1900/12 - 2d Pictorial Lettercards - discuss them here!

[Ross Ewington]

This card appears to be a philatelic use; i.e. no message written inside, clean cancel, etc.

The card was mailed from Hobart to New Town on My 15 1900

w505.jpg (49 KiB) Viewed 20824 times

w505a.jpg (61.42 KiB) Viewed 20824 times

Does anyone have an earliest recorded date for use of cards from this series?

[David McNamee]

I sold a card to Malcolm Groom that was sent to Malta 14 May 1900, one day earlier than this. As I recall it had a msg inside about the "new issue" of these lettercards. I no longer have the image, but perhaps Malcolm will share it with us.

[64idgaf]

Do the ONE PENNY overprints with their 20 degree and 40 degree angles appear on all of the LC4 and LC5 cards?

[shatten]

Regarding the surcharges: this topic is discussed in the Courier article, June 2014, bottom of p20 and top of p21. In brief, only one example on LC4 appears to be known, and that was a philatelic usage.

If you haven't got access to The Courier, let me know and I'll post the whole text in this thread.

[shatten]

And regarding Ross and David's exchange re issue date, Mr Ingles in Tinsley states "... the first day of issue from a dated cover being 2 April 1900" which one would presume he had sighted.

[Malcolm Groom]

Three years ago David suggested I post an image of a letter card containing the message that "they had been issued that week"! I have just seen the post after all this time and found the relevant letter card. The front back and contents are posted as requested.

2d lettercard early use front.jpg (1.98 MiB) Viewed 19982 times

2d lettercard early use reverse.jpg (2.13 MiB) Viewed 19982 times

2d lettercard early contents.jpg (2.19 MiB) Viewed 19982 times

[RogerKinns]

Images of two letter cards are attached, which I hope will be of interest. The first is philatelic from New Town, with stuck down edges, but has a 3 April 1900 cancel. That's the earliest I've seen. This was bought in the TSA online auction on 1 March 2014. The second is commercially used (message inside, edging separated on the back) from Zeehan to Leipzig, uprated by addition of a 0.5d Pictorial and dated 12 May 1900. It's remarkably clean and free from the usual spotting.

Lc,2d,3-Apr-00,front.jpg (108.95 KiB) Viewed 19963 times

Lc,2d,3-Apr-00,back.jpg (132.63 KiB) Viewed 19963 times

Lc,2d,12-May-00,front.jpg (128.43 KiB) Viewed 19963 times

Lc,2d,12-May-00,back.jpg (151.95 KiB) Viewed 19963 times

Roger Kinns

[64idgaf]

I have just purchased this card,



I measure a 35mm gap between the Coat of Arms and the 'stamp' and 15mm between the ...Card. and 'stamp'.

This would have it as the second printing but the date of MR 26/1903 could only have this as the first printing.

further, the Courier article by Shatten states the distribution of the first printing from Melbourne was 25 March, which, I presume, would have this as first day use.

I am confused, can anyone provide some clarity?

[RogerKinns]

"Tasmania Stamps and Postal History" by W. E .Tinsley, published in 1986, is useful in this context. The section on postal stationary is by O. G. Ingles and contains specific comments on the 1903 Melbourne and 1905 Hobart printings. Ingles reports that there were two shipments of the Melbourne printing, sent to Hobart on 25 March and 31 March 1903. This card must have come from the first, larger shipment. There is no significant risk of a date error, as the cancellation and backstamp have consistent dates. The earliest postmark date noted by Ingles was 3 April, but this card was used on the first possible day. A great find! Ingles noted that the gap between the Arms and the stamp was 35 mm for the Melbourne printing and 37 mm for the later Hobart printing, so that fits. Has confusion arisen through recent typographical errors?

Roger

[Malcolm Groom]

The extensive article by Geoff Kellow in Sydney Views of February 2011 provides a great deal of new Archival information. It demonstrates, amongst other things, that the Hobart printings were in fact printed in Melbourne. It provides information that was not available to Owen Ingles when he wrote the chapter in the Tinsley book.

Sydney Views Feb 2011 letter cards.pdf

(264.12 KiB) Downloaded 1256 times

[RogerKinns]

Thanks to Malcolm Groom for attaching the later article about printings. Attribution of the second printing to Hobart certainly seems to be incorrect, though an understandable error by Ingles using the information available to him. I guess the important point is that the spacing between the Arms and stamp was 35 mm in the March 1903 printing, but increased to 37 mm in later printings. That fits my own collection of 2d letter cards, with all specimens dated before 1905 having the 35 mm spacing. I've just remembered that I have a card from the first printing dated 3 April 1903, which I bought from Malcolm in 2006. I wonder if that was the specimen seen by Ingles (shown below)?

Lc,2d,3-Apr-03.jpg (855.76 KiB) Viewed 19866 times

[Postagedues]

Regarding the surcharges: this topic is discussed in the Courier article, June 2014, bottom of p20 and top of p21. In brief, only one example on LC4 appears to be known, and that was a philatelic usage.

If you haven't got access to The Courier, let me know and I'll post the whole text in this thread.

Thanks Allen,

I now have that issue of the Courier and the mist is clearing.

[Postagedues]

"Tasmania Stamps and Postal History" by W. E .Tinsley, published in 1986, is useful in this context. The section on postal stationary is by O. G. Ingles and contains specific comments on the 1903 Melbourne and 1905 Hobart printings. Ingles reports that there were two shipments of the Melbourne printing, sent to Hobart on 25 March and 31 March 1903. This card must have come from the first, larger shipment. There is no significant risk of a date error, as the cancellation and backstamp have consistent dates. The earliest postmark date noted by Ingles was 3 April, but this card was used on the first possible day. A great find! Ingles noted that the gap between the Arms and the stamp was 35 mm for the Melbourne printing and 37 mm for the later Hobart printing, so that fits. Has confusion arisen through recent typographical errors?

Roger

Thanks Roger,

The measurements are the other way around in the Courier article by AS. I had not checked Ingles before posting the question. Are the measurements the wrong way around in the June 2014 Courier?

[RogerKinns]

Yes I think they are. Illustration 7 in Allen Shatten's excellent June 2014 article is correctly labelled (the 98 mm rear inscription corresponds to the 35 mm spacing between the Arms and indicum in the first printing). Illustration 6 does not have labels, but the front inscription has a length of 86 mm in the first printing and 80 mm in the second printing, so it is consistent with Illustration 7. Illustration 8 has the wrong labels (the lower illustration is the first, not second, printing). Illustration 5 has switched some of the data between rows and columns in the table below the photograph. The first and second columns should be 86 over 80 and 98 over 92 mm respectively. The typographical error gremlin has been doing his mischief! I think that's got it right now.

It's quite noticeable that the clarity of the Arms is superior in the first printing to any of the later printings. The spacing between Arms and indicum does vary, but it's always greater than 36 mm in later printings and is sometimes over 37 mm. Roger

[Postagedues]

Shields have this first day use card for sale at the moment:

[Ross Ewington]

The day of issue at Hobart for the first series of 2d pictorial lettercards was Friday 30th March, 1900.
Apparently, April 2nd was the first day of use at Launceston

see http://tps.org.au/bb/viewtopic.php?f=4& ... lit=malone