tps.org.au

Very unusual and interesting item. Thanks for posting.
Pete

LAUNCESTON, JA 27 05
This is the first exampe I have seen of an unframed Launceston cds. Is it the Type 1 cds, noted on Pages 93 and 94 of the Green Book Part I and Page 73 of Part II, which seems to be very scarce? Are many examples known? Confirmation would be greatly appreciated.

I believe these are quite scarce. Congratulations! I have only two in 35 years.

Thanks for the comfirmation, David. The dates seem to be scattered over many years. I'll keep looking!

can someone fill me in on this stamp and its postmark Please???

Hi Ian,
This is the 16 bar 'dumb' obliterator of Hobart if i am counting the bars properly. I think there may be a couple of missing bars. It is also seen in 14 and 15 bars and I believe there is an un-recorded 17 bar type ( my memory might be a bit faulty here). You will not find a barred numeral form Hobart in the second Allocation as these barred 'dumb' cancellors were used in Hobart.
There are also types with thicker horizontal bars with "Tasmania" in the middle, which were half of a Hobart duplex cancellor, the other part being a circular date stamp

Pete

Thanks Pete,got it in a pack off Ebay today

Hi all wonder if anyone can help with these new postmarks that I have received??,thanks for your help in advance
Ian

Hi Sheeow,
I'd say the first is Tunnack and the second Carnarvon ( Pt Arthur).
Pete

Hi Sheow,

A reversed listing of Tasmanian Post Office Names by Maurice Mishkel was published as a supplement to the Australian Commonwealth Collectors Club of New South Wales Bulletin in April 2004. It gives you a second chance to identify partial c.d.s. where the last few letters are the most readable part of the strike.

Well worthwhile trying to find a copy.

Colin

Thanks, to you both for your help that helps a lot.Two more for the collection.
again thanks

Hi I having been collecting Australian States stamps for about 30 years and have never looked at post marks. Now with the stamps I need getting harder to get I am now looking at the postmarks. Can anyone correct the post marks I have named if they are in correct and help with the identification of the others with whether they are common or more dificult to find.

Thanks for any help.http://www.slickpic.com/s/M05NM1DNRMM0Q ... oto#619931http://www.slickpic.com/s/M05NM1DNRMM0Q ... oto#619931

Hi, The postmarks you have identified look pretty right so far.
For Tasmania,collectors have grouped the post marks into at least 4 major groupings: the bared numerals ( first and second allocation), the datestamps on Pictorials - Dec 1899 to 1912/13, the Commonwealth period postmarks from 1913, and the early date stamps form 1865 to 1899 . Luckily there are good references for three of these main catagories. The date stamps on Pictorials are particularly popular with collectors and the TPS has provided the current public list and rarity ratings on our website here http://www.tps.org.au/PDFs/Pictorial%20 ... Nov-09.pdf. There are other useful references on our site as well.
Our recent editions of the TPS journal, "The Courier" has the most up to date listing of the second allocation bared numerals - Editions 49 - 51, with 51 having a table of rarity ratings. You can buy these from the TPS for $10 each. Avery and Hardinge published Commonwealth Period date stamp listings and cancellations in two volumes - "Tasmanian Hand Cancellations 1913 - 88". The early date stamps are not currently listed in any publication. You have a couple there including Deap Lead with is scarce.
Although it might seem a bit of a pain to obtain copies of the above publications, just one 'find' could easily repay the investment you made.
If you decide to study Tas post marks in detail its definitely worth getting these publications.
In the meantime I can see Barred Numeral 52 of Launceston ( common) and 95 of Westbury ( common) in your lot. The other date stamps not annotated look fairly readable and i dont see anything scarce there. The Strahan No 2 on Pictorial is correctly noted as 1R - theres a brief explanation of the rarity rating in the on-line PDF mentioned above.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,

Pete

Hello Ross & all! Could someone please give me some info. on this postmark? I believe it is Strahan. Any help would be appreciated. Luis M.

Hi Luis ...long time no hear!!

yes, it is Strahan. The "defining feature" is the "code letter" above the dateline ... with a couple of exceptions,
only the larger offices used these "codes" and at the time of this cancel, Strahan was a very busy port and rail centre.

Thanks Ross! I was confused because in the "Rarity Ratings of Cancels" (PDF) Strahan is misspelled as "Stahan". I got excited thinking I had found a rare one! So, I take it is not a Strahan No.2? Thanks again, Luis M.

Strahan No.2 was used at a different post office (at the Strahan West railway station) - the post office
became Railway Telegraph Office after June 30 1901 and the postal facilities were withdrawn which may
explain why the postmark is rated RR.

Hi
I think the last comment posted by Ross may also apply to the Strahan No2 cancellation shown in Murfz1 question previous to this discussion.It looks as though it may only be the more common Strahan cancellation.
Here is a scan of the Strahan No2 cancel so you can compare murfz. Regards Daryl

Does this look like BN59 to you or is it the BN50 used at Lake River (the stamp has the TAS with connecting lines
watermark)? If it is BN59, I assume it's the type used at Glen Quoin.

I don't have an example of BN50 used at Lake River to make a comparison.

Any assistance will be appreciated!

Ross, this is a beauty. It is the 59 used at Glen Quoin indeed. A very scarce item indeed. The 50 is quite different in regards spacing etc

Hello,

can someone make out the numeral on this one? Something in the 320'ies/330'ies I guess, but what exactly?

Thank you.

I think it's 334.

Here's an image of BN334 from Osterley - rated RR.
I think we have "a match".

Thank you Jerry and Ross. So 334 it is; quite happy with the find .

All the best

Michael

Here's a puzzler .... does anyone know where this barred numeral cancel was applied?