tps.org.au

Following a recent email exchange with Ross Ewington, he has asked me to post the current table that I maintain for numbers seen and ERD/LRD for the recorded CTMS/T Tax marks of Hobart and Launceston. Note that the post-1939 handstamp with a value of 13⅓ was not originally included, but I am aware of its existence and I have examples. I have therefore added a row to the table with my own examples included. A table was published in my monograph, but much has changed since then. The table below shoes the state of play as at 26/3/2014:

Value Struck at Number Early date Late Date
(centimes)
5 Hobart 56 24/10/1904 05/08/1907
10 Hobart 90 (Note 1) 17/11/1905 20/07/1927
10 Launceston 7 14/08/1911 23/07/1920
13⅓ Hobart 8 03/07/1942 07/10/1947
15 Hobart 7 (Note 1) 08/03/1906 21/09/1907
16⅔ Hobart 8 19/10/1934 22/10/1937
20 Hobart 5 01/09/1911 19/11/1931
20 Launceston 2 21/04/1914 22/11/1921
25 Hobart 7 27/10/1925 08/03/1936
30 Hobart 11 (Note 2) 26/04/1912 04/06/1920
30 Launceston 12 (Note 3) 25/10/1912 20/12/1922
40 Hobart 5 29/08/1911 24/07/1939
40 Launceston 1 13/02/1915
50 Launceston 1 26/08/1925
Undeno Hobart 26 (Note 4) 08/08/1923 21/01/1963
minated
Undeno Launceston 4 (Note 4) 17/11/1922 26/04/1960
minated

Note 1: includes three examples where the handstamp was applied incorrectly and subsequently overwritten.
Note 2: Includes as one example a cover from an auction list that is probably the same item as is in the author's collection.
Note 3: Includes as one an item deduced to exist from an image on the reverse of another cover.
Note 4: There are probably many more examples of these not yet brought to the author's attention.

Please email me at pge.reid[at]gmail.com with details (mark, date, origin, destination) if you think that you might have an example that I have not recorded. If you could also send a scan that would be appreciated

Here is an example of the HOBART 10·CTMS·T tax marking (Reid DP14) applied in error to a postcard and struck out in blue pencil ...then the correct 5·CTMS·T h/s (Reid DP13) applied.

Patrick mentions above (Note 1) that three such items have been reported ....this would make four as it is unlikely that this card has been seen 'in public' until now.