postage due
postage due
Greetings! I have two picture postcards, both sent from Macquarie Plains to the same address in Klerksdorp, Transvaal, both franked 1 1/2 d, both with split back and heading on the left reading 'This half may be written upon for postage to the Commonwealth and New Zealand only." One was posted on 4 April 1906 with a written message and attracted 2d postage due (marking in a circle, applied in the Transvaal) and written "T 10c" in blue. The other was posted on 18 June 1906 with no message and attracted no postage due. My question is, if the UPU rate for a post card sent anywhere was 1 1/2 d, why did the one attract postage due? (Transvaal joined the UPU in 1893). Any explanation would be appreciated so that I may write them up properly. Thank you!
Re: postage due
There are two useful articles on this issue in the November 2012 edition of the TPS Journal, The Courier, one by Richard Breckon on Postcard rates and regs and one by Patrick Reid on Post Card instructional markings. Patrick and Richard are two of the experts in this area and you might need to read both articles together to get the full picture as it is rather complicated.I am not sure I can completely answer your question but here is a little information I have gleaned from the articles.
Originally the Post Office rule was that only the address could be written on the front (which you probably know about, being the address side, the picture being the reverse side). Post cards with a message on the front were deemed letters and taxed at double the deficiency in letter rates of postage.
In April 1905 the Australian Post Office allowed correspondence in Australia and New Zealand only on the L side of the front. The rule against correspondence on the front in international correspondence was dropped at the 1906 Rome Congress of the UPU. In June 1906 immediately following the UPS conference Australia gave instructions for the new Rule to be put into effect without delay. Also at that time the requirement to print the heading "Postcard" on the card was dropped though it continued on Official Postal cards.
Between 1905 and 1907 the cost of sending postcards to the Br Empire was progressively reduced as well from 11/2 d to 1d.
Patrick Reid's article gives quite a bit of detail about the various Tax handstamps used in Hobart and Launceston.
I would guess the cards went to Hobart by train and were assessed and taxed for any postage deficiency there. I am guessing that the application of postage due would not have anything to do with Transvaal joining the UPU in 1895 as the determination of tax would be up to the Hobart Post Office applying the Australian regulations as they existed at the time? Obviously the writing on the card posted in April may have meant it as treated as a letter given the destination was outside Australia and NZ hence the application of postage due. The second card probably avoided tax as there was no message. The new rules about what could be written in the card applied sometime in June but I dont see a date for commencement in the article.
This probably doesnt fully answer your question but seems a likely hypothesis.
The Courier edition I have looked at is available from the TPS for $10 plus postage if you have any interest in reading these two articles in detail. I happen to be looking after publication sales so just contact me through the board if interested.
Peter Allan
Originally the Post Office rule was that only the address could be written on the front (which you probably know about, being the address side, the picture being the reverse side). Post cards with a message on the front were deemed letters and taxed at double the deficiency in letter rates of postage.
In April 1905 the Australian Post Office allowed correspondence in Australia and New Zealand only on the L side of the front. The rule against correspondence on the front in international correspondence was dropped at the 1906 Rome Congress of the UPU. In June 1906 immediately following the UPS conference Australia gave instructions for the new Rule to be put into effect without delay. Also at that time the requirement to print the heading "Postcard" on the card was dropped though it continued on Official Postal cards.
Between 1905 and 1907 the cost of sending postcards to the Br Empire was progressively reduced as well from 11/2 d to 1d.
Patrick Reid's article gives quite a bit of detail about the various Tax handstamps used in Hobart and Launceston.
I would guess the cards went to Hobart by train and were assessed and taxed for any postage deficiency there. I am guessing that the application of postage due would not have anything to do with Transvaal joining the UPU in 1895 as the determination of tax would be up to the Hobart Post Office applying the Australian regulations as they existed at the time? Obviously the writing on the card posted in April may have meant it as treated as a letter given the destination was outside Australia and NZ hence the application of postage due. The second card probably avoided tax as there was no message. The new rules about what could be written in the card applied sometime in June but I dont see a date for commencement in the article.
This probably doesnt fully answer your question but seems a likely hypothesis.
The Courier edition I have looked at is available from the TPS for $10 plus postage if you have any interest in reading these two articles in detail. I happen to be looking after publication sales so just contact me through the board if interested.
Peter Allan
Re: postage due
Thank you for your reply, Peter! I'm lucky enough to live five minutes from the Rocky Mountain Philatelic Library so will go have a look for the articles you mention. I think there is a good run of Couriers at the library. Best regards, Jim
Re: postage due
Jim
Without seeing the written-on card, I cannot be sure, but the most likely explanation is that the taxed card had more than 5 words of correspondence, which caused it to be treated as a letter. The letter rate to Transvaal was 2½d, so the 1½d prepayment was 1d deficient. Up to 1st October 1907, the UPU rule was that underpaid items were to be marked with the deficiency (converted to centimes at the rate of 1d=10 centimes at that time), and the receiving postal authority should double the deficiency and charge it as postage due. Hence the 2d postage due mark in Transvaal, After 1st October, the UPU rule was changed so that double deficiency was marked by the originating postal authority. The exchange rate varied over time, and most details are given in an article that I wrote in BSAP BULLETIN Vol 62 #1. There have been some changes to the article since, and if you would like an updated copy, please email me (pge.reid[AT]tiscali.co.uk) and I will email a copy back to you.
After correspondence with Richard Breckon relatively recently, a colleague and I have found that the change of postcard rate to Empire countries to 1d was over a considerable period of time. The original date published in the ACSC of 4/7/1905 for some other Empire countries was actually the date that approval was given for negotiations to be undertaken with countries about reducing the rate to 1d. The dates of the agreements are known, but we are still hunting for the instructions that put the new rate into force.
Enough of my ramblings. Hope this is helpful.
Without seeing the written-on card, I cannot be sure, but the most likely explanation is that the taxed card had more than 5 words of correspondence, which caused it to be treated as a letter. The letter rate to Transvaal was 2½d, so the 1½d prepayment was 1d deficient. Up to 1st October 1907, the UPU rule was that underpaid items were to be marked with the deficiency (converted to centimes at the rate of 1d=10 centimes at that time), and the receiving postal authority should double the deficiency and charge it as postage due. Hence the 2d postage due mark in Transvaal, After 1st October, the UPU rule was changed so that double deficiency was marked by the originating postal authority. The exchange rate varied over time, and most details are given in an article that I wrote in BSAP BULLETIN Vol 62 #1. There have been some changes to the article since, and if you would like an updated copy, please email me (pge.reid[AT]tiscali.co.uk) and I will email a copy back to you.
After correspondence with Richard Breckon relatively recently, a colleague and I have found that the change of postcard rate to Empire countries to 1d was over a considerable period of time. The original date published in the ACSC of 4/7/1905 for some other Empire countries was actually the date that approval was given for negotiations to be undertaken with countries about reducing the rate to 1d. The dates of the agreements are known, but we are still hunting for the instructions that put the new rate into force.
Enough of my ramblings. Hope this is helpful.