Is this 1½d on 5d QV Tablet a postally used forgery?

[Ross Ewington]

cr1001.jpg (137.76 KiB) Viewed 1688 times

This cover was mailed at Hobart on 17JUL1913 and arrived at it's Victorian address two days later.

The Hobart cds postmark has been clearly struck over the surcharge with an inverted '1'.

Is this a postally used forgery?? .... the 4d rate is correct (1d postage + 3d registration)

Your thoughts please ..... has anyone seen anything similar?

[bill]

One question that comes to mind is this:

Is the cover philatelically inspired in the sense that
both sender and recipient were known philatelists?

It is known that a number of strange varieties were
produced by devious means on this stamp.

[David McNamee]

p7318t.jpg (6.96 KiB) Viewed 1533 times

T. Overton of Chapel St, South Yarra was a real estate broker and insurance agent. Likely a philatelist. I have been unable to match the handwriting to other philatelists in Hobart, but this sort of thing has got to be philatellically inspired, perhaps the result of a dare. I agee that the cancellation date 17 JUL 13 appears to be on top of the altered "1," which means that it was altered prior to posting. This would not be classified as a "postal forgery," since the post office was not defrauded from collecting the amount of postage. It is an altered stamp, and IMHO, a curiosity piece, likely sent as a joke between philatelists. Curious that the Hobart PO would have let this pass -- as a registered item, it would have been scrutinized a bit more than ordinary mail (you'd think).

[bill]

Regarding the usage of this contrived variety, the postal
clerks were accustomed to seeing these stamps as part
of their employment so the clerk may not have checked
the stamps more closely.

The date 17 JUL 13 is credible for these stamps. David
is probably right in saying that one of the stamps has
been altered. I can see no better explanation.