tps.org.au

Envelopes could be stamped to order with 2d stamps, provided a large number of
envelopes were provided in advance. This information is presented in an article
in Philately from Australia for December 2001. Strictly speaking, that was true
from around 1894 onwards, not from 1891 as the article incorrectly states.

The question arises as to whether such 2d envelopes were prepared to private
order as early as the mid-1890s since 2d envelopes were already on sale to the
public (but at a slight premium over face value). If PTPO 2d envelopes exist
from this era, one might hope to recognise them by such things as the colour
of the envelope, the way it was cut out and assembled and by business names
printed on the envelopes. Of course, we also want to see dated examples if
any have survived.

From Geoff Kellow's article in The Courier, No. 18, on De La Rue correspondence
with Tasmania, it appears that a 2d embossing die was ordered in 1892. Surely,
this would have to be different from the 2d embossing die used to stamp the 2d
envelopes sold by the Post Office to the public ever since 1882.

The old Gibbons catalogues of that era included PTPO envelopes and wrappers
but there is no sign of a 2d PTPO envelope, except with ½d embossed stamp.
The few German catalogues held at the RPSV library that I've seen state that
the 2d was embossed to order as early as 1895 or earlier but I can't confirm
that. This included wrappers as well as envelopes.

Perhaps other readers out there on the Net can help.

The test that I always use is that PTPO embossings always show on the back of the envelope, but the official ones do not. I think this advice comes from the "Stationery" chapter in Tinsley by Owen Ingles.

Hobbit123 wrote:The test that I always use is that PTPO embossings always show on the back of the envelope,
but the official ones do not. I think this advice comes from the "Stationery" chapter in Tinsley by Owen Ingles.

This makes a lot of sense, especially for envelopes, since the official envelopes were made after the embossing was done.
Also, coloured papers would be PTPO and so would private envelopes with the business name printed thereon or with some
type of monogram on the reverse flap.

The question now becomes one of seeking an early date for a PTPO 2d envelope, possibly within the Colonial era.

Here is a scan of a portion of a 16 SE 1893 cover to Adolph Bauer, Erfurt, Germany, a well-known dealer in postal stationery. The 2d is PTPO because it was obviously the second embossed on the envelope, as well as the embossing goes all the way to the back of the envelope. This is a 2d PTPO with a halfpenny PTPO. I have not run across a 2d single PTPO on cover in what is left of my postal stationery covers. All are PO issue, and nearly all I have were used by Basset Hull. David

Many thanks to David for this scan. Now it's clear why the
½d + 2d ( with ½d next to corner, 2d added) is PTPO. As
David makes clear, the embossing goes all the way to the
back of the envelope.

Clearly Hobart already had an embossing die for 2d by late 1893.
There is a reference to an order in 1892 for a 2d embossing die
in Geoff Kellow's article in The Courier, No. 18 on the De La Rue
correspondence with Tasmania.

This die would probably not be the one that De La Rue used for
embossing the 2d PO envelopes issued from 1882 onwards.

This is a very nice scan indeed. It is still a mystery as to how a
½d singleton PTPO envelope ever got issued in the 1890s if we
are to believe the reports in Stanley Gibbons of those days (and,
of course, the few German journals that I've seen).

(Please see separate post on the ½d envelope.)

I have in my collection a mint envelope similar to David's and a single-franked PTPO 2d that is a notification of a Brownell Bros. Sale .

I managed to find them, and here are the scans:

The 2d + ½ d (mint) envelope:
I note that there is a clear line across the 2d impression from the 'T' of Two to the 'T' of Postage that reflects the overlapped paper at the rear of the envelope.

The Brownell Bros sale 'flyer'.
The date on this item is 4 JA 1893, so it is a fairly early use of the 2d PTPO die. However, there were many of these flyers sent out, so they should be fairly common. There was a cache of 6 with the scarce 'NOT KNOWN' handstamp with 15 boxes, all dated 1/1/93 sold through Prestige some years ago. (I had an example in my Instructional Markings exhibit).

This flyer is embossed with a 1d in green, not a 2d.
The 1d is known embossed in green on envelopes
but this item seems to be new.

Sorry Bill, careless of me. I guess that it is paying the Printed Matter rate.

I will have another look through my stationery box for a PTPO 2d (preferably solo) used.

Thanks to Hobbit123. I look forward to whatever you can find.

Somewhat to my surprise, a successful trawl of the box. Thank goodness for AG Webster. I found two examples of Webster's PTPO 2d envelopes, both used, and a separate PTPO 2d with no indication of source, but clearly (from the back) privately embossed. I show one of the Webster covers (dated 10/9/08) and the private one (dated 22/4/04) below.
I also found a mint 2½d, privately embossed:
Judging from the items that I have and have seen, the shade of green on PTPO stamps seems to be slightly bluer than the Post Office items.

I have several different PTPO envelopes with the 2d embossing. The only used one is dated 30 Aug 1901 - image attached.

The other "single" 2d PTPO envelopes are unused. In all cases the size, paper or flap cut is different to the official 2d envelope. Details are:

140x78 mm, triangular cut flap, very lightweight cream paper
127x87 mm, triangular cut flap, heavy diagonal laid paper
137x80 mm, rounded flap, smooth light buff paper

I also have the 2d embossing within various combinations, but all are unused.

Her's the envelope missing from previous post (cyberspace error)

Very nice scan indeed from 'shatten'.

Do you have the actual dimensions of that envelope and the shape of the flap, please?

I do indeed. It's 152 mm x 87 mm, a relatively large size. Nothing of interest on the reverse, typical rounded flap.

And here's the flap - had to enhance it for visibility. I thought I was the only TPS member interested in the shape of flaps!!

Many thanks for the dimensions and the shape of the flap.

The Higgins and Gage catalogue of postal stationery gave a fair amount
of detail on flaps, shapes and dimensions. Their German sources went
into even more detail.

My copy of H&G (1986) has no information about Tasmanian flap shapes or embossings. Is there a later version with more information on these aspects of PTPO stationery?

No, Higgins and Gage has not been reprinted as far as I know.
That catalogue referred to flap shapes (part of the 'knife') in
the case of Victoria but not Tasmania. Obviously, this was a
complicated subject for that State but they didn't discuss it
for most other countries in their catalogue.

We're back to recent auction illustrations, Tinsley and the BB.

David McNamee wrote:Here is a scan of a portion of a 16 SE 1893 cover to Adolph Bauer, Erfurt, Germany, a well-known dealer in postal stationery. The 2d is PTPO because it was obviously the second embossed on the envelope, as well as the embossing goes all the way to the back of the envelope. This is a 2d PTPO with a halfpenny PTPO. I have not run across a 2d single PTPO on cover in what is left of my postal stationery covers.

I have just located another PTPO envelope to Bauer mailed in June 1893 with the 2d die - the Erfurt arrival b/stamp indicates the usual transmission time
for the period - 6 to 8 weeks. I refer to Owen Ingles' chapter in Tinsley (page 148) where he cites that the De La Rue records indicate that on "February 27th 1898. 2d postage envelope embossing die and 2d stamp duty die returned (in a case forwarded to Hobart)".

Until now, the limited literature on Tasmanian PTPO stationery has been unanimous in expressing the opinion that the 2d Die was not used in Tasmania until 1898 thus explaining the use of 'doubleton' and 'tripleton' embossings on PTPO envelopes, etc. e.g 1d + 1d or 1d + 1d + ½d.

Although both covers now illustrated in this topic are to the same addressee, it appears that the De La Rue records may not be correct or have not been correctly read; i.e. '1893' not '1898'.

Discuss

The 'discovery' of the 2d die used in 1893 really throws the De La Rue entry referred to by Ingles on P.148 in the Tinsley book into question. Easton in "The De La Rue History of British and Foreign Postage Stamps" focusses on the stamp issues only and so the reference to the 2d embossed stamp die must come from the correspondence books. These are held on microfilm and so we now need to refer back to them to ascertain whether the DLR correspondence entry referred to by Owen Ingles as a February 27th 1898 entry has been mis-read and should be 1893? My enquiries have ascertained that the Tasmania reel once held by the Philas Library has 'gone missing' and so I will try and track down another copy.
The weight of evidence points to an error in the reading of the DLR entry as we now have several examples pre-dating 1898 including the cover I have scanned. It is interesting as it is NOT addressed to Adolph Bauer and so adds even more weight to the argument that there needs to be a revision of our thinking on this matter.

That's a shock to find that the reel from the Australian Joint Copy Project
holding all that De La Rue correspondence) is missing from Philas Library.
A copy is held at the State Library in Melbourne. The full reel details are
described in Geoff Kellow's article in The Courier on this correspondence.
With that information, you will be able to contact the State Library and
ask to examine this data.