BN75 - Help Wanted

[shatten]

Hi folks, I’m seeking info about the BN75 cancellation in the image.
It appears to be a first allocation strike – the 5 is sloping and the 7 has a tapered horizontal stroke. The numerals are quite different to my other 2nd allocation strikes with 5 or 7 in them. However, from the Green Books and Mr Shepherd, 1st allocation numerals are found only on imperforate stamps.

75 has been tied to Hobart as a relatively common 1st allocation strike (Green Book 1). However, there is a note on p35 that “Although they had been withdrawn, these first obliterators were apparently held in store, as certain of them were later used again.” Some examples are listed; 75 is not one of them.
The stamp itself is a 1/- dull vermillion. It has mixed perforations 11 and 11½. The current SG 2010 lists the 1871 – 91 issue as perf 11½ only but my 1980 version of Stanley Gibbons lists the 1871 – 80 issue as “P 11, 11½”. Tassie stamps are not in my area of expertise but there are no other 1/- issues listed having p11.

In the 2nd allocation, 75 went to Recherche Bay, later Ramsgate. This receiving House became a PO “from about 1877 – 78” (Green Book 1). In Courier no 49, John Shepherd notes that 75 has not been tied.
Could the 1st allocation 75 have been held in store for 16 years and then sent to Recherche Bay? Seems unlikely. Could 75 have been retained for special use in Hobart?
Do any of our experts have more info? Other examples of 75 on perforated stamps would be of interest.

[admin]

Hi Alan,
A number of 1st allocation bns were reused in the second allocation but not in the initial issue in 1861. BN 75 was certainly never re-used in Hobart after 1861. If no-one else can solve this I can check my records and examples later next week - I'm away from home at present

[David McNamee]

The Recherche Bay BN 75 examples in both the Askeland Second Allocation reference collection and my own look like your example -- a thick "7" and a slanted "5." The top of your "7" is not tapered -- at least not as tapered as my First Allocation example. BN 75 was issued to Recherche Bay in 1861 in the initial distribution of the Second Allocation numerals. I will try to find some time to post pictures so the you can see the difference.

[admin]

Attached are two Second Allocation BN 75, and a First Allocation 59 on the left, showing the difference between the 5s .
THe first allocation 5 is similar but the ball of the 5 extends further to the left and beyond a line taken down the vertical stroke of the 5 .
There is something of a curve in the horizontal stroke of the 5 in both but its more pronounced in the First Allocation as David says.
I'd say your example is second allocation.

BN-75.jpg (63.79 KiB) Viewed 3585 times

[Jerry Weirich]

I would like to suggest an alternative. I think the BN75 on the one shilling is a fake. I have no direct evidence, but it doesn't look right to me as either a first or second allocation BN. I'm also hesitate to describe the specific features that lead me to that conclusion because I don't want to help future forgers. Is there any evidence that this "cancellation" was applied over a fiscal cancellation?? I was not able to tell from the scan.

[admin]

To be honest I'm not convinced its not genuine, but knowing the provenance might help to identify a possible forgery. I haven't head of any recent Tas BN forgeries but I understand there may have been some in the past. Do we have any details of the seller of the item or past history ?

[admin]

thinking further about Jerry's comments I have located better examples of the Second allocation BN 75. Here are examples from the Askeland collection alongside the example on the 1 shilling and the three examples I posted.If you look at the very obvious serif on the top bar of the 7 in the Askeland example , and some of the features of the 5, its clear enough the example on the 1 shilling is different to the second allocation examples from the Askeland collection. Gerry has a definite point here - but is the shilling example a forgery or is it a First Allocation numeral ? Does anyone have a first allocation BN 75 ? I cant quite work out whats going on here.

BN-75-comparison-Askeland.jpg (598.05 KiB) Viewed 3562 times

[David McNamee]

Here is a 1st Allocation BN75 on 4d Chalon tied to a cover Hobart to Launceston 22 August 1859 + a strip of 3x1d Chalons purchased as "forged BN 75s" at a TPS club auction some years ago + a 1st Allocation BN75 on 1d Chalon tied to a Hobart drop letter 1 September 1859. Both Malcolm and Ross opined the strip of 3 as forged, even tho they looked pretty good to me at the time. They carry some of the same characteristics as the suspected shilling cancel, but not exactly. So I retract my earlier statement that the suspect is 2nd Allocation -- it is not, obviously, from the side by side comparison made by Peter. Most likely a forgery.

By the way, I have seen forgeries of BN85 and BN53 on Courier 4d. Interesting that all of them have s "5" in the number. David

BN75s.jpg (83.26 KiB) Viewed 3555 times

[Ross Ewington]

Here are the suspect BN57s together for comparison

bn75.jpg (150.18 KiB) Viewed 3534 times

If I remember correctly, the 1d Chalon strip has evidence of having been fiscally cancelled (note RH unit in particular).
Of course, this doesn't prove that the postmarks were faked however the fact that the format of the BN57 cancel on an
1859 cover illustrated by David (see previous posting) is quite different makes the case for the "thumbs down" compelling.

[shatten]

It’s great to be in a society where the members show such interest. I have sent a message to the vendor asking about provenance but am not hopeful. It’s clear that my 75 is not a second allocation 75. Therefore, it’s either a forgery or a 1st allocation 75, used much later than expected.

I have uploaded an image of the “forged” 75, the first allocation and my 1/- copy. In both images the stamps are the same size and the postmarks are aligned at the same angle. I have made comparisons of the angles of the numbers and the horizontal and vertical lines. They are all very similar, mostly within tolerance of distortions over 140 – 160 years and the variable clarity of the strikes.

However, there is a clear difference in relation to the lower horizontal bars. The difference also applies for the example in David’s drop letter. Noting Jerry’s comments, I say no more…. But I believe that the strip of three and my 1/- have a forged cancellation. If anyone is interested, I can send a graphic illustration by email.

If you look at my 1/- stamp through a magnifier, there are very faint traces of thin dark lines near the point of the “7”. Also the Queen’s face is lacking in detail. These features support the possibility that a fiscal cancellation was cleaned off the stamp.
But what a lot of work for a few dollars……

Tas 75 v2.JPG (90.13 KiB) Viewed 3522 times

[John Hardinge]

This seems like a real rather than contrived postmark. Definitely first allocation 75. It seems much more likely to me that it is on a re-perfed (i.e. formerly imperf) stamp. Certainly would not be the first example of such seen.

[Ross Ewington]

....but these are definitely two different cancellers and the one on the 4d Chalon is 'kosher' .

bn75 again.jpg (126.67 KiB) Viewed 3366 times

[John Hardinge]

Actually the bars are different-missed that on a cursory examination! Would say it must a contrived cancel to cover a fiscal marking.

[Geoff Dane]

The attached is an image of a BN75 in an album of barred numerals I purchased several months ago. The stamps appear to have been washed (starched) and ironed. I can not see any indication of a pen cancel. The whole package seems just too neat and perfect for an not common item.

bn75.jpg (135.77 KiB) Viewed 3361 times