tps.org.au

Ross Ewington wrote:thanks John .... yes, it's a good time to start a discussion about rarity ratings of postmarks on the pictorial issues.

The system to which you refer I believe is more than similar to the one used by John Dzelme in his listing of postmarks of Western Australia.

I wonder why 'zero' wasn't used for all the really common postmarks from the major cities and towns ..... if Apsley is only a '1'
it makes it 'equal' to most postmarks from Deloraine, Burnie, Sheffield, Devonport West and so on whereas it's a bit 'better' than those
wouldn't you say?

One would have to see if it can run in parallel to the current system of R-RRRR ratings, say 0-2 = common to scarce; 4-5 = R; 6-7 = RR;
8-9 = RRR and 10=RRRR.

I think an essential criterion that is absent from both systems is 'quality' based upon clarity and degree of completeness. For example, most
strikes of Daniel's Bay are perfect or nearly so and it is currently rated R (worth a '4' rather than a '5' at this level too I think). Therefore,
is a poor strike of Daniel's Bay worthy of a rating?

first tuppence worth...... Ross

admin wrote:I agree that an average quality rating could be applied to further distinguish rarity.

admin wrote:Having now looked at John's proposed system and read what Ross and Geoff have to say, I wonder if going to a numerical system is too big a change for collectors ? The "R" rating system is very entrenched and understood at almost an instinctive level by many collectors so switching systems will meet with a lot of resistance. However I agree that the current 5-category system is a bit restrictive and these days with 60 years of experience of collecting these cds behind us we should be able to come up with a better approach.

I agree. You could make this:

10=RRRRR
9.5=RRRR+
9=RRRR
8.5=RRRR-
8=RRR+
7.5=RRR
7=RRR-
6.5=RR+
6=RR
5.5=RR-
5=R+
4=R
3=R-
2=Scarce
1=Uncommon
0=Common

If we went from the highest rarity being 4R to 5R, that would give a bit more flexibility . If we then sub-divided the "R" categories further, say R+, RR+, RRR+, RRRR+ that gives 10 categories including unrated, which is exactly the same as Johns idea but framed in the old system so collectors can readily understand it based on their current knowledge . This also makes it easier ( to my mind) to tweak the current ratings, which are definitely misleading in some cases.

See above

Picking up Geof's point, it would be very useful to make the current list of CDS complete by adding those not in Lancaster's. I have already started to do this in the list posted on the TPS site by adding Peppermint Bay and Military Camp. I have been thinking of adding all the smaller town types not shown - Burnie, Queenstown, Wynyard and so on. The difficulty here is the sub-types sometimes occurring need a detailed description so the list will get a bit more wordy - not a major problem I expect.We could also add the parcel and MOO types. Hobart, Launceston and Zeehan would be nice too but its a bigger job nd I doubt may collectors currently worry about these.

Would be good to add Strahan, Zehan, Hobart and Launceston. Strahan and Zeehan I have included but of course the code letters have not been addressed

As far as the sample of ratings John has posted, much of it looks OK to me but I'll need to have a more detailed look.
The current Census on the TPS members site makes a strong case for some changes at the higher end of Rarity. I am almost at the pint of not adding any more Hill Ends as there are about 40 examples I've been able to collect so far. This one should be down around R. King River and Murdunna also need to be revised down. The rarest apart from Peppermint Bay appears to be Scottsdale West, ( seems incredibly scarce - does anyone know of any existing copies anywhere ?), Warrentina and Orrville. Other such as Osterly South have been the subject of new discoveries and seem less rare than originally thought( 7 Osterly Souths form memory and still counting).

Agree though Glaziers Bay Type 2 and Gravelly Beach Type 3 are very scarce indeed

I agree with John Hardinge that below RRR its mission impossible to record examples and I don't think I'd try.

Finally, I agree that an average quality rating could be applied to further distinguish rarity.

This is really hard to do but worthwhile. Some CDS just did not strike well, either due to dirt or wear or both. Large CDS with long names such as Rosebery Station are hard to get "on the stamp"

Where to from here ? I'm going to see if I can finalise the Census of 3R and 4R CDS over coming months so at least we would have a statistical basis for suggesting amended ratings. While I dont think we will ever pick up all know copies, if we have sufficient numbers, then we can make judgements based on what is a statistically valid sample. (Any statisticians out there who can suggest how you might verify statistical validity ? ) I have all TSAs sale records. Prestige, all the original census material from the Courier, various auction houses records plus a large number from eBay, various other collectors etc so I think the base is pretty broad.

Without changing ratings, we could make the current list more useful now by adding the missing cds. Any volunteers ?

Pete

Ross Ewington wrote:

admin wrote:I agree that an average quality rating could be applied to further distinguish rarity.

A good example of the importance of considering average quality as well as rarity when considering the acquisition
of a 'rated' postmark is WESTWOOD

...... these examples were offered recently in the same club auction
[attachment=1]westwood a.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]westwood b.jpg[/attachment]

The 'rating history' of this postmark is interesting to say the least!

.....in Part I of the 'Green Books' (1962) , the Type 1a cds was rated RR and the method of assigning rarity as stated on page 111 indicates
that at least 13 and as many as 24 examples had been recorded by the authors at the time of publication.

..... then in Part II of the 'Green Books' (1975) which had a different editorial team, the same postmark was uprated to RRRR.
On page 84 it states "....but examination of further large numbers of pictorial issues makes it necessary to now make some
revisions. As will be seen, the trend is upwards...."

No adjustment to the maximum quantities deemed necessary to qualify for specific rarity rated was made however and this certainly upset the members
of the original editorial team, namely Hugh Campbell and Lew Viney.

In "The Pictorial Stamps of Tasmania 1899-1912" by K.E. Lancaster (1986), a third listing of rarity ratings was included with a preamble by Campbell & Viney.
On page 126 they addressed the perceived anomaly stating "The authors of Part II, however, altered the ratings in a substantial number of cases.
Where they have reduced the rarity classification of a mark they could be well right as the additional numbers they had seen could well reduce a mark from
say, RR to R or R to common. What they very often did however, was to increase the rarity rating; a number of those we gave as RRR for instance,
are given in Part II as RRRR and other(s) similarly. Now, that is impossible, unless the authors of Part II are implying either that we could not count or
that they (had) adopted a completely new basis of assessment". (my emphasis on the last sentence)

Then, in the table that followed, Campbell & Viney re-assigned the original rarity rating for WESTWOOD as RR.

Since 1986, two further listings of rarity ratings including postmarks on the pictorial issues have been prepared but are yet to be published. I have been
fortunate to view the listings and noted with interest that WESTWOOD has been returned once again to RRRR in both cases. I must state however that
I am uncertain as to whether the maximum number of recorded postmarks to achieve a particular rating had been increased or whether a less
empirical method of assaying rarity was now being used for one or both compilations.

Now back to the two WESTWOOD postmarks illustrated above. It is unfortunate in this case that the listing used as a basis for inclusion in the current
TPS Census is the one published in Lancaster as the number of known examples of the WESTWOOD cds are not being included in 'the count' (it's rated RR).

I am certain however, that using the basis of rarity as stated in Part I of the 'Green Books', WESTWOOD is a 'rock solid RR' ....nothing more, nothing less!

To be controversial, I would say that in some instances, I believe they could not count! Not all strikes reported were "viewed" by the authors of part 1. I know for a fact that at least two "Westwoods" were in fact "Westburys". Would not be surprisied if South Franklin/North Franklin is another candidate for this. Cannot possibly believe that they claimed to have seen 13 or more of these, even taking into consideration that the Tattersalls stuff did give a much greater access to "early" eg 1900-02 postmarks than later ones. Lowes Bridge possibly, but there are some numbers of barely readable CDS.

In either case the point is moot. The Book 1 rating are completely irrelevant. What sells at auction and what price it brings is a much more reliable indicator of what is genuinely scarce.

In any case 1-6 copies are RRRR. If this is the case, very little is RRRR. 7-12 copies RRR-very little is even RRR. 13-25 copies is RR. All CDS listed as RR are no longer RR if this is the case. All R rated CDS are now unrated as more than 50 copies would exist of all of these. Although Part 2 did not state a numerical rating system based on copies seen it seemed logical to me that they had obviously abandoned the rating system used in Book 1. As indeed that had to, as virtually no high rated postamarks would have been left. A very undesirable situation, bearing in mind that then, as now, they attracted a much higher price than similarly rated postmarks from other mainland states. Should they have introduced a numerical rating system in Book 2? Possibly, or at least written they had abandoned the system used in Book 1 as no longer being valid.
What does vary however, is the quality of impressions of this particular postmark. The majority of examples that I have seen over the last 25 years or so
(and would say that the number of different strikes would be between 10 and 15) have been of similar quality to the first postmark illustrated, i.e. a
partial strike only. Some examples may have had more of the cds present but I have seen a number of a much lesser clarity to the one shown above as well.
Therefore, I would suggest with a high degree of confidence that, more often than not, examples of WESTWOOD postmarks are partial strikes of variable clarity.

The other example illustrated above is well above average quality and as such, very rarely seen. Indeed, there's probably less than six examples of
such quality known and therefore it could be said that a rarity rating of RRRR is justified on a basis of quality.

So then, what do you think? Remember, in the original 'count' done by the authors of Part I of the 'Green Books' any readable postmarks were counted and
there are other postmarks of 'variable rarity' worth considering ...for example ROYENRINE (assigned R in Part I and RRR in Part II). Light and barely discernible
strikes can be as easily found as for most R rated postmarks but can you find a clear, bold impression? I wouldn't have seen more than 4 or 5 ever so saying that
a full clear strike of ROYENRINE is rated RRR is quite reasonable in my opinion BUT the current rarity rating system does not accommodate such a variation.

How could you incorporate the reported 'average quality' of a particular postmark into a rarity system based upon a census with maximum numbers for rarity
where all reported examples irrespective of clarity or completeness are included in the count?