FRANK STAMP ON OPSO POSTCARD HANDSTAMPED "SPECIMEN."

[Ross Ewington]

On page 190 of "Stamps and Postal History of Tasmania" (Tinsley/RPSL 1986), A.R. Butler in his chapter on Specimen and Reprint stamps
mentions an unused frank stamp cover endorsed "Specimen" in red ink. He wrote "...provenance is not known and it could have been merely
associated with an order to the printer for a supply of further similar envelopes".

I have just received this OPSO postcard for the House of Assembly with a clear impression of the relevant frank stamp. In addition, the word
"SPECIMEN." has been applied using a small handstamp with sans serif letters followed by a stop (similar to Butler's Type C used on postal
stationery but this doesn't have a stop)

cj100.jpg (65.77 KiB) Viewed 1216 times

Can anyone shed some light on this item?

Questions to be answered may include:
1) could this specimen have been produced by the manufacturer of the franks stamp for the House of Assembly for approval before the first official use?
2) was this produced as an example for distribution to other colonial postal authorities (it has been mounted by the back using a strong adhesive in two places) and
3) has a similar example to this item been seen by any TPS BB members or reported in philatelic literature?

Please add any comments, ideas, further questions, information to this topic.

[David McNamee]

My theory is that the scarcity of these specimens indicate that they are likely from the files of the stationery printers. If they were exchanges with intercolonial postal authorities, we would see a lot more of them. The frank stamp on both pieces may have been applied routinely to unaddressed stationery and then addressed by the office when needed for official business. They would have been marked "Specimen" to prevent their unofficial use if given to a printer for a pattern.

OPSO Reg Specimen small.jpg (111.17 KiB) Viewed 1212 times

[Ross Ewington]

thanks David ....would you say some (if not all) of the covers/cards endorsed "Cancelled" would have been produced for the same purpose?

cj101.jpg (53.78 KiB) Viewed 1212 times