RATED POSTMARKS on PICTORIALS - IS THERE A CUTOFF DATE?

[Ross Ewington]

I recently noted a LOIRA Type 3 postmark on a 2d Pictorial dating from May 1913
offered for sale as being rated RRR.

In my opinion, this postmark does not deserve such a rating as it can be found on Australian
issues from fairly early in 1913 and strikes on 1d and 2d Pictorials from this year are not that uncommon either.

It only took me a few minutes of rummaging through my stock to find this example, also from May 1913

loira 13.5.13.jpg (50.16 KiB) Viewed 5819 times

There are examples of other postmarks with rarity ratings that appear with dates "well into" 1913. Two
examples that spring to mind are Alonnah and Murdunna rated RRRR and (R)RRR respectively. These
cancels are more often than not seen on the ½d green Pictorial. As in the case of LOIRA, examples of these
postmarks can be found on various Kangaroo definitives from fairly early in 1913.

Neither the Loira Type 3, the Alonnah Type 2c or the Murdunna Type 2 have a "Commonwealth Period" rarity
rating assigned by Avery & Hardinge. (the Alonnah cds can be found on early decimal issues!!)

Hopefully, this is a good place to start a discussion about a possible "cutoff date" (or dates) for rarity ratings
assigned to postmarks on the Pictorial issue.

I seek your ideas and opinions on this topic.

[John Shepherd]

I am a firmly of the view that there should be NO CUT OFF DATE.

1. Pictorials were sold at Tasmanian Post Offices during 1913. It makes no sense to exclude them. Places like Springs, Murdunna etc still had pictorials. Even Hobart and Launceston continued to use 1/2d's e.g. 1/2d Pictorial + 1d Kangaroo is a not uncommon franking on postcard.

2. A 1912 cut off date is artificial, something that was dreamed up by the authors of Part 1. Many modern collectors now actively seek 1913 dates e.g. Springs.

3. States issues were on sale until withdrawn by the Cth P.O. in about October 1914. Any date up to 1914 is valid.

4. The change in use from Pictorials to Kangaroos has not undergone any (published) study and is not well understood. The stamps were used concurrently. There was no recall of pictorials in 1913.

5. Some people object to the collecting of 1913 dates for fear that it will "stuff up" the rarity ratings system. The rarity ratings are already "stuffed" by the artifical 1912 cut-off.

6. Establishing a new cut-off date (e.g. May or June 1913) just substitutes one problem for another.

7. Some people seem to think that the rarity ratings in Part 1 (published in 1962) is some kind of biblical text or sacred cow that dare not be criticised. The authors stated they initially examined over 500,000 strikes and four collections (supposedly in the early 1950s) and then in the same breath said they surveyed "probably as many again" (i.e. another 500,00 strikes: Vol.1. p.101) and the top 12 collections before 1962 (p.111).

I do not think it is believeable that the authors systematically examined 1 million strikes for cancellations (and could only find 25 strikes of a 1R). A more sensible explanation is that Purves recalled all the stamps he had gazed at for finding flaws and doing plating studies over the decades (prior to selling his Pictorials in the late 1930's - BEFORE cds research was underway) and INCLUDED those in the "mythical million" strikes estimate. The Part 1 survey quite reliable, but not perfect, and it should be recognised that it was based on a survey of 12 major collections. There have been a significant number of discoveries since 1962 (nearly 40 years ago) to lead to adjustments to the rarity rating scale. The opportunity should be taken to "abolish" the sillyness that is the 1912 "cut-off" date.

The answer is to abolish the cut-off date altogether.

[Peter Allan]

This is a dificult issue to pin down, or should I say that I have difficulty deciding what it really means. I think its actually quite a complicated question.
The facts are that the Commonwealth, although responsible for issueing stamps from 1/3/1901, did not issue Australian stamps until 1913. Seperate issues of State stamps continued from 1/3/01 until 31/12/12, but it was legal to use State Stamps until some time in 1914. If you think you are collecting postmarks on stamps before the issue of Australian Stamps,then the cut off is 1/1/1913, but if you think you are collecting postmarks on State Stamps while they were legally able to be used in the Postal system then the cut off is some time in 1914. As Ross points out, the complicating factor is Commnowealth stamps were not available at every Tasmanian Post Office on 1/1/1913, and local stocks of the Pictorials were used before starting to use Australina Stamps in any case, and we do not have information, post Office by post Office, about when the change-over to Australina stamps occured.
In reality, it makes not the slightest difference to most postmarks of any of any rarity rating, as there are generally very few examples of postmarks from 1913 known on Pictorials. For many rated strikes, a 1913 date is a rarity in itself, and for many of the rarest, its impossible as often the reason for the rarity is the office closed early in the period, that is round 1901, 1902. Yes there are a small number of obvious examples where the office opened late in the period but not many. Checking those in the Census so far( as per TPS members site), for Allonah there is only 1 of the 8 recorded later than 1912. Bronte has by far the highest proportion with three of the 5 so far recorded in 1913. Murdunna has 3 of 18, and Liena 3 of 8. The remaining 10 offices so far listed have no cds dated later than 1912. The Census clearly does not list all know examples for any of the Post Offices but there are probably enough to see a picture emerging.
A further complicating factor is that the original definitions of Rarity have obviously broken down, as serious collectors would know from experience that there are generally more strikes for every post office known than the original definition suggest. 4R is suposed to mean 6 or less known, and 3R 7 - 12 copies. 4R cds of Allonah, Comstock and Lady Bay already have more than 6 examples recorded, and I can think of a number of other 4R cds in a similar position, and I still have a large number of examples to add to the census from the Tasmanian Stamp Auctions and Prestige archives without going out to other collectors who have sigificant holdings. There will still remain a few 'true' 4R cds such as Glaziers Bay Type2, Gravelly Beach Type 3, Orrville, Warentina, Scotsdale West and perhaps a small number of others once the census has matured
In other words, for many 3R and 4R cds, there will undoubtedly be well over the notional 6 or 12 examples without even worrying about 1913 dates. Interestingly I can think of a significant number of 4R strikes that have been 'discovered' in the last 12 months, including 2 Osterly Souths - 4Rs do tend to keep turning up, not to mention lesser rated strikes

I suspect there are two possible approaches to the question.
1. accept that some of the R ratings need revision, and wait for a more accurate picture to emerge through the Census. It makes more sense to me to accept we are talking about CDS on State Stamps up until they ceased to be legal ( some time in 1914) In other words, some ratings will need to change and has already been said, the Lancaster ratings are not set in concrete, but are just one more step on the road to complete knowledge ( which is never attainable, but we can get closer over time). I think there are two or three improvements on the Lancaster ratings already about.
2. treat the date of the strike as just one more variable that contributes to rarity on a case by case basis. For example, you might give more weight to an ERD, or LRD, or the completness of the strike, or a pre-1913 date when considering how rare the particluar example is. This does beg the question that for some cds, a 1913 date may be a lot scarcer than a pre-1913 date. Unfortunately no simple Rarity rating system can be applied to this approach, but in reality most collectors apply such criteria sub-conciously or consiously in terms of what they will pay, and we have to live with some vagueness and subjectivity when it comes to assessing the rarity of any philatelic item - its not a completely precise science.

The issue is only going to apply to a few of the 3R and 4R cds, as there are so many in the 2R and 1R catagory in most cases that 1913 dates makes little difference. (There are probably a few lesser rated cds which are in the wrong catagory too if the numbers were acurately known. How many Lowes Bridges do you know of ? Not many I bet although its nominally 2R, but that is the exception rather than the rule.)
Finaly, for those 3R and 4R where there are 1913 dates, some are more common in the Commonwealth period while some remain very scarce. For example, Springs is still rated 5R from 1913 on Commonwealth stamps, while Bronte type 3 is rated 2R, and Loira is not rated at all. All the more reason to look at the census in the long run for strikes on Pictorials and see what the real numbers are all up, pre and post 1913, and make a case by case judgement based on the facts.

Pete

[Peter Allan]

The Commonwealth became responsible for the Tasmanian post office from 1 March 1901.

....

Of course. I should have refered to the issuing of State Stamps until 31/12/12, rather than saying the State was responsible until 31/12/12.

Pete

[Ross Ewington]

Point(s) of Order: I was not critical of the recent offer of the Loira postmark whatsover (please quote the bit in my post where you can see criticism!!).
I indicated than in my opinion, the Loira was not worthy of maintaining it's RRR status as late as May 1913 as it is possible to obtain strikes of Loira on Kangaroo issues a couple of months earlier. It should be noted that Loira Type 3 is not rated in the "Commonwealth Period" for this reason (i.e. examples from early 1913 onwards are plentiful).

I did not state anywhere that it was wrong for a colleague to offer Loira @ auction as a RRR rated postmark with a starting price of $100. After all, collectors decide whether to bid on any item or not (and the maximum amount they are prepared to bid). To repeat I said "In my opinion, this postmark does not deserve such a rating"

Now with Bronte postmarks, this is a different matter. I cannot recall having seen a Bronte Type 3 postmark on a Kangaroo or KGV definitive with a date earlier than late 1914. Type 3 postmarks of this PO from 1913 onwards are rated RR by Avery and Hardinge and strikes as good as the one offered by TSA (as per the image above) are very hard to find. This is in stark contrast with the Loira Type 3 cds where post-1912 examples are quite plentiful and are usually "socked-on-the nose" (if somewhat over-inked).

The Bronte Type 3 cds illustrated above was offered with the following description "BRONTE / 12.AP.13 / TASMANIA - an obvious and nearly complete example of the RRR rated postmark - date is not really too late to maintain it's RRR status ..." . This description was given much thought and at least two advanced collectors of postmarks on the Pictorial issues were consulted before listing in regard to a) a suggested estimate and b) it's rarity "status" (remember that to the best of my knowledge at the time, there were no recorded strikes of this cds on "Commonwealth issues" dating from 1913 ....2½ years later I still don't know of any .... if anyone can post an image of the cds on a Roo with a 1913 date here, that would be great). Please note again that the description included an opinion as to the RRR status of the postmark with an April 1913 date .... the prospective bidders were free to decide whether it should be rated RRR or just RR and bid (or not bid) accordingly.

So we return to the discussion "Rated Postmarks on Pictorials - Is There a Cutoff Date?". The posts so far already indicate that there is a shortage of published empirical knowledge and a great amount of subjectivity surrounding the topic and that is why I started the discussion in the first place i.e. so that collectors and specialist dealers (and non-collectors / non-specialist dealers too!) of this material can have a friendly exchange of ideas and opinions based upon their personal experience.

[John Shepherd]

Hi Ross

It's a really interesting issue. The issue (to me) seems to be: does Loira (of any date on Pictorial) deserve a rating of RRR?

The cut-off date has been shown to be blatantly artificial. A postmark on pictorial needs to be given ONE rarity rating - not different rarity ratings depending on "what day of the week (or year) it is".

The rarity rating system at the moment is pretty "stuffed" for want of a better word. Dealers when offering a pmk for sale, and collectors when buying a pmk, need to know exactly what the rarity rating is. It should be a simple matter to say what the rarity rating is, rather than detailed exposition about what it may be. At the moment confusion reigns with 1913 dates. For this reason a census needs to be done of all RRR and RRRR's including 1913 dates and see what comes out of it.

I don't think Loira's with 1913 dates on Pictorials grow on trees, but if it needs to be downgraded, after a census, then so be it.

I still think one must adopt a view that 1913 dates are either valid, or they aren't. Many collectors collect 1913 dates so they are voting with their feet and saying they are valid. Therefore the rarity rating system needs adjustment.(It seems to be hinted at that 1912 and 1913 dates for the same office deserve different rarity ratings - I'd hope not as that would be be a farce).

I did not suggest that there is anything wrong with offering a Bronte with a 1913 date - to the contrary, I believe 1913 dates are very collectable indeed.

My post was intended to be a contribution to a friendly debate!

John

[Revenuer]

Apologies if this does not come under 'Rated Postmarks' aren't ALL postmarks on Pictorials 'Rated'?

Tasmanian stamps although withdrawn from sale in 1914 were legal tender until 1966.

I know of many rusty sheets that were used up just prior to 1966 do all these deserve a rarity rating?

Why stop at 1913 or 1914, if you are going to do it would it not be better to do it completely?

Plenty of late philatelic covers around, i even have one up here in Queensland:

pic½d.jpg (58.5 KiB) Viewed 5451 times

[Ross Ewington]

thanks Dave .... your post doesn't really fit but that's a lovely piece of "dealer mail" all the same
and it's added a bit of "colour" to the discussion!

In this discussion it has to be remembered that 1)there are collectors who collect cds postmarks on
Pictorials only; 2) there are other collectors who only collect Tasmanian cds on Australian stamps
issued from 1913 onwards; and 3) there are collectors who collect cds pmks "right through".

Also, there is a list of rarity ratings for postmarks on the Tas Pictorial issues, the latest version published
in 1986 in "The Pictorial Stamps of Tasmania 1899-1912" by K. E. Lancaster (update on postmarks
written by H.M. Campbell & L.C. Viney) and there is a quite separate listing of rarity ratings for Tasmanian
cds from 1913 to 1988 originally published by Avery & Hardinge in 1993/94 and updated in print on two
occasions since.

.... and this is part of the problem. The Avery & Hardinge list is "active" from Jan 1st 1913 and notionally, the
Campbell, Viney et al listings "de-activate" on December 31st 1912 .... or do they actually? As previously
mentioned this (December 31st cutoff)appears to be somewhat arbitrary ........so ...... the question still remains "can there be a
cutoff date which is less so and on which collectors/specialist dealers can generally agree"?

So far we have heard a case for the "no's" (i.e. all cutoff dates are arbitrary and therefore all rated postmarks
should maintain their rarity ratings right through to October 1914 when the stamps were withdrawn from sale).

Does anyone have a "yes, you can" case ??

[John Shepherd]

This thread is starting to sound like Barack Obama: "Yes We Can"

One problem is the multiplicity of rarity lists - and this problem is only going to get worse 'going forward'!. We have the following lists:

1. Vol.1 list
2. Vol.2 list (quite different)
3. Lancaster list (by Lew Viney - who said rather angrily "did the authors of Vol.2 sat we couldn't count" - ouch! )
4. The Avery & Hardinge list (starting at 1.1.1913)
5. The new Hardinge list (forthcoming)
6. A 'dealer's' list (forthcoming)
7. The TPS census (forthcoming).

Surely the solution is for the TPS to count all RRR and RRRR strikes on pictorial (irrespective of date up to 1914 - it can be assumed anything later is off a philatelic cover) and then decide a rarity rating. Any other solution is just madness.

[Ross Ewington]

So all collectors of Tasmanian postmarks will now come forward and submit scans of their holdings of "rated" items in this forum so that a new compilation or rarity ratings can be prepared by the TPS? Is that likely to happen?? - I don't think so.

As I understand it, the purpose of the current Census of RRR and RRRR on Pictorials is not (and never was) intended to re-define rarity but to provide (as the name suggests) a census where collectors can view some of the known examples, appraise the overall quality of strikes that is available for each RRR or RRRR rated cds and gain an overview of what actually exists "out there".

I understand that the task of re-appraising rarity is currently being be undertaken by a leading collector of cds postmarks on the Tasmanian Pictorial issues and that there is a publication to be released in the near future. I think it is best to wait to see what the latest research reveals in regard to the current rarity ratings which many collectors now feel are "having problems".

....so now back to the task of this topic which I repeat, is not about re-appraising the present rarity ratings (i.e. on Pictorial issues or on post 1912 Australian stamps issues or on both) but is to see if it is possible to determine a cutoff date where one rarity system (Campbell, Viney et al) is replaced by that developed by Avery & Hardinge. I apoligise if the purpose of commencing this topic was not clearly stated in earlier posts.

As previously mentioned, a case for the "no you can'ts" has been already provided. I would like to hear a different (and hopefully opposite) view if there is one out there ...and I certainly believe there is.

A final meditation about rarity though (just to show that I can be distracted from the task too )

....... the Crotty cds exists on a least one Pictorial with a 1913 cancel (from the short re-opening period) ..... on a 1d Roo with a 1913 cancel it is rated RRRRR ..... is a 1913 strike on a 1d Pictorial only rated R like all those on Pictorials from approx. 10 years earlier?

...and it's goodnight from me.

[John Hardinge]

I am a firmly of the view that there should be NO CUT OFF DATE.


I could not agree more. The stamps were used quite legitimatelty through to 1914. Sure many offices received Roos early in 1913 buit many also did not. There are 4-5 Crotty's known from it's May 1913 reopening. It is interesting to note that the late date is on pictorial. Waddamana is another CDS well know on pictorial. It also opened May 1913(off the top of my head). It would be fair to say that use post 1913 is very rare. The latest genuine postal use I have seen is a 1/2 in 1916. certainly philatelic use should not be counted. The astamps were useable for postage up to 1967 and philatelic copies of both Lorinna and Lapoinya CDS are known on pictorials. These sorts of things definately do not count.

1. Pictorials were sold at Tasmanian Post Offices during 1913. It makes no sense to exclude them. Places like Springs, Murdunna etc still had pictorials. Even Hobart and Launceston continued to use 1/2d's e.g. 1/2d Pictorial + 1d Kangaroo is a not uncommon franking on postcard.

Correct. It is very interesting to look at the new CDS that were introduced in 1913. They are:Latrobe Type 3 Introduced Feb 1913. Common enough on pictorial
Nunamara Rubber Introduced probably Feb 1913. Is known on pictorial(1/2's), but copy on 1d roo is earlier
Beaconsfield Type 3 Introduced Mar 1913. Again, common enough on pictorial
Paradise Type 3 Not known on pictorial. Previous type not known on Roo. Not suprising as P.O burnt down May 1913 and pictorial stocks would have been replaced by Roos.
Western Junction Replaced Evandale Junction May 1913. Is known on pictorial. Have seen in 1913 on 1d Roos as well.
Crotty See above
Huonville Introduced May 1913. Have seen a few copies on pictorial, mainly on 1/2d.
Moonah Introduced Aug 1913. As above, but onlly seen on 1/2d.
Waddamana Opened and introduced Aug 1913. Have seen on pictorial.
Comstock Rubber CDS. Only one copy known on 1d Roos so bit hard to comment.
St Helens First of Type 2b new issues. Only known on Roo or KGV2. A 1912 cut off date is artificial, something that was dreamed up by the authors of Part 1. Many modern collectors now actively seek 1913 dates e.g. Springs.

Completely correct. However, generally Commanwealth period collections start 2 Jan 1913, so dates on or after then are quite OK in a Commonwealth period collection.
3. States issues were on sale until withdrawn by the Cth P.O. in about October 1914. Any date up to 1914 is valid.

Correct

4. The change in use from Pictorials to Kangaroos has not undergone any (published) study and is not well understood. The stamps were used concurrently. There was no recall of pictorials in 1913.

They were clearly used concurrently, however, there were ample stocks of 1/2 d pictorials and it is clear that at small offices in particular these were used for a long time before being replaced.5. Some people object to the collecting of 1913 dates for fear that it will "stuff up" the rarity ratings system. The rarity ratings are already "stuffed" by the artifical 1912 cut-off.

6. Establishing a new cut-off date (e.g. May or June 1913) just substitutes one problem for another.

Agree

7. Some people seem to think that the rarity ratings in Part 1 (published in 1962) is some kind of biblical text or sacred cow that dare not be criticised. The authors stated they initially examined over 500,000 strikes and four collections (supposedly in the early 1950s) and then in the same breath said they surveyed "probably as many again" (i.e. another 500,00 strikes: Vol.1. p.101) and the top 12 collections before 1962 (p.111).

I do not think it is believeable that the authors systematically examined 1 million strikes for cancellations (and could only find 25 strikes of a 1R). A more sensible explanation is that Purves recalled all the stamps he had gazed at for finding flaws and doing plating studies over the decades (prior to selling his Pictorials in the late 1930's - BEFORE cds research was underway) and INCLUDED those in the "mythical million" strikes estimate. The Part 1 survey quite reliable, but not perfect, and it should be recognised that it was based on a survey of 12 major collections. There have been a significant number of discoveries since 1962 (nearly 40 years ago) to lead to adjustments to the rarity rating scale. The opportunity should be taken to "abolish" the sillyness that is the 1912 "cut-off" date.

Been saying this for ages. These ratings are totally out of date and peope are still clinging to them like a teenage boy to a Kiera Knightly poster. North Franklin RR? It is clear that a number of South Franklins were counted here. Not a surprising mistake.
The answer is to abolish the cut-off date altogether.

Agree

[John Shepherd]

One purpose of the census is to count the known examples (that is the definition of 'census'). But back to the issue -

Crotty is an interesting case. Offices that had two different peiords of operation in the pictorial period need two different rarity ratings. The rating may or may not be the same, depending upon the particular case:

Crotty (first period of operation) - R
Crotty (second period of operation 1913-) - RRRR

If there was a cut-off of say 31.1.1912 then the Crotty on pictorial with the 1913 date would be excluded. This would not make any sense as the whole point of collecting postmarks on Pictorial is to collect them ON PICTORIAL. Crotty dated 1913 on pictorial cannot be said to be philatelic.

Another reason for not having a cut-off date is that the year may be blurred or indistinct on a particular example. If, for example, one has a strike of the Springs on a 1/2d with a blurred date, and if 1913 dates are excluded, how could it be included in a collection with any certainty?

Is not the simple solution for the "Greenbooks" to give ratings for Pictorials and "Avery & Hardinge" to give ratings for Kangaroos onwards?

[John Shepherd]

On the basis of John Hardinge's post, if we go beyond 31.12.1912, there will be some "new additions" to the pmk on Pictorial field. (Like Peppermint Bay at the other end). Interesting.

[John Hardinge]

I certainly do not think that counting or collecting post 1912 strikes will "stuff up" the rarity ratings. You are only after all adding in strikes within the period of operation of the stamps.

Now, another questions is do you include these other offices/cancels that were introduced post 1/1/1913? Well, that is a differnt questions all together.

Peppermint Bay is certainly one that could be counted as is known. At "the other end" the othet two possibilities are Mills Reef Type 1(late date Apr 1899). Wsa replaced by Daniel's Bay(early Date 3.6.1900). Plenty of room for an early date on pictorial there. Penguin Creek with the creek not removed is also an outside possiblity. Late date 7.12.1899. Early date with Creek removed 6.1.1900. Unlikely but possible. If seen these must be genuine RRRR's. Do you include the other 1913 strikes? Don't have a definite opinion myself. If so then:

Latrobe TYpe 3 R
Nunamara TYpe R1 RRRRR/RRRRR
Beaconsfield Type 3 RR
Paradise Type 3 Not seen
Western Junction Type 3 RRRRR/RRRRR
Crotty(second period) RRRRR(second period only)
Huonville Type 3 RRR/RRRR
Moonah Type 3 RRR/RRRR
Wadamanna RRRRR
Comstock R1 Not seen

As far as the Commanwealth period goes, there are only two CDS that are known post 1912 on pictorials only, being Latrobe Type 1(no stops), replaced in Jan 1913 by Latrobe Type 3 and Paradise Type 1, replaced in May 1913 by Paradise Type 3 after office burnt down.

[John Shepherd]

Including 1913 dates will be more examples to be counted and in some cases will probably mean a downgrading of rating of certain offices such as:

Murdunna
Loira.

This is probably what the cut-off date theorists (if there are any) are scared of.

[John Hardinge]

Some people will always pay over the normal amount for a 1912 date and that is OK. We all collect what we collect. Roos is right. There is a list coming out from someone who has studied these cancels more than any of us. We just have to wait. There is no doubt that the Part 1 ratings are not right tho-the fact that they were reprinted as an afterthough by Keith lanacaster in his book after he was asked to address the CDS on pictorial's as well makes them no more up to date.If 1-6 copies is RRRR nothing is RRRR. There is a need for a RRRRR rating. certain cancels bring much more than others and that needs to be recognised by way of ratings. Windmill Hill is the other canceller not addressed. is known right throughout the period but not actually on pictorial. To my mind should be included as well. But this again gets back to the question: are you collecting CDS from the period or CDS on the stamps?

Since we have all had so many discussions on ratings I have attached below some ratings of my own. They are in no way definative and I do not in any way claim to be more knowledgable that another Launcestonian. Just my own thoughts.

Pictorial Period Ratings

RRRRR: Glaziers Bay T2, Gravelly Beach T3, Legana R1, Orville, Osterley South, Peppermint Bay(on pictorials only), Scottsdale West, Springs, Teepookana, Windmill Hill (10)

RRRR: Alonnah, Bronte, Catamaran, Comstock, Erriba, Franklin North, Honeywood, Lady Bay, Long Island, Lowes Bridge, Military Camp R1a, Mt Hicks Upper, New River, Pieman Bridge(on pictorials only), Queenstown T1(iii), Ridgeway, Verona T1, Warrentinna, Westwood (19)

RRR: Beltana, Beulah Lower, Calder Upper, Central Castra, Claremont T3, Christmas Hills, Ellerslie, Farrell Siding, Glaziers Bay T1b, Glenfern, Goshen, Ida Bay, Kanna Leena, Kangaroo Valley, Lanena, Legana, Lemana Junction, Liena, Loira, Mills Reef T2, Mt Hicks Lower, Murdunna, Nicholls Rivulett, Pearsons Point, Surges Bay T1a, Verona T2 (26)

RR: Back Creek, Beach End, Black Sugar Loaf, Black Brush, Blessington Upper, Bream Creek T2b, Bridgenorth, Camp Creek, Darwin, Deep Bay, Coombend, Glen Huon, Golden Valley, Gravelly Beach T2b, Gray, Henrietta, Hillend, King River, Ladys Bay, Lagunta, Lienna, Macquarie Heads, Moina, Montezuma, Mooreville Road, Mt Hicks, Mt Hicks Road, Natone, Nugent T2, Oyster Cove T1, Paloona, Paradise, Pillinger, Pipers Brook, Preston South, MOO Queenstown, Ringaooma Road Stn, Risdon, Rosebery Station, Rosevale, Royenrine, Rumney Huts, Selbourne, Shannon, Sth Springfield, Stirling, Stonehenge, Surges Bay T2, Temma, Thirlstane T1, Turners Marsh Lower, Underwood, Upper Huon, Wattle Hill, Whitemore, Wilmot Lower, Zeehan T1(ii) (57)

R: all previous R rated cancellers as per Green Books No 2, except

Add: Daniels Bay, Bicheno T1, Tatana, Gunns Plains, Great Lake, Hamilton Road, Hayes, Hobart North, Interlaken, New Norfolk Rly Stn, Ridgley, Wyena, Wynyard T3, Zeehan(stops)

Subtract: Gray, Back Creek, Beach End, Bream Creek T2b, Gravelly Beach T2b, Coombend, Natone, Paradise (108)

I have included no CDS intoduced post Jan 1913 in this list.

[John Shepherd]

Wow, great post. This will take some time to digest.

I wonder though, if Windmill Hill has not been seen on Pictorial (but exists on telegram form/piece) with it should be rated RRRRR? It would be more sensible to include it in the pictorial listing as having a cds but rate it as NS? ("never seen").

[John Hardinge]

Have reposted this with notations

*=strongly rated(top 3 in class)

#= weakly rated(bottom 3 in class)

Pictorial Period Ratings

RRRRR: Glaziers Bay T2, Gravelly Beach T3, Legana R1, Orville, Osterley South#, Peppermint Bay(on pictorials only), Scottsdale West#, Springs#, Teepookana, Windmill Hill (10)

RRRR: Alonnah, Bronte, Catamaran#, Comstock, Erriba, Franklin North, Honeywood*, Lady Bay#, Long Island, Lowes Bridge, Military Camp R1a, Mt Hicks Upper, New River, Pieman Bridge(on pictorials only)*, Queenstown T1(iii), Ridgeway#, Verona T1, Warrentinna*, Westwood (19)

RRR: Beltana, Beulah Lower, Calder Upper, Central Castra, Claremont T3, Christmas Hills, Ellerslie, Farrell Siding, Glaziers Bay T1b*, Glenfern, Goshen#, Ida Bay, Kanna Leena, Kangaroo Valley#, Lanena, Legana, Lemana Junction, Liena*, Loira, Mills Reef T2, Mt Hicks Lower, Murdunna#, Nicholls Rivulett*, Pearsons Point, Surges Bay T1a, Verona T2 (26)

RR: Back Creek#, Beach End, Black Sugar Loaf, Black Brush, Blessington Upper, Bream Creek T2b, Bridgenorth, Camp Creek, Darwin, Deep Bay, Coombend, Glen Huon, Golden Valley, Gravelly Beach T2b, Gray#, Henrietta, Hillend*, King River*, Ladys Bay, Lagunta, Lienna, Macquarie Heads, Moina, Montezuma, Mooreville Road, Mt Hicks, Mt Hicks Road, Natone, Nugent T2, Oyster Cove T1, Paloona, Paradise#, Pillinger*, Pipers Brook, Preston South, MOO Queenstown, Ringaooma Road Stn, Risdon, Rosebery Station, Rosevale, Royenrine*, Rumney Huts, Selbourne, Shannon, Sth Springfield, Stirling, Stonehenge, Surges Bay T2, Temma, Thirlstane T1, Turners Marsh Lower, Underwood, Upper Huon, Wattle Hill, Whitemore#, Wilmot Lower, Zeehan T1(ii) (57)

R: all previous R rated cancellers as per Green Books No 2, except

Add: Daniels Bay, Bicheno T1, Tatana, Gunns Plains, Great Lake, Hamilton Road, Hayes, Hobart North, Interlaken, New Norfolk Rly Stn, Ridgley, Wyena, Wynyard T3, Zeehan(stops)

Subtract: Gray, Back Creek, Beach End, Bream Creek T2b, Gravelly Beach T2b, Coombend, Natone, Paradise (108)

[John Hardinge]

Wow, great post. This will take some time to digest.

I wonder though, if Windmill Hill has not been seen on Pictorial (but exists on telegram form/piece) with it should be rated RRRRR? It would be more sensible to include it in the pictorial listing as having a cds but rate it as NS? ("never seen").

Perhaps so. Goes to the arguement-are we collecting the CDS in the period or on pictorial. Is certainly known. All copies on telegrams 1905-1915 period. Any copies on stamps would only come from "saved" telegram forms and reckon it is too early for these. Very doubtful if it will be sen on pictorial. Earliest I have seen a cancel from the office at all on stamp is the 1940's. By that stage it is a different CDS.

[John Shepherd]

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.

[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".