tps.org.au

Does anyone know if any of these "squiggles and lines" cancels have been tied to any particular offices?

Ross,
I think some of these are seen from more than one office ( or at least similar patterns were used in more than one location.)
When I get a moment I can have a look at David McNamee's first allocation collection ( which he has kindly sent me and which I should put on-line on our website when I get a chance) as he has some tied examples. For instance your first example on the left looks similar to a Macquarie Plains pen cancel.
David may be able comment with a more definitive answer than I can provide.

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


Ross, believe it or not I think this is what remained of the first type of 187 at end of it's life. Quite rare in this state but lmost unreadable of course.

RE: pen marks off cover. There is nothing reliable to identify particular offices, except those that used initials or date or numerals. There are resemblances to tied markings, but I would not put my reputation on the line for any of them.

Could someone tell me which of the Launceston types this postmark is. My thoughts are that it is the type 2 (Green book vol 1 Fig 96 for image and Vol2 page 73 for date). I found a couple of these in an envelope of common Launceston types and this example is the nicer of the two.

Geoff,
I probably know as much or less than you about this cds but for my money I agree with your assesment.
This cds is not on my radar at all and I find it interesting that a 'modern' type of cds was made as early as 1868. The earliest 'modern' type 1s are 1877 as I understand it.
I hope someone an shed more light on this.
Great find!

I am not an expert on Launceston cancels but I think this one is different to the example shown on pg. 96 of Vol. I of the "Green Books". Fig. 96 shows the same diameter [24mm] and the position of Launceston and Tasmania appear to be similar, however, the day/month slugs and the year slugs are much higher on the 3d. pictorial. If you look at the day and month slugs on the pictorial stamp they are almost in line with the "L" and 2nd. "N" of Launceston, whereas on the example in the book, the day and month slugs are well below the "L" and "N". But how often do you find Launceston Type 1 cancels without a code letter?

Hello can anyone tell me the rating of Impression Bay please,[img][img]impressionbay[/img][/img]

I don't think your image has displayed properly? At least I can't see it, just the <Img> tags.
I can check for you when I return home Friday if no one else has replied but will need to either see the image or a description ie date , wording on the postmark and possibly the stamp that it's on.
Pete

hotdish wrote:Hello can anyone tell me the rating of Impression Bay please,[img][img]impressionbay[/img][/img]

Here is the current listing for Impression Bay
P.S. for the sake of good order please post queries etc, into the correct category (I have moved this post across to the Postmarks to 1912 category)

P.P.S. the 'Img' facility can only be used if you can access your image on the internet. The TPS BB encourage members to upload
images to the site directly using the 'Upload attachment' facility (see below text box when making a post). It is similar to (and as simple
as) adding an image to an e-mail or uploading same to an eBay listing. Please contact me if you need assistance.

Ross Ewington - TPS BB Moderator

I have been looking at letter bills, to provide some info for Mr Hardinge. Amongst many hundreds, I found about 10 that have date stamps on the reverse of the bill. There are two different shapes - round and flattened - and they contain a two-line date. There is no trace of any other information in the stamp. Images are attached.

All are for 1884 except one in 1880. The dispatching offices are Ross, Campania, Antill Ponds, Bridgewater and Glenorchy. The receiving offices are Green Ponds and Brighton. I can't find anything in the Green Books. Maybe they're just date stamps, but why on only a tiny proportion of bills?

Hi Allen

These are the first two types of datestamps used by TPOs on the mainline railway - see Part I of the "Green Books" pages 156-161 (second edition page numbers)

Theres some controversy about these. A later view is they are transit markings for mail coming through Hobart from one country Office to another. Its also believed they are cut down versions of older handstamps. There was quite a row between Dr Clemente and Lew Viney ( I think it was Lew Viney) on the matter.
There are RLPS and PFA articles on the debate. When I get time I will see if I can up-load the Lew Viney article.
Can you work out the posting office and the destination? It would be interesting to test the theory as there are few enough examples around.
Pete

Thanks Pete. I'm not "up to speed" with these two postmarks however I cannot recall having seen either datestamp used on mail which would not have been carried by rail at some stage during transmission.

Ross,
you are probably right. Viney thought that the marking was a transit marking applied in Hobart for country mail that went through the GPO bound for another country office and in most cases would have travelled by train on one or more legs of the journey. He says the postal regulations at the time would mean the mail wrapped in the letter bill would also be enclosed within a mail bag which could not have been stamped on the train, but would have been unpacked and directed on to the destination, the handstamp being applied as a transit marking at Hobart.
He also suggest that mail on the Main Line directed to an office further down the line would have first gone to Hobart, then been sent back to the destination ( my assumption based on reading his article in PfA 1984).
He was writing well after the Green Books.
There is an earlier article by Clemente in the London Philatelist and also Randall Askeland did a very detailed analysis of this and other issues which was printed in the London Philatelist.
My understanding is that Viney's view was the last word but I am not completely sure. Malcolm Groom may be able to be more definite.
In any case there is probably scope for further research to confirm the story.
If anyone is interested in doing some further analysis, I have three examples and am happy to provide these to an interested person.
I can also dig out the relevant articles if anyone wants to read them - there are perhaps 10 - 12 pages of detailed discussion.

Is anyone interested in doing some work to confirm the origin of these markings?
Viney's articles from Philately from Australia No 2, June 1984 is attached.
Pete

Fascinating - thanks Pete and Ross for comments and digging.

Green Book Part II p136 is quite specific and it is this page that Mr Viney disagrees with. Mr Viney's conclusion is based on an interpretation of regulation 60 (Gr Book Part 1 page 188 1st edn) but another interpretation is possible. This alternative interpretation is that that the regulation applies only to letters which must pass through Hobart to achieve delivery.

One of my stamped letter bills - with type J - is from Campania (main line) to Green Ponds (Apsley line). This mail could have been sent down to Hobart and back up to Brighton, or it could have been held at Brighton, for the Apsley train. However, another is for mail from Bridgewater to Brighton, also stamped with type J. It's difficult to see why you would send this mail via Hobart - the stations were adjacent on the main line.

There's nothing for it but that I examine the back of all my letter bills (many hundreds) and report back via this post. Please stand by.

Thanks Allen. Its good to see someone is looking into this and I will be most interested in what you come up with. This issue is one for the "Green Books" mark 2.
If you have any interest in my 3 letter bills with this marking, I am happy to post them on here and/or send them to you. Just kets know.
One interesting thing is there are so few of these - one would think there was more through-mail via Hobart. I also wonder if the mails were all put into a bag from whatever post office, each lot for a specific PO wrapped in its letter bill and the bag opened and sorted at Hobart then re-directed. The Bridgewater > Brighton mail however tends to disprove this theory at least for adjacent POs.

Pete

I don't think there is much doubt these markings were used on the T.P.O. They are known on covers that likely would not have gone all the way to Hobart

Hi all, 92 letter bills were examined, with dates from 1880 to 31/12/1885. The results are not conclusive.
Green Book Part II is very specific about H and J date stamps. It states that H and J remained in mail carriages on the Main Line and were applied to mail posted in the first travelling PO on that line. My results support, but do not prove, this assertion. A summary of results follows:

H or J stamps were applied to letter bills to Green Ponds (now Kempton, on the Apsley line) from Ross (5), Bridgewater (2), South Bridgewater (1), Campania (2), Campbell Town (2), Glenorchy (2) and Parattah (1) – all of which were on the Main Line. But the stamps were also applied to mail from Richmond (4) and Cranbrook (2) (near Bicheno). There is evidence that the date stamps were applied to letter bills for Green Ponds only between Jan 1884 and around Oct 1885. From other markings, it is unlikely that all these bills went via Hobart (as suggested by Mr Viney).
Bills from Brighton (2) and Brighton Station (1) to Green Ponds were not date-stamped. Brighton is the junction of the Apsley and Main Lines. Bills to Green Ponds from 16 other offices (not on the Main Line) around the state were not date-stamped.
The H stamp was applied to 1 bill from Bothwell to Brighton and 1 from Bridgewater to Brighton in 1880, but not to later bills from those offices. A bill from Campania on the Main Line to Brighton was not date-stamped. Bills from 13 other offices to Brighton were not date-stamped.

It seems to me that, in order to be conclusive, we’d need to know exactly how mail under cover of letter bills was conveyed between offices. If anyone wants the detailed tabulation, Admin has my email address.

Allen, many thanks for your analysis.
I cant see how mail from POs not on a railway line could be treated as TPO mail ? Surely they were placed in a mail bag and would not have been opened until they reached another post office? The Bothwell mail went via road to Aplsley I believe then by train, but it would surely not be treated as TPO mail? It would just be a mail bag travelling on a train once it got to Apsley.
I am starting to wonder if these stamps have anything to do with TPOs at all and if there is something else going on we dont understand.

It is probably possible to locate the relevant regulations regarding the use of letter bills by checking the PO regulations applying at the time. I dont have the time to research this at the moment but will see what I can find in due course.

Some further research on the question of the use of markings 'H' and 'j' reveals that firstly I was wrong in my understanding of postal routes around the 1880s. A map dated 1889 shows all the postal routes in place at that time, and there is clearly a route from Cranbrook North via what is now Royal George to the Fingal Valley and on to Corners and the Main Line ( now Conarra).

There was also a route North from Richmond to the main line at Campania.
This means that mail from Cranbrook and Richmond might well have travelled to the Main Line direct and not via Hobart.

More significantly, I have located a very detailed article by Randall Askeland published in the London Philatelist in 1992 where some thousands of Letter Bills were examined and it seems to have been conclusively proved the markings 'H' and 'J' were applied on the Main Line TPO as transit markings, and only on the Main Line TPO. The analysis is based on very detailed consideration of railway timetables, postal routes both via train and road and postal regulations applying at the time.

The matters discussed are far too lengthy to quote in detail and the article is too big to up-load, but if anyone is interested in a copy, please contact me via this discussion board.

The markings have been seen between 15/4/1879 and 9/6/1886. They are only seen on sealed or tied Letter Bills. They are not seen on Letter Bills marked Hobart or Launceston unless mis-sent. The sealed Letter Bills were used as mail bags in that they contained mail and were wrapped around the mail and sealed with wax and a Crown Seal.

Type 'H' was assigned to and applied on the Mail Train from Hobart on Mon, Wed, and Friday evenings arriving at Launceston on Tues, Thursday and Sat mornings and returning from Launceston the same evenings.

Type 'J' was assigned to and applied on the Mail Train leaving Hobart on Tues, Thurs and Saturday evenings and arriving at Launceston Wed, Friday and Mon mornings and returning from Launceton the same evenings.

Mails from the E Coast if sent via Corners reached TML Rly on the same day.

The article contained details of the mail schedule and timetable, postal regulations and many of the then current routes connecting to the Main Line between Hobart and Launceston.

Hello
I need help to identify this manuscript cancellation.
The stamps are double lined 4 watermark.

I show you also on the other side Thanks for your help

It reads "July 18" if my eyesight isn't deceiving me but unfortunately, as to where it's from, it doesn't say.

My best guess is July 18 - a stamp duty cancell.
Pete

Thanks all for your help
And apologies for something looks really easy for you! English language is still difficult for me, but I try " to keep going".
regards
laurent