Launceston Diamond Postmarks

[shatten]

Greetings all, attached are two diamond cancellations for Launceston.

The first, tied with numeral 59, is dated 12 Jan1859. The second, tied with numeral 52, is dated 22 Jun 1859 (confirmed by backstamp).

The first includes the letters "V.D.L." The second, much clearer, strike does not. It is interesting that the Green Book part I (fig 12, pp 10 and 12) notes the inclusion of "V.D.L." but the illustration does not show those letters.

I have superimposed the two strikes on each other using PowerPoint. On my assessment, the second clearer strike is 46 mm wide; the first is 47mm wide as stated in the Green Book. Also the letters of LAUNCESTON don't line up.

So they appear to be two different postmarks. No doubt others have discovered this already but any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated!

[Ross Ewington]

Hi Allen

They look to be the same canceller to me. Could you post an image of your Powerpoint superimposition of the datestamps?

Also, can you please check the date of the second example as you can't have a perforated stamp and BN52 used at Launceston in 1859 (i.e. your quoted 1859 b/stamp must be an error)?

Footnote: re the omission of the datestamp with VDL not being illustrated in Part I of the "Green Books", perhaps they thought it was only necessary to illustrate one "state" of the canceller and the best example they had on hand for use (as an illustration) was the "sans VDL" state?

[David McNamee]

One is 1859 and the other 1869 -- look carefully at the left part of the bottom half: open on a 5 and closed on a 6. The writing obscures part of it, but you can see the bottom loop goes way beyond what the borrom loop of a 5 ought to be. The 5 bottom loop is a bit more squashed, and the 6 round. The stamp perforation is the other clue to look carefully.

[shatten]

Hi all,

First, my mistake on the dates. The second clearer strike is 1869. The stamp is perf 12.

As to alignment: I re-checked the alignment using a more accurate method and the letters line up within tolerances, with the exception of the "E" in Launceston.The 1859 E has a slight backward tilt and the central horizontal line slopes downwards. In the second example the E is more-or-less perfectly aligned.

The 1869 strike is definitely shorter across the centre by 1mm or so. This appears to be because of a dent in the lower left line of the diamond.

Is it possible that the postmarker was re-cut to remove "V.D.L." some time after 1856 (Tasmania being proclaimed in 1855) and the "E" was fixed at the same time? The later strike is very clear considering that it had been in use for quite a few years, so maybe the postmarker was "refurbished".

[Ross Ewington]

Allen ...would be able to post a large image of both postmark impressions next to each other (in the horizontal) please so that we don't have to scroll up and down the screen to attempt an 'A/B comparison'?

[shatten]

Hi All, sorry for delay, have been out of twon.

I have uploaded two images: the two strikes side by side as requested, and a comparison of measurements and the letters of "Launceston".

The earlier strike is faint and there is margin for error in my comparison. However, in my opinion, the E in Launceston is different, and the A is probably different. The second firmer strike is definitely narrower across the horizontal dimension.

Also the T in Launceston is tapered in the later strike.

[Ross Ewington]

Although the images are a bit small to make a good visual comparison, they still look like the same datestamp to me, with and without 'VDL'.

If someone can post another example of each "version" of the datestamp here (nice and large please) it may assist in finding an answer for Allen.

[eelyfree]

Hi
here is a Launceston diamond. It has the VDL legend although its not clear I hope this will be of some help

[admin]

Here is another example dated 23 No 61(although there is a manuscript endorsement 18/12/61 on the left of the cover). There's a faint "VDL" evident, but it shows a fair bit of wear. The interesting thing is this example measures barely 47 mm across the diagonal. Theres no way its 49 mm.This makes it possibly the same stamp as the example which is missing the VDL at a later date.
I wonder if the "VDL" simply wore away ?
This stamp looks to me the same as the one posted above by ellyfree - note the gap on the bottom left of the diamond frame. I wonder what the dimensions of this stamp are ??
Tasmania was proclaimed in '56 and the Stamps changed from Van Deimens Land to Tasmania in 58, The previous name was a source of embarrassment to many, so maybe as Allen says the stamp was altered. Still, its quite possible the VDL simple wore away. There are many examples of such wear on other date stamps and this one was in heavy use.

Pete

Launceston-Diamond-Hand-Stamp-1861.jpg (120.4 KiB) Viewed 3446 times

[Ross Ewington]

In my experience, small variations in the width or diameter (in the case of cds postmarks) can be attributed to paper shrinkage.
150+ years is a long time for a piece of paper (of fairly crude manufacture) to remain in a constant state.

P.S. maybe a small file was used to create the final state of "no VDL"?!

[Jerry Weirich]

Here's another example on piece. This is dated 4 NO 1871 and clearly shows the VDL. I couldn't get this to measure 47 mm across, closer to 46 mm (but I used an old plastic measurement gauge that could be of dubious quality). It does show a break at lower left. Since this is dated after Allen's example that does not show the VDL, it suggests that wear was not a factor. I wonder if the VDL type was set properly in the stamp to leave an impression??

Launceston Diamond Cancel.jpg (209.46 KiB) Viewed 3224 times

[Ross Ewington]

Thanks Jerry ...that knocks my "file theory" on the head ...I was rasping at straws!

[admin]

So far we only have Allen's initial example of the stamp minus the "VDL". I'm struggling to see any differences between any of the examples apart from the width which Ross has explained as paper shrinkage.

Maybe we just have an isolated example where the inking on the stamp was uneven and the VDL did not show ?
It would be useful to have a second example without the VDL to show it was not an isolated occurrence of uneven inking on the same stamp.
Pete.
PS - it would be nice if we do have two different stamps here though.