ABOVE AVERAGE STRIKES of R to RRR RATED POSTMARKS

Post Reply
Message
Author
Ross Ewington
Posts: 2079
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Hobart
Contact:

ABOVE AVERAGE STRIKES of R to RRR RATED POSTMARKS

#1 Post by Ross Ewington » Mon May 03, 2010 5:55 pm

Clarity and completeness are important considerations when determining the quality of a postmark.

Some post offices cancelled the mail poorly 99% of the time (often for decades!) however other offices provide
postmark impressions with a high degree of clarity year in and year out.

Therefore, when determining what to pay for a rated postmark a simple rule is to pay a premium
for a good postmark from a PO which is notorious for poor strikes. On the other hand, one should pay
less for an example of a postmars which is "below average" for a specific office.

[There are other factors to consider such as date of usage, of ink, etc but these are not being dealt with in
this particular topic.]

So, how do we know what "average quality" is for any specific postmark? The answer can only really be found
out if you collect Tasmanian postmarks for many years however, perhaps this topic can provide a few shortcuts.

If you are an experienced collector of Tasmanian postmarks and have above average strikes of postmarks which
are usually found as "not that good" strikes, please post your images here as a reference for others.

Here's my first offering

RINGMA RD RLY STN / 25AU18 / TASMANIA (i.e. Ringarooma Road Railway Station)

[attachment=0]cj299.jpg[/attachment]

This RR rted postmark is very hard to find either complete and/or clear on the Pictorial issues as well as on Commonwealth
stamps up to when the office name changed to Legerwood in 1919. Strikes in violet ink appear to be more common
from 1912 on than in black.

I think this example is well above average ...can anyone beat it?
Attachments
cj299.jpg
cj299.jpg (48.64 KiB) Viewed 2957 times

griffofromtas
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:43 pm

Re: ABOVE AVERAGE STRIKES of R to RRR RATED POSTMARKS

#2 Post by griffofromtas » Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:14 pm

Just found this one amongst a few "heads" I hadn't been through before.
Attachments
ringma rd 2.jpeg.jpeg
ringma rd 2.jpeg.jpeg (26.77 KiB) Viewed 2848 times
Last edited by griffofromtas on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ross Ewington
Posts: 2079
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Hobart
Contact:

Re: ABOVE AVERAGE STRIKES of R to RRR RATED POSTMARKS

#3 Post by Ross Ewington » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:58 pm

Hi Daryl,

thank you for bringing this topic back to life after 18 months or so ..I was hoping when I started it that
it would be well-filled by now with lots of collectors' gems.

Would you be able to replace your image with a crisper one please? (you can do this in the edit mode - below
the text box you will see a 'delete file' button. After you have deleted the current image, just upload the replcaement, put the
cursor under your text and press the 'place inline' button)

cheers ....... Ross

griffofromtas
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:43 pm

Re: ABOVE AVERAGE STRIKES of R to RRR RATED POSTMARKS

#4 Post by griffofromtas » Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:46 pm

Ross
Hope this scan is a lot better.I also had hoped there would have been more posts on this subject for the hardest thing is knowing if a quality strike is the normal or exception regardless of its rarity rating.Hopefully more posts will be made so newer collectors of Tas cds like myself can gain some knowledge from those that have had enough cds pass under their noses to allow for better judgement on what is available and what premium can be placed on such strikes.( ie my first overpriced Daniels Bay,rookie mistake) Many Thanks

Ross Ewington
Posts: 2079
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Hobart
Contact:

Re: ABOVE AVERAGE STRIKES of R to RRR RATED POSTMARKS

#5 Post by Ross Ewington » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:58 am

MIL. P.O. LAUNCESTON Type 5 on cover to eminent philatelist Victor Colbeck - struck five days after the post office opened!
MIL PO LAUNCESTON Type 5.JPG
MIL PO LAUNCESTON Type 5.JPG (59.19 KiB) Viewed 2272 times

Post Reply