RE-CONSIDERING CURRENT RARITY RATINGS - ANY SUGGESTIONS?

[Ross Ewington]

The rarity ratings assigned to "Commonwealth Period" Tasmanian postmarks (from R to RRRRR) by John Avery and
John Hardinge have proven to be reasonably "rock solid" but every now and again collectors such as myself ponder as to the rarity
rating (or lack thereof) of the occasional postmark.

This topic is designed for TPS BB members with an interest in Tassie postmarks to suggest some postmarks for consideration
or re-consideration in this regard.

Firstly, we need a reprise of the criteria established by Avery & Hardinge to consider rarity of a specific postmark.
Unfortunately, these criteria were not included in either volume of "Tasmanian Cancellations 1913-88" so this may
be "new" to some collectors who do not have a copy of John Avery's article in The Courier (No.8) from September 1988.

Here it is.......
___________________ to open the complete text, click on the image once_______________________
[attachment=0]avery rarity ratings.jpg[/attachment]

I will suggest my 'first contender' in a new post and leave this introductory one to record the postmarks which may be suggested
for appraisal (or re-appraisal) at some future date.

LIST OF TASMANIAN POSTMARKS from 1913 to PRESENT SUGGESTED IN THIS TOPIC FOR APPRAISAL (or RE-APPRAISAL) OF RARITY

MONTANA · Type 2b · current status - UNRATED · SEE http://tps.org.au/bb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=922#p3903 · press your backspace key to return here

[Ross Ewington]

My first candidate.....

jb1109.jpg (105.06 KiB) Viewed 22994 times

MONTANA · Type 2c · current ERD 27 NOV 1915 and LRD 3 FEB 1965 · currently UNRATED

The case for re-appraisal:

Yes, this datestamp was used for 50 years but how many have you seen and when you find
an example I imagine the clarity and/or completeness isn't as good as what you see above?!

I have NEVER seen more than 10 examples of this postmark and I believe is is a contender
for RRR status i.e. less than 50 copies (in any condition) held by collectors.

What do you think? How many examples do you have?

[admin]

As my own collection is around 5-6 years old only, I dont consider it particularly useful in terms of making any definitive statements about rarity.
For what its worth, I do have one good example of this post mark and would have considered it 1-2 R. I have seen at least one other.
I will not post a scan unless there is some interest in viewing my example.
Pete

[admin]

I have just found another copy of Montana on a pair of 1d reds Apr 1919. Both examples in my collection are quite good in terms of clarity and completeness

[Ross Ewington]

The MONTANA cds sold for $52 in Tasmanian Stamp Auctions' Online Auction #15 (2.2.13)

montana rr.jpg (28.42 KiB) Viewed 22930 times

I'm still keen on RRR status (less than 50 examples known) but quite happy to settle for RR.

[Ross Ewington]

The Type 8 used at LEGANA (below at left) is rated R but not the Type 8T (below at right)

q5186.jpg (184.9 KiB) Viewed 22846 times

Here is the current 'status' of steel and neoprene-face datestamps used at LEGANA from the
late 1980s through to the mid 1990s.

legana datestamps.jpg (63.13 KiB) Viewed 22846 times

Although the period of use of the Type 8T was much shorter than for the Type 8 (17 months as opposed
to 3+ years), there is a strong possibility that this datestamp is just as scarce and therefore, possibly deserves
a single 'R' rating.

What do you think?

P.S. due to the short period that many of the Type 8 datestamps were in use, many at very 'small' offices,
there is possibly quite a number of datestamps from this period (late 80s/early 90s) which may deserve
some consideration in regard to rarity. Can you think of any contenders?

[Ross Ewington]

Montagu Bay Type 5 is currently rated R (on telegram clipping). I handle literally 1000s of Tasmanian postmarks every year
and this is first example I have had on my desk for 5 or more years ...and this is not a top class strike either!

qq2269.jpg (172.66 KiB) Viewed 22234 times

I suggest elevation of one 'notch' to RR status on telegram clippings - what do you think?

To read John Avery's description of an RR rated postmark please take this link http://tps.org.au/bb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=922#p3902
to the original post in this topic. (you can return here with your Backspace key)

[Ross Ewington]

The silence re MONTAGU BAY has been a little underwhelming so I'll try another one, this time

WESTERN JUNCTION - Type 3

qq2333.jpg (97.05 KiB) Viewed 22094 times

I see many RR rated postmarks more often than this one

On John Avery's criteria for rarity (see above), I think it qualifies for an 'R' ...what do you think?

Your thoughts on the Montagu Bay Type 5 are still most welcome as well!

[John Hardinge]

Used to see a lot of "Montagu Bay" in the golden years of the "Pettard era". Have not seen one for a long time. It's a bit like it's much more scarce cousins Mercer and Rutland. Have not seen them for a while either. Don't know where all that ex telegram stuff is-hoarded somewhere. Your right, it may be worth more. Very, very hard to get postally used that's for sure.

[Jeffharris]

I was just having another look at this topic and noticed the two cancels of Legana. The cancel on the 45c. Land Conservation stamp looks [to me] more like a Type 6T cancel. The letters are slightly larger than those of Type 8 and the arcs shorter. I am aware that some type 8 cancels have shorter arcs, however, this one appears to be a Type 6. The stamp was issued on 11th. June 1992 and this copy is cancelled 25th. June 1992.

[Ross Ewington]

Definitely a Type 8T ..... check out the dateline ......also font different to that used on the Type 6; also the diameter is much larger.

If it were a Type 6 cds we would have seen examples from the late 1960s or early 1970s by now ...especially from a reasonably busy post office in that era.

[Jeffharris]

Thank you for your response Ross. I thought it might be something 'new', but not to be. Perhaps I should stick to the subjects I know something about. If I had researched this properly, I would have found the answer at Figure 77 on page 19 of 'Tas. Hand Cancellations 1913-88 Part. 1. Hence, the old saying "Act in haste - repent in leisure"

[Ross Ewington]

SIMPSONS BAY - Type 4a - currently not rated

simpsons bay type 4a.jpg (363.39 KiB) Viewed 21945 times

I just found this rather fine example of the unrated Type 4a cds and cannot recall having seen another
example for a very long time.

Given that 1000s of Tasmanian postmarks pass over my desk each year, many being 'collected' as postmarks for the first time,
I think that this cds qualifies for an 'R' at least (i.e. an 'R' rating = "Not plentiful but not hard to find either")

What do you think?

[Ross Ewington]

It's been over a year since I queried the lack of a rating for the SIMPSON'S BAY (see above)

Again, a 'R' rating = "Not plentiful but not hard to find either" ..... I haven't seen another example since making the post

Oh well, I don't give up all that easily ....what about this one

DEE BRIDGE - Type 1 used post 1912 and currently rated 'R'. Every year I sort through 1000s and 1000s of Tasmanian
postmarks and this is the first example of a DEE BRIDGE Type 1 cds I have seen for a very long time.

sh1013.jpg (171.52 KiB) Viewed 21330 times

An 'RR' rating was defined by John Avery as "Reasonably difficult although generally available both on the retail market and by exchange"

I think it's even a little scarcer than that but I'll settle for a one step upgrade to 'RR' ...what do you think??

[admin]

SIMPSONS BAY - Type 4a - currently not rated



I just found this rather fine example of the unrated Type 4a cds and cannot recall having seen another
example for a very long time.

Given that 1000s of Tasmanian postmarks pass over my desk each year, many being 'collected' as postmarks for the first time,
I think that this cds qualifies for an 'R' at least (i.e. an 'R' rating = "Not plentiful but not hard to find either")

What do you think?

For some reason I missed this.
I started collecting Bruny Island a few years ago and was very pleased when I found my first type 4a for Simpson's Bay. However over a period of 12 - 18 months I was able to located examples on a Registered cover and two or three on clippings .I purchased a few medium-sized collections and it was usually included

I think if you are focusing on a limited area you will tend to have more luck than when trying to collect everything. The definition "Not plentiful but not hard to find either" seems appropriate to me ( R rating). I dont think its worth more than that .

We probably need a statistician to create a rigorous rating. You could express rarity in terms of standard deviations from the mean. You could assume a normal distribution of postmarks in a collection, perhaps. This is probably not going to appeal to some but it might be interesting to think of postmark rarity in terms of the chances of finding an example - 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000, 1 in 10,000 or the equivalent in standard deviations.

[Ross Ewington]

thanks Pete,

If I come across a statistician, I'll run the idea past him/her.

Here is John Hardinge's current guidelines as to to rarity (taken from a pre-publication draft ..... yes, a new book on Tasmanian Postmarks A-Z is not that far away!!)

ratings chart.jpg (52.64 KiB) Viewed 21325 times

[Ross Ewington]

Here's another one worthy of at least an 'R' according to both John Avery's and John Hardinge's rarity scales (see above)

UNDERWOOD - Type 4

underwood type 4.jpg (27.78 KiB) Viewed 21320 times

What do you think?

[John Hardinge]

Ross, just harking back to Simpsons Bay-I have seen heaps of these, including 20+ regd covers.

RE Underwood TYpe 4. You may have a point.

[Ross Ewington]

LATE FEE · LAUNCESTON TAS

In 30+ years of collecting Tasmanian postmarks I have only owned one example of this postmark and
it was nowhere near as good as this strike

wc1010.jpg (117.98 KiB) Viewed 21008 times

Must be worth at least an 'R' ....what do you think? (I'll settle for an 'S')

[admin]

I think an "R" is not un-reasonable.
Interesting that the franking is apparently 2d Domestic letter rate plus 1d late fee. In my experience ( which may be limited) I see the Late Fee on Airmail letters only. I dont recall seeing a late fee on standard letter rate covers, only airmail mail from other parts of Australia in the 1940s. As Tas had free airmail - all mail to a domestic destination actually went by airmail in this period - I wonder if this was a specifically Tasmanian charge on 2d rate covers ?