Help to identify First Allocation numerals

[admin]

If anyone can identify any of the following numerals I would be grateful.
There are two possible Numeral 19 (both lined numeral chalons so they might be second allocation), and 4 manuscript numerals.
You can use the ID numbers.

First-All-19-.jpg (1.19 MiB) Viewed 9261 times

First-Allocation-MS-numerals.jpg (236.36 KiB) Viewed 9261 times

[Jerry Weirich]

To start with, your N3 and N4 are a nice pair in the same hand. Flip them 180 degrees. The numeral is 36 (Huon).

The others I want to examine more. If I have anything to add, I'll post something.

[admin]

Thanks Jerry.
Pete

[John Hardinge]

Peter, the first two on the 1d's are second allocation 19 of Chudleigh and first allocation 19 of Port Arthur respectively.

Jerry is correct re 36. N2 is 41 of Lake River. Classic sloping 4 and ambiguous looking 1. N3 is 46 of New Town. Characteristic 4 that looks like a Y.

[admin]

John, thanks.
Just so I am sure, 19A = Chudleigh (Second Allocation) and 19B = Pt Arthur?
I am confused about the manuscript numerals. Jerry says N3 and N4 are No 36 ( but I need to switch the images 180Degrees) but you think N3 is 46 of New Town? I assume N3 and N4 are the same..
When you say 36, do you mean N1?

Pete

[John Hardinge]

Correct a is 2nd allocation, B is first. Yes N3 and N4 are 36, but so is N1 I think you will find. The other N2 is 41 of Lake River. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jerry Weirich]

Pete, John -- I think the 19A and 19B are both first allocation numerals. On the second allocation numeral 19, the top serif of the 1 should be straight and the ball of the 9 should be further left. On the 19A, the top serif is clearly sloped and the ball of the 9 is not far enough left. I have attached a scan of the second allocation 19 of Chudleigh for comparison. New thoughts? Jerry

SA_19.jpg (23.86 KiB) Viewed 9219 times

[John Hardinge]

The second numeral is definitely first allocation 19 of Port Arthur. Have attached a tying cover.

[Jerry Weirich]

John -- Nice cover! The second numeral, however, is not the one of concern. I agree with you that it is first allocation.
The first numeral, designated 19A, is the stamp in question. You indicated it was second allocation of Chudleigh. I believe it is first allocation Port Arthur.
Could you please tell us why you think it is second allocation. Thanks, Jerry

[admin]

Thank you for the comments so far. Following Jerry's comments I have now made a comparison image with the BN in question, Left (A), a Second allocation BN19 centre (B), and the confirmed first allocation BN19(C) on the right.
To me its now clear that both A and C are first allocation as the center example differs clearly in a number of respects. The tail on the 9 in B is both significantly more flattened at the bottom and the ball serif on the tail extends further to the left. As Jerry said, A (the original image in question) also has a sloping serif at the top of the "1". While the second allocation 19 (B) does not show a serif due to wear or inking, second allocations "1" had a serif at right angles to the stem of the "1".
Does this sound right?

BN-19-comparison-.jpg (464.63 KiB) Viewed 9208 times

[John Hardinge]

Sorry Peter it doesn't> C is first allocation, quite distinctive. A is definitely second. I think the letter shape is different but the best bet is to measure the distance between the 1 and (. They are much closer on the first allocation. From the far edge of the 1 to the far edge of the 9 is 24 mm in the first allocation numeral i.e "C". In "A", the second allocation numeral, this distance is 34mm a huge difference. Yes A and B do look dissimilar, but do not discount the possibility that B is 61, not 19. Later on numeral became worn and did not impress as sharply, especially the delicate seriphs.

[admin]

John, thanks. I will try measuring the originals and yes perhaps the comparison second allocation numera is 61.
Will do some further investigation .
Pete