulations are listed in the Regulations for Guidance of Post Office Department published along with the Post Office Act of 1853. You could say the Pre-paid stamp certified that everything was correct for the information of any post office clerk who had to deal with the letter.
The job of the postal clerk was to check that:
- the correct postage rate had been paid by the adhesive stamps. There were different rates of postage for different services, eg Town Letter, Inland letter, double or triple weight letters etc
- The stamp itself had not been cancelled before
- Any required extra fees were paid. For instance there was a late fee for mail submitted after closing time. This fee was paid to the Postmaster not the Government and was not noted on the letter but still had to be paid.
- A Registration fee (1/-) for Registered mail, if applicable had been paid.
- There was provision in the postal regulations for payment in cash if no stamps were available.
The Pre-paid handstamps in this period were used between 1855 and 1870 according to John Hardinge, even though postage was now shown by an adhesive stamp.
Pete
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Wonderful. Thanks very much Pete for your time.
Things are a lot clearer to me now.
Things are a lot clearer to me now.
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Is it possible from the date to identify what watermark these stamps may have or would I have to remove a stamp to be sure? Thanks again.
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
They are very likely to be lined numeral 4 but I dont think you can be quite 100% certain.
You can sometimes check the watermark by getting an extremely bright light - a good LED torch for instance, in behind the stamp via the inside of the envelope, assuming you can do this without damaging it.
If you are brave you could place a drop of Zippo lighter fluid on the stamp just before you do this.
Pete
You can sometimes check the watermark by getting an extremely bright light - a good LED torch for instance, in behind the stamp via the inside of the envelope, assuming you can do this without damaging it.
If you are brave you could place a drop of Zippo lighter fluid on the stamp just before you do this.
Pete
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Thanks Pete. I’ll give the bright light a try.
-
John Hardinge
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:47 pm
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
To try and give a timeline, the original issue of First Allocation numerals was made on 1.1.1.1853, the same day that the stamps they were meant to obliterate were issued. 66 numeral were reserved for 62 office, it always being intended that two numerals be issued to Launceston and four to Hobart. For Hobart, these four were 61- to 64 inclusive. By the first quarter of 1854, numerals up to 68 plus 72 were issued. For various reasons, namely the absence of inking balls, numerals 69, 70, 71 and 73 were never issued. That left only two numerals unallocated, 74 and 75 and these were likely held against waer to numerals in the major offices.
On 14.5.1854 Birch's bay, the office originally issued numeral 68 closed. The numerals was returned to the GPO and reissued to Hobart to replace 63(which is not seen past April 1854), probably due to the numeral being damaged or worn down(many first allocation numerals were made from soft steel and wore very quickly).
When Impression Bay closed at the end of February 1858 numeral 48 was returned to the GPO and employed as an additional obliterating stamp.
Finally, in May 1859 numerals 68(itself a replacement) and 62 had both become so worn they also required replacement, hence 74 and 75 finally being allocated in their place.
Therefore, at various times in Hobart, numerals 48, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74 and 75 all saw use. 61, 62, 63, 64, 74 and 75 were only used at Hobart, 48 and 68 at Hobart but also elsewhere.
Hope this helps.
On 14.5.1854 Birch's bay, the office originally issued numeral 68 closed. The numerals was returned to the GPO and reissued to Hobart to replace 63(which is not seen past April 1854), probably due to the numeral being damaged or worn down(many first allocation numerals were made from soft steel and wore very quickly).
When Impression Bay closed at the end of February 1858 numeral 48 was returned to the GPO and employed as an additional obliterating stamp.
Finally, in May 1859 numerals 68(itself a replacement) and 62 had both become so worn they also required replacement, hence 74 and 75 finally being allocated in their place.
Therefore, at various times in Hobart, numerals 48, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74 and 75 all saw use. 61, 62, 63, 64, 74 and 75 were only used at Hobart, 48 and 68 at Hobart but also elsewhere.
Hope this helps.
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Great info. Thanks John.John Hardinge wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:33 pm
Therefore, at various times in Hobart, numerals 48, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74 and 75 all saw use. 61, 62, 63, 64, 74 and 75 were only used at Hobart, 48 and 68 at Hobart but also elsewhere.
Hope this helps.
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Hi all,
Following up on Pete's comments re volume of mails in Tassie and Hobart in particular:
The 1889 Post Office report includes the following volumes:
"The mail matter circulated was 3,503,194 in-land letters, an increase of 59,820 on the previous year; 1,200,140 ship letters, an increase of 17,783; 651,706 packets, an increase of 52,785 ; 110,905 post cards, an increase of 20,392. The number of newspapers circulated is estimated at 5,424,617."
Including newspapers, this makes a total of about 10.8 million items.
The population of Tassie in 1889 was about 140,000 compared to 80,000 in 1855. We could assume that several million mail items were posted in 1855, and more than half of those would have been from Hobart. So they certainly needed multiple cancelers for multiple clerks.
Following up on Pete's comments re volume of mails in Tassie and Hobart in particular:
The 1889 Post Office report includes the following volumes:
"The mail matter circulated was 3,503,194 in-land letters, an increase of 59,820 on the previous year; 1,200,140 ship letters, an increase of 17,783; 651,706 packets, an increase of 52,785 ; 110,905 post cards, an increase of 20,392. The number of newspapers circulated is estimated at 5,424,617."
Including newspapers, this makes a total of about 10.8 million items.
The population of Tassie in 1889 was about 140,000 compared to 80,000 in 1855. We could assume that several million mail items were posted in 1855, and more than half of those would have been from Hobart. So they certainly needed multiple cancelers for multiple clerks.
Re: Multiple BN for Hobart
Stunning figures. Difficult to comprehend. Thanks very much for that.shatten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:36 pmHi all,
Following up on Pete's comments re volume of mails in Tassie and Hobart in particular:
The 1889 Post Office report includes the following volumes:
"The mail matter circulated was 3,503,194 in-land letters, an increase of 59,820 on the previous year; 1,200,140 ship letters, an increase of 17,783; 651,706 packets, an increase of 52,785 ; 110,905 post cards, an increase of 20,392. The number of newspapers circulated is estimated at 5,424,617."
Including newspapers, this makes a total of about 10.8 million items.
The population of Tassie in 1889 was about 140,000 compared to 80,000 in 1855. We could assume that several million mail items were posted in 1855, and more than half of those would have been from Hobart. So they certainly needed multiple cancelers for multiple clerks.