RATED POSTMARKS on PICTORIALS - IS THERE A CUTOFF DATE?

[John Hardinge]

My view is that in the Pictorial period Windmill Hill should be rated NS bit with a footnote stating it has been seen on unstamped telelgram piece.

In the Commonwealth period listing it should be recorded but explicitly pointed out that the known usages are telegraph use and not postal.

NB: this raises a whole new can of worms about listing in the Commonwealth Period. Should there be separate listings for postal and telegraph use? Then the problem arises later in the 1940s etc if stamps are soaked off telegraph piece, how can one really determine what the use was - postal or telegraph? (The high values might be an indication but not necessarily a reliable one).

I guess this goes back to the original post - if we are collecting pmks on Pictorial then the listing should be what is available on Pictorial not within a certain date range.

Yes, see what you are saying. Can be hard to detirmine origin of some ex telegram stuff. It was the post and telegraph department however, so telegraphic use is really as legitimate as postal use. You then have use on P.O forms, money orders, pension stuff etc. Of course if you are collecting only on certain stamps, such as pictorials, or as many peole do, KGV's, then that is another matter. Only on that stamp counts. Don't envy the people that like to collect them on all values of the pictorials. Very hard(read impossible) task.

[Revenuer]

Can i ask if there is a list of major collections which have been the main source of these ratings?

A well known collector up here in Qld who is in his 90's has a 7 volume collection of Pictorials with cancels being collected by Pictorial value i.e. 1d - 6d for each name.

The only cancel missing is Glaziers Bay T2 ALL else are present.

Has this collection been added to the rating list?

Ross knows him and has sold to him via his auction.

Dave

[Ross Ewington]

To the best my knowledge, the original collections referred to belonged to Bill Purves, Lewis Viney, Hugh Campbell, Keith Lancaster and possibly
Victor Colbeck, Doug Mather and J.P (from a former Hobart stamp dealer family and still alive so name won't be mentioned).

For Part II of the Green Books, the collections of John Avery and O.I. (alive and collecting) were added to the tote ...possibly there were a few others but I wasn't collecting Tassie pmks at the time though a lot of members of the Tasmanian and Launceston Philatelic Societies certainly were and may have assisted.

There are at least two large collections in existence (still with the original owner) that I know of that were assembled from the 1960s on,
the contents of which are unknown (but "significant") and unlikely to have been referred to when the rarity ratings were proposed and amended.
These collections are still intact (Dave mentions one of them in the previous post).

Since the last listing of rarity ratings (by Campbell and Viney in 1986) was published, quite a number of collections have been assembled (some "very significant") and disposed of, the diaspora of postmarks heading around the world to many new collections which eventually will be (or already have been) "re-distributed". These collections have been (are) comprised of rated types that were counted in the original research but there have been many new discoveries (since 1986) added to these collections.

(even I have made quite a few including 5 fine strikes of Honeywood that may have ended up in a laminated packet entitled "Souvenir of Tasmania" if I hadn't had a chat with the new owner before he committed them to a life in plastic)

At the moment, the leading collector of postmarks on the Pictorial issues (and after the discovery of Peppermint Bay on a 1d value, the owner of the only complete collection) is writing a monograph about the postmarks and hopefully this will address the "rarity issues", many of which have been discussed in this post and give us some "fresh food for thought".

[Peter Allan]

This is a very interesting discussion. Thanks to John Hardinge for some substantial additional information.
I have been wondering for some time if a new list which includes all known cds on the Pictorials would be useful and perhaps alert collectors to the existance of types not included in the Lancaster list,( which is what people tend to rely on), particularly if they dont use the 'Green Books' where there was a more complete picture of all cds on Pictorials listed (excluding many of theose mentioned by John Hardinge unearthed through later research).The Lancaster list does not include Pepermint Bay, or Windmill Hill, the latter not seen but possible. On the TPS web site we have the Lancaster list and R ratings. It does not include a number of cds types where Lancaster lumped various Town cancells together, such as for Deloraine, Wynyard, Queenstown, Burnie and others I cant remember off the top of my head. There are of course the multitude of types not listed in Lancaster from Hobart, Launceston and Zeehan. If we added the others mentioned in this discussion and posted it on the web site, we might stimulate some feedback from people who may have some of these in their collections. It would be useful in any case to have a complete list of all cds types including possibles not yet seen, duly identified.It would alert collectors to the existance of types they may not otherwise be aware of. What do you think ?
Also, has Wynyard Tyle 3 been mentioned ? This was lumped together with the other Wynyards on the Lancaster list. Getting back to the fraught rarity issue, its definately hard to find pre 1913, but does exist, but is more common with a 1913 date.

Pete

[John Shepherd]

Does the Qld collection include ORVILLE? - because apparently the owner thought that "Orville doesn't exist".

[David McNamee]

As with any collection, what you choose to collect is what you choose to collect. When I collected Pictorial postmarks, I set my personal cut-off at 31-3-1913. A bit arbitrary, but that is the collector's prerogative. It is another question whether a person selling a stamp has described it properly when attributing a rarity scale that was made for one period (thru 1912) in a different period (post 1912). I say that is inaccurate describing; however, if the date is given, then it is countered by a knowledgeable collector who can choose to add it to the collection or not (and ignore the hype). I get a bit irritated when on eBay sellers describe tatty fiscally used stamps as "used" and quote some catalogue value based on very fine postally used. As always, "buyer beware" and "knowledge is power" in this hobby. By the way, my 1913 SPRINGS sold for thousands of dollars (thanks, Ross!).

[John Hardinge]

Can i ask if there is a list of major collections which have been the main source of these ratings?

A well known collector up here in Qld who is in his 90's has a 7 volume collection of Pictorials with cancels being collected by Pictorial value i.e. 1d - 6d for each name.

The only cancel missing is Glaziers Bay T2 ALL else are present.

Has this collection been added to the rating list?

Ross knows him and has sold to him via his auction.

Dave

I presume you are talking about Arthur's collection? To my knowledge it has not been included in any studies.

[John Hardinge]

One cancel that I had forgotten all about in this discussion has been Douglas River Type 3. This cancel must have been introduced somewhere in between January 1912 and October 1913, exactly when is open to some discussion. This is a very good prospect fro being seen even prior to end 1912 on pictorial. It is, however, very scarce with one 3 cancels seen in the Commonwelath period all up(two from same source) even though it was used into the 1930's.


John

[Ross Ewington]

I think that we are starting to "slide" off the topic here a little.

There is an obvious need for a new post re "unseen but possible postmarks on pictorials" so this aspect can be recorded separately. Volunteer?

Now back to the topic - can someone who is totally against there being a cut-off date for rated postmarks on the Pictorials please list
all the reasons cited so far, preferably as "dot points" or similar.

[N.B. you can create links back to earlier posts using the URL button .... just go to the post to which you wish to refer, "right click" on the
heading "RE: etc, etc", select "Properties" and then copy and paste the URL .... this will save clogging up the dot points (or similar) with information
that has already provided and make it easier to respond and/or refer to]

If a "case for the no's" is forthcoming in the suggested simplified form, I will then present a case for the "yes, you cans" (and hopefully someone else may join me)

Ross

[John Hardinge]

Thanks Ross. You are probably right. We have strayed off topic. I personally don't think there should be a cut off date as such. I don't hold that view that strongly though. After all, at the end of the day it is up to people to collect what they wish. We can't tell people what to collect. However, some clear dot points in relation to the period may be of some use:

1a) The earliest use of the Kangaroo and map stamp in Australia was 2.1.1913(1d value only). Certain other values such as the 4d were not printed at all until Feb 1913 or later.

1b) No Kangaroo stamps were dispatched to Tasmania until 29.1.1913. It should not be possible to find Roos used in Tasmania in Jan 1913. Needless to say stocks went to Hobart first and smaller offices were not supplied until much later.

1c) Perf OS varieties would have been later provided, as would perf T presumably. State stamops would still have been issued in the meantime, as large tocks existed, particularly of the 1/2d and 4d. I have had at times many perf OS higher values used in 1914 in particular

1d) State period stamps were not formally recalled from P.O's until May 1914. During the Feb 1913 to May 1914 period they were clearly used concurrently with the Roos. As stocks of a value were used up they were replaced with either more of the local state issue or the new Kangaroos as appropriate. What is quite clear is that just because stocks of the new stamps were available the pictorial stocks were not just put aside and not issued. They continued to be issued as required until used up. This is why the 1/2d issue is so often seen used late. Ample stocks were available and was a slow seller at rural P.O's.

1e) When did the pictorial stamps become less common? Feb-Mar 1913 pictorials are still more common than Roos, particularly from smaller locations. From May 1913 onwards Roos are more dominant. But pictorials were clearly still being issued, probably mainly to smaller offices. Clearly stocks were used up by Aug-Sep 1913 as dates from then on become very rare. I have never personally seen a genuine postal usage of any pictorial bar the 1/2d after May 1914.

What does all this mean? To me it means that up to May 1914 the stamps were still issued until stocks expired. If you are collecting CDS on pictorials(rather than collecting CDS from a particular period) then I find it hard to accept any reason to exclude them.

2) Why have an artificial cut off date of 31.12.1912 when roos were not even issued anywhere in Tasmania by then?

3) I cannot see how collecting and or counting 1913 dates will effect rating for cancels on pictorials to any significant degree. The bulk of cancels by far for any CDS type exists prior to the end of 1912. This being the case the ratings will remain largely uneffected

4) Surely if there is to be a cut off date it should be May 1914? That is when the stamps were officialy withdrawn after all.

5) As stated earlier, the thorny issue that is then created is what does one do with the collection of the CDS that were introduced in 1913, rather than prior to the end of 1912? For that I can offer no real answers. I would suggest that people may collect them as they see fit. They are certainly quite collectable. As are the two rubber stamps from the pictorial period-Legana and Military Camp. As is Windmill Hill. All these things need to be listed in any proper study, probably with a notation indicating that they have a status that may exclude them for certain collectors.

[John Shepherd]

Great post.

As an aside Government printers were quite frugal around this time so there would have been some pressure to use up the old State stamps before issuing the Kangaroos.

[Revenuer]

Where do unrated 1913's fit in? - no not the bin!

Kempton June 1913 on ½d Pictorial.

kempton.jpg (49.59 KiB) Viewed 4358 times

[Revenuer]

another 1913

w2.jpg (58.75 KiB) Viewed 4358 times

[John Shepherd]

This is a late use of the 1/2d Pictorial at HOBART 18 August 1913. The cover is definitely commercial.

[Mike]

A late date with 1/2d pictorial and 1d roo, Hobart 24th Dec 1913. Postcard (Fern Tree Bower Hobart) to Sweden.

[Peter Allan]

Where do unrated 1913's fit in? - no not the bin!

Kempton June 1913 on ½d Pictorial.

If they are not rated then I suppose the cut-off is not an issue ( as the question is about a cut of date for rated postmarks). Still, there is at least one, the Wynyard type three, thats not 'officially' rated but is much scarcer with a pre-1913 date, so there may be a question mark about that cds in 1913 at least. It all seems to boil down to a small number of CDS that are rare, butwhere the inclusion of 1913 dates might affect (reduce) their rarity. Saying it another way, for those few, should you pay less for a 1913 date - at least thats what I take this debate to realy be about ?
Pete

[John Hardinge]

The real issue is whether you place a premium on them after 1912 in your own collection or not. Wynyard TYpe 3 probably RR if you are after 1912c dates only. May still be an R in any period

[RogerKinns]

John Hardinge's summary concerning stamp availability and withdrawal dates seems to me to get it right. I have been on the look out for the 1d and 3d pictorial stamps that were printed on thin ready gummed paper (SG 261 and 262) in December 1912. They are scarce stamps used in my experience and I have only found examples of the 1d dated early in 1913. One of those is cancelled Murdunna, 7 February 1913, as shown below; the strike is far from superb, but it is unambiguous. I would not be surprised if some small offices did not receive stocks of those stamps until 1913.

[miller61]

Hi John,

Thanks for the rated postmark listings of Oct 12 2009*. It really has refined and clarified this topic - great research!

My question concerns Legana. You have rated the Rubber Cancel and the normal CDS, so how does the manuscript cancel of Legana fit in here? Is that a fair question, or even relevant to the discussion on Cancellers?

Jim Miller

[ added by Moderator: * link to John Hardinge's post is http://tps.org.au/bb/viewtopic.php?f=9& ... rt=20#p401 ...to return here just press your backspace key]

[John Hardinge]

Hi John,

Thanks for the rated postmark listings of Oct 12 2009*. It really has refined and clarified this topic - great research!

My question concerns Legana. You have rated the Rubber Cancel and the normal CDS, so how does the manuscript cancel of Legana fit in here? Is that a fair question, or even relevant to the discussion on Cancellers?

Jim Miller

[ added by Moderator: * link to John Hardinge's post is http://tps.org.au/bb/viewtopic.php?f=9& ... rt=20#p401 ...to return here just press your backspace key]

Sorry I have not posted much lately. Main interest has been netball this last month and travelling around the state to watch it.

Now-Legana. The rubber CDS is certainly the most scarce early item. Scarcer than tghe manuscript, which is scarce enough.

Dates I have seen are:

Manuscript(first period) 18.4.1910 to 5.10.1910 replaced by rubber CDS

Rubber CDS TYpe 1a 17.1.1911 to 13.3.1911 replaced by manuscripting again due to poor CDS impressions

Manuscript(secind period) 22.5.1911 to ?? JUn 1911 replaced by TYpe 2b

Type 2b 5.6.1911 onwads.

Would rate the manusdcript as RRRR and the rubber CDS RRRRR but the manuscript is much scarcer in the second period, which was very short.