New South Wales Numeral Cancels

Here's a cover that should raise some questions, the first of which should be "what is this barred numeral?"





If the Sydney sub-offices were supplied with barred numeral obliterators pending the supply of the 2R20 type some time in 1857, how could they have remained undiscovered for all this time?

The 2R type was apparently issued in April 1857. The earliest cover I've seen is July from Deniliquin (see Alvarado lot 188). I'd love to see a May/June 1857 cover bearing this device from any country Post Office.

Bobby De La Rue,

In his discussion of the Type 1A varieties, Hugh Freeman states that "more recently however, there has been a virtual flood of discoveries of new type and recuts." ... "...probably issued in January 1856, thus giving them a life of little more than a year."

Notwithstanding the fact that the number of bars above, below and at the sides appears to be uncomfortably excessive compared to others, it is reminiscent of, for example, 7(3), 9(3) and 14(2),

Might yours be recut Richmond from the 'new flood' that Hugh had not yet seen?

On another note, the lack of continuity of toning and markings from the stamp to envelope suggest that the stamp may have been tacked on later to a stampless cover.

Interestingly, looking at other resources from the internet, I've found that 25 September 1857 London PAID handstamp on a couple of different covers - codes may be slightly different at top - but note the same dropped first 2 of 25.


and yours:

Thanks for replying fairdinkumstamps, I do appreciate your input

The excessive number of bars caught my eye (especially top and bottom), along with the observation that the way they're cut makes it look like a rhombus. I thought of Richmond, but what's it doing on a cover posted from Glebe? I'm not sure about a stampless cover. See White page 222. Wouldn't section XXX of the 1854 regulations preclude this possibilty?

The stamp appears to be just tied at the right and I appreciate that looking at the cover in person is obviously quite different to seeing it on a screen. There's nothing unusual about large diadems not being tied to a cover. There's no real indication that the stamp doesn't belong, but I'm happy to admit I can't guarantee this.

The new swag of devices that Hugh mentions is interesting. How many of these devices are known tied to a cover I wonder?

What if, taking the 7 and 9 as examples, these devices are not Penrith & Bathurst at all, but were employed as a stop-gap at the sub-offices near Sydney? There were quite a few that received numerals in 1857.

I can't speak for Penrith, but Bathurst falls into my main collecting area. The third device only appears on watermarked Laureates.

Two other things to ponder. The style of the Glebe datestamp was introduced in 1852, and rays cancels are known on Laureates. The mid 1850s is a very interesting time!

Thanks also for the images of the London 'PAID' handstamps. That's also very interesting to see.

NB: the 14 (2) of Orange is unquestionably a part strike of 114 of Tambaroora.

One hypothesis is that the 'stampless cover' was the result of the original 'Glebe postmarked' stamp being removed (possibly by a collector) at some point then the 'Richmond' diadem added later (possibly by a vendor/postmark artist).

Certainly possible FDS. In any case I'll keep an eye out for another postmark of a similar nature

I'm thinking 1945 ?

Aussie Al,
Your postmark is 1045(2) of Culcairn - the second 4B type, with upright 5. Rated R.

Thanks Sir .
Bit off topic but is this a listed flaw on H of south ?

Hi Aussie Al,

I couldn't see that flaw listed in the 2004 ACSC but it might be in the recently released edition.

There is an article on the flaws on the 1d plate that was employed for the halfpenny overprint in 1891, so maybe the flaw carried over from that time. The article was in the American Journal of Philately, October 1903.

Aussie Al,
The flaw is not listed in the ACSC but it looks to have survived as a constant flaw at some point during the life of that electro.

One of my stamps shows what appears to be a less worn example of that position, showing a similar scratch or crack adjacent to H of SOUTH. Your stamp has the additional benefit of some material on the plate above the U of SOUTH.

Hope our brains trust can help 16 or 91

Hi Aussie Al,

Away from the office at the moment but I think the one on the left is 91. Did 16 Wellington have their 4B device when that stamp was issued?

The one on the right is a 161 Aberdeen.

Just checked and yes, the stamp on the left is a 91 Tabulam.

Thanks Bobby cheers .

Bobby De La Rue, the 91 ray pattern (see especially the ray dividing the 9 and 1 at the top) is different. I would suggest 16 Wellington is a better match.