postmark
Posted: Sun May 30, 2021 3:29 pm
IMG_20210530_0001.pdf- (101.47 KiB) Downloaded 529 times
tps.org.au
A Bulletin Board devoted to all aspects of Tasmanian Philately and Postal History. Hosted by the Tasmanian Philatelic Society - www.tps.org.au
https://tps.org.au/bb/
postmark
Page 1 of 1
Hi all, the attached scan shows a post mark with unusual horizontal bars any thoughts on this much appreciated thanks
Re: postmark
Posted: Sun May 30, 2021 3:57 pm
John, here is another example of Second Allocation BN 1 for comparison, if thats what it is.
Pete
Pete
- 2.1.jpg (10.69 KiB) Viewed 12982 times
Re: postmark
Posted: Sun May 30, 2021 5:16 pm
thanks Pete, the one penny looks to be more boxed rather than rounded ends and horizontal closer together
many thanks John.
many thanks John.
Re: postmark
Posted: Sun May 30, 2021 5:30 pm
John
Over inking and wear can make a fair difference but I am really not sure what it is.
Pete
Over inking and wear can make a fair difference but I am really not sure what it is.
Pete
Re: postmark
Posted: Sun May 30, 2021 11:00 pm
John
I don't think your copy is BN 1.
On a BN 1, the numeral is centered directly in the middle of the bars. On your copy, the 1 is off center indicating to me that you have a two-digit numeral ending in 1.
Jerry
I don't think your copy is BN 1.
On a BN 1, the numeral is centered directly in the middle of the bars. On your copy, the 1 is off center indicating to me that you have a two-digit numeral ending in 1.
Jerry
Re: postmark
Posted: Mon May 31, 2021 9:51 am
thanks Jerry
Re: postmark
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:55 pm
Sorry to disagree but definitely second allocation BN 1 of Antill Ponds.
Re: postmark
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:42 pm
thanks for your two replies John.
Re: postmark
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:42 pm
John Hardinge -- Would you please confirm that you looked at the stamp that John Piercy posted (1d red), not the stamp that Pete posted (2d green). Pete's copy is definitely BN 1, John's copy is not.
Re: postmark
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:01 am
Sorry you are quite correct. Is not 1. It's quite a fat number for an imperf Chalon so is likely either a partial 11, 71 or 81.