PICTORIAL PERIOD POSTMARK RATINGS REVISITED

[John Hardinge]

Many years ago I saw and obtained a copy of a pictorial period ratings list that was not based on the "normal" at the time ratings of R to RRRR. It rated the cancels from 1 to (1)0. CDS were still "unrated", with 1 being the lowest rating and 0 the highest. Those that have any experience with collecting NZ CDS(I have none) will be familiar with this rating system. Just wanted to get peoples thoughts. Just as a small example of A-B:-

Abbotsham 2
Adventure Bay 1
Alonnah 8
Andover 2
Apsley 1
Augusta Road 1
Austins Ferry 2
Back Creek 5
Baden 2
Balfour 3
Bangor 4
Barnes Bay 4
Barrington 2
Beach End 5
Beauty Point 4
Beltana 7
Berriedale 3
Beulah 3
Bicheno TYpe 1 4
Bicheno Type 2 3
Birchs Bay 4
Bismark 4
Black Brush 5
Black River 1
Black Sugar Loaf 6
Blackwood Creek 2
Blessington 4
Blessington Upper 5
Blythe 4
Boat Harbour 2
Boobyalla 1
Bracknell 1
Breadalbane 4
Breadalbane Rly Stn 4
Bream Creek Type 1a 3
Bream Creek Type 2b 5
Bridgenorth 5
Bridport 1
Brighton Station 1
Broadmarsh 1
Bronte 8
Buckland 1
Burnie 1(soild stops)(i) 1
Burnie 1(solid stops)(ii) 6
Burnie Type 1a 3

Interested to get peoples thoughts...................

[Ross Ewington]

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?

My first tuppence worth...... Ross

[John Hardinge]

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

I have never seen the WA listing. The rating of "1" is the first rated postmark. Postmarks that are the most common are not rated at all-just a blank space. I would assume that 1-2 equates to uncommon/scarce, 3-4 about R, 5-6 RR to about low RRR,7-8 RRR to low RRRR and 9-0 RRRR to RRRRR.

Clraity and completeness is always a hard one. Some scarcer cancels always seem to be good, others such as Bridgenorth, Black Sugar Loaf and worth more well struck are they are uncommon in good condition. in 99% of cases this is due to the condition of the canceller, either due to wear or need of cleaning. Very rarely is it due to the fact that completeness of the strike is rare, although Bulgobac in the Commonwealth period is one example of this as the postmaster clearly liked to cancel on the edge of the stamp. In any case, people will always pay a premium for good strikes. With some ratings I have indicated in te past that good strikes are rare and can be rated a rating slot higher etc.

[admin]

This is an interesting approach - I havnt seen it before. Although some argue to keep the rarity ratings simple, ie a 4 or 5 level system, I have thought for some time its too simplistic for the Pictorials where there is now 50 or 60 years worth of knowledge. I have alternative ratings developed by two very experienced collectors, plus there is John's (Hardinges), - maybe an average of these three would yield a reliable result.In the majority of cases the ratings are going to be the same in any case, the differences seem to be around only a small percentage of postmarks. I think the quality factor is separate to the ratity rating, although you could argue that some post marks are much rarer as good strikes and so on. I'd prefer to see something separate for quality that was a suffix to the rarity rating EG. 8.1, where the "8" was the rarity and the".1" was the 'average' quality factor. Say the rating could be applied to good, fair or poor strikes (.3, .2, .1) - this would in effect say that for 8.1, that it had a rarity rating of 8 and and the average strike for this postmark was of poor quality ( we'd need to define 'poor'), the implication being that fair or good strikes were more scarce. Daniels Bay might be 4.3 - rarity of 4, average quality good, so anything less than "good" would be less scarce. I'm probably getting too complicated here.
Once I get the 3R and 4R census more complete I think that will answer questions about the 3R and 4R postmarks - there is already a fairly clear pattern emerging with only limited data.

Pete

[John Hardinge]

Well, there was a limited response last time so thought I would stir the pot a bit more. Everyone seems pretty passionate about the higher rated pictorials, so if I was to rate them on a 0-10 scale, I would be throwing in fractionsal ratings for higher rated-ie above 5 items.

Rating 10
Glaziers Bay Type 2
Legana Type R1a
Orrville
Peppermint Bay
Scottsdale West
Teepookana

After 1913 but known on pictorial add Douglas River, Nunamara Type R1a, Paradise Type 3, Waddamana, Western Junction
Known in period but not on stamp add Windmill Hill

Rating 9.5
Honeywood
Osterley South
Pieman Bridge
Springs
Warrentinna

Rating 9

Lowes Bridge
Military Camp Type R1a
Mills Reef Type 2a
Mt Hicks Upper
New River
North Franklin
Queenstown 1(iii)

Rating 8.5

Bronte
Erriba
Long Island
Verona Type 1
Westwood

Rating 8

Alonnah
Catamaran
Comstock
Lady Bay
Liena
Mills Reef Type 2
Ridgeway
Verona Type 2

Rating 7.5

Ellerslie
Glazier's Bay Type 1b
Legana Type 2b
Lemana Junction Type 3
Mount Hicks Lower
Nicholls Rivulett
Pearson's Point

After 1913 but known on pictorial add Huonville Type3, Moonah Type 3

Rating 7

Beltana
Calder Upper
Christmas Hills
Claremont Type 3
Glen Fern
Ida Bay
Kangaroo valley
Kanna Leena
Lanena
Loira
Lower Beulah
Murdunna
Surges Bay TYpe 1a

Rating 6.5

Black Sugar Loaf
Burnie Type 1(solid stops)(ii)
Camp Creek
Central Castra
Farrel Siding
Goshen
Gravelly Beach TYpe 2b
Hillend
King River
Mooreville Road
Pillinger
Royenrine
South Preston
Thirlstane Type 1

After 1913 but known on pictorial add Beaconsfield Type 3

Thoughts. Any suggestions re incorrect placement of ratings. After all honest feedback and discussion-the more the better.

[Geoff Dane]

Do you release how much work such a revision would mean in my albums and databases?

My initial reaction was that the current system was OK but with the current ratings in need of revision (due to some of the RRR items being reasonably easy to obtain) the opportunity to revise (and possibly expand) the ratings should be taken. I agree with John that the there needs to be more unpacking of the rarer items so on reflection an expanded system would provide more information with greater consistency within the categories. Rather than have half marks within the rarer categories perhaps reduce the breadth for the more common items to expand slightly the numbers available for the higher rated material (fewer categories mean more stability as new items come to light). I think the higher rated postmarks should have a pretty direct link to the census and when the counts get high enough on the census to change ratings then the rating should reflect that updated knowledge.

I would also like to see a consolidated and updated summary for the 4 big towns (Strahan, Zeehan, Hobart and Launceston) with relevant ratings against all the permutations of codes and types and sub types. As per the Green books these would probably be individual sections for each of the 4 towns.

One thing that is required is that the new system (when established) needs to be readily available electronically (word processing and spreadsheet and pdf type files) from the TPS web site. Showing the ratings for the Pictorials and Post pictorials periods for the higher rated items is also useful (with the June 1913 cut off date ). The editorial committee could also add those nice comments from Ross on whether the postmark tends to be higher quality or otherwise.

[John Hardinge]

To go a bit further:

Rating 6

Black Brush
Blessington Upper
Bream Creek Type 2b
Bridgenorth
Coombend
Darwin
Deep Bay
Glen Huon
Golden Valley
Gray
Henrietta
Lady Bay
Lagunta
Lienna
Lower Turners Marsh
Macquarie Heads
Moina
Mount Hicks
Mount Hicks Road
Natone
Nugent Type 2
Paloona
Paradise
Pipers Brook
Ringarooma Road Rly Stn
Rosebery Station
Rosevale
Shannon
Springfield South
Stirling
Stonehenge
Surges Bay Type 2a
Underwood
Wattle Hill
Wilmot Lower

Rating 5.5

Back Creek
Beach End
Daniel's Bay
Dulverton
Montezuma
Mount Direction
Oyster Cove Type 1
Quamby Brook
Selbourne
Temma
Upper Huon
Whitemore
Whyte River
Woodlands

Introducted post 1913 Latrobe Type 3

Rating 5

Bangor
Bismark
Blythe
Breadalbane
Breadalbane Rly Stn
Carlton
Chester
Claude Road
Cooe Creek
Crotty
Cuprona
Deddington
Dee Bridge
Deviot
Dilston
Dundas
Elliott
Flowerdale Upper
Gardner's Bay
Gawler
Glenlusk
Hamilton Road
Highthorpe
Hollow Tree
Interlaken
jetsonville
Kelso
Lachlan
Leprena
Levendale
Liffey
Lisle
Longley Lower
Lunnawanna
Lune River
Lynchford
Maria Island
Melrose
Mengha
Merseylea
Mount Seymour
Myrtle Bank
The Needles
New Norfolk Rly
Newstead
Nile
The Nook
Northdown
North Dundas Road
Nugent Type 1
The Oaks
Patersonia
Pelham
Pine Road
Poimena
Riversdale
Rumney Huts
Runnymede
St Patricks River
Spalford
Sprent Type 2b
Strahan West
Taranna
Taroona
Thirlstane Type 2
Upper Tea Tree
Wattle Grove Lower
White Hills
Yolla
Zeehan Type 1(ii)

Rating 4
Barnes Bay
Beauty Point
Bicheno Types 1 and 2
Birch's Bay
Blessington
Bream Creek Type 1a
Chudleigh Junction
Clarence Plains
Deloraine Type 1(circle stops)
Devonport Type 1a
Dysart
Evandale Type 3
Evandale Junction
Falmouth
Garden island Creek
Glengarry Type 1 and 2
Glenorchy Type 3
Gordon
Great Lake
Gunns Plains
Hayes
Hobart North
Holwell
Ilfracombe
Kelly's Point
Kellevie
Leipzig
Little Swanport
Longley
Lymington
Macquarie Plains Rly
Norfolk Bay
Oyster Cove Type 2a
Ridgley
Rokeby
Sandford Types 1 and 2
Seymour
Staverton
Stoodley
Stowport
Strahan Type 1(cross stops)
Strathblane
Tatana
TPO No 1, 2, 3, Type 3, TPO No 4 Type 2a
Wyena
Youngtown
Wynyard Type 3

All other CDS divided between ratings 3, 2, 1 or unrated(0?).

[John Hardinge]

Thanks for the reply Geoff. More the merrier. It would be ideal to be able to track all the higher rated CDS via a census. That has been the thought for many years. Reality is, it is very hard to keep track of all the CDS and impossible for RR and R rated CDS. Yes, yiu are right, however, this sort of system may play a bit of havoc with some albums.

[admin]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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]

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!

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?

[John Hardinge]

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

[John Hardinge]

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?

I agree notes on average clarity would be useful for CDS as well. Probably only for rated CDS. It;s very subjective for very common CDS where many are known.

[John Hardinge]

To further the discussion on what Peter had suggested re numbers of CDS and rating within the established R to RRRRR system, a more accurate counter of numbers of CDS in regards to rating may be something like this(take this as a rough draft):

10=RRRRR 1-5 copies known
9.5=RRRR+ 6-10
9=RRRR 11-16
8.5=RRRR- 17-25
8=RRR+ 25-35
7.5=RRR 35-50
7=RRR- 50-65
6.5=RR+ 65-80
6=RR 80-100
5.5=RR- 100-150
5=R+ 150-200
4=R 200-300
3=R- 300-400
2=Scarce
1=Uncommon
0=Common

Thoughts?(bearing in mind that for all the CDS we count there are others out there that are still to be found)

[Ross Ewington]

I think that only the ratings of RRR, RRRR and RRRRR need to be verified 'by count' and when the first
draft of the TPS census is completed, 'the numbers required' should be readily apparent (for postmarks
on the pictorial issues that is)

For R and RR ratings I favour the somewhat subjective but nevertheless practical assessment that John Avery
used for these ratings in his preface to "Tasmania: Commonwealth Period CDS Rarities" published in edition No.8
of The Courier in September 1988 where he states:

"R: Not plentiful but not hard to find either.
RR: Reasonably difficult (to acquire) although generally available on the retail market and by exchange."

Naturally, these criteria need a bit of a rework but I think they could be applied for rating the rarities of
all postmarks including the barred numerals.

[Geoff Dane]

Refering back to the discussion on a rating system that takes into account quality, I think that such a system becomes problematic very quickly and 1 persons collectable is another persons space filler (especially if they have a better quality copy). A possible solution is to use the original system based on every identifiable example and have a second rarity rating for copies in period with all letters of the post office and the date clear and complete. In the Royerine example you could then identify the postmark as being relatively easy to find with a lesser quality strike but much harder to find with a good quality strike (as defined). This adds to the complexity of any listing the deficiencies of the current system of under rating a good quality Royerine and over rating a lower quality Lower Wilmot.

There is a limit to how detailed and complex a rating guide can be and perhaps limiting the information is best but it would be interesting to attempt to collate a more detailed document that covers many of the discussions from the BB. In the longer term maybe we could try for a wiki approach where for Royerine an expert could write up the quality of strike issues and include a map of where Royerine is, its postmark history with examples of tied BN and so forth.

Lower Wilmot 2.jpg (140.74 KiB) Viewed 4836 times