postage due mail study group newsletter no. … … · · 2016-10-02postage due mail study group...

POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUPNEWSLETTER No. 69 MARCH 2014

Published quarterly and distributed with thePOSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL

Newsletter Editor: John Rawlins, 13 Longacre Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 [email protected]

01245 420196

Copyright © Postage Due Mail Study Group, 2014

Our website www.postageduemail.org.ukMEMBERSHIPWe welcome Dr Geoffrey Eibl-Kaye FRPSL from Winchester.

16 members who have not renewed will not be reading this, but I will try and contact them.Paid up membership is 98 including 12 overseas, and 26 online members.

OUR JOURNAL AND NEWSLETTER ON THE WEBSITE26 members have signed up. I hope it works satisfactorily. Members paying the fullsubscription are welcome to download all or part of the Journal at no extra cost. Send me anemail and I will put you on the list to receive the quarterly password.

AUCTIONMichael Furfie has again volunteered to run one in June. If you have material for sale pleasesend it to him with a brief description and reserve. Not too many under £5, please. 37 TownTree Rd ASHFORD Middlesex TW15 2PN

MEETING AT STAMPEX SATURDAY 22nd FEBRUARY 2014

13 members attended, including Willem Tukker, Hans Van Dooremalen and JamesHeal from Holland and Gero Schmitz le Hanne from Germany.

Pat Campbell showed us the start of his research into the marks and stationery usedwhen undeliverable printed matter was returned at the request of the sender, andreturn postage was charged, 1895–1968.

Tim Hadley showed the results of his survey of …D TO PAY marks, and suggestedareas of research which we should follow with other charge marks: in particular, thedouble line boxed marks.

Michael Furfie has been looking at the charge marks introduced in Birmingham in1915 when the minimum postage on UK letters was reduced from 4oz to 1oz. We sawcopies of the proof sheets and examples on cover.

He continued with the complicated charging system 1875-9 during the period of theGeneral Postal Union: in particular underpaid mail from countries not in the Union.

Finally, he looked at underpaid overseas mail from the UK during the reign ofGeorgeVI, with three different rates and several changes in the UPU equivalents.

POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP NEWSLETTER No. 69 MARCH 2014

As well as the opportunity to see interesting material it was nice to meet up with oldand new friends, and it was agreed that we should try to have another meeting at theAutumn Stampex on Saturday 22 September 2014.

PAYPALSome members have suggested that we use PayPal to collect subs. I have looked at theirwebsite and it seems that payments from abroad attract both an exchange fee and commission.Is it possible for the remitter to pay all charges? If any member has had experience ofreceiving small payments from abroad would they please contact me.

Better still, would any member with a PayPal account volunteer to collect subs on our behalf?

There is no benefit for UK members as they can use bank transfers if they prefer, althoughonly three members do so at present.

POSTAGE STAMPSThank you, those who used a variety of stamps on your mail. They will find a good home.However, although Integrated Mail Processors using PostJet postmarks are supposed torecognise stamp designs, most letters with old commemoratives don’t get cancelled, or withjust seven wavy lines, being the right hand end of a PostJet mark. I think these are applied onarrival, and are dumb, as including the post town would suggest they had been posted locally.

AUXILIARY MARKINGS ON GB POST OFFICE WRAPPERS

Our member, Dr. John Courtis has written an eight page article in the March 2014 issue ofPostal History the journal of the Postal History Society. The well illustrated article covers anumber of charge marks and their usage, as well as other instructional marks.

‘THE USUAL SUSPECTS’ (With apologies to Casablanca)

Siew Ng has given me these photos taken at the Autumn 2013 Stampex meeting. Tim Hadley,Ken Snelson, Siew Ng, JR and Doug Nottingham. There are photos from the spring meetingon the website.


RESEARCH CO-ORDINATORS

Tim Hadley has suggested a number of areas where we need to record all available examplesof certain types of charge marks, and examples are attached. We need volunteers to take onone (or more) category and receive details from members and collate the results. Help couldbe given in preparing the final account. If you feel you could help, please let me know, sayingwhich category you would like to adopt.


CONTACT LIST. MARCH 2014

Applications for membership Peter Williams41 Manvers RoadChildwallLIVERPOOL, L16 3NP0151 280 1482or see our website

Articles for publication in the Journalincluding book reviews

Steve Wells42 High StreetTarringWORTHINGBN14 7NREditor [email protected]

News Letter for minor news items, forthcomingmeetings and displays, general ‘housekeeping’matters, requests for help with researchprojects. Wants lists. (And/or put on website-see below)

John Rawlins 13 LongacreCHELMSFORDCM1 3BJ, 01245 [email protected]

Payment of subscriptions and changes ofaddress

John Rawlins

Auction To be advised

Circulating packet for cheaper items

(underscore between ‘e’ and ‘a’)

Graham Price3 Green ParkWAKEFIELDWF1 4ER01924 [email protected]

Back numbers and Index of the Journal£3 UK, £4 Europe and £5 Rest of World.Index , £3 UK, £5 Abroad

Doug Nottingham17 Wayfield DriveSTAFFORDST16 1TR01785 [email protected]

Notices, queries, displays etc. to go on ourwebsite

Pat [email protected]

Missing pages, etc in printed Journal Max Whitlock215 High StreetMarske by SeaCLEVELANDTS11 7LN01642 482 877 [email protected]

Requests for password or problemsdownloading email Journal

John Rawlins


mailto:[email protected]






POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 1

POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP

JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014

_____________________________________________________________________

Published quarterly price £3 plus postage

ISSN 1368-2911

Editor: Steve Wells

‘The Hollies’, 42 High Street, Tarring, Worthing BN14 7NR United Kingdom

[email protected]

Copyright © Postage Due Mail Study Group 2014

_____________________________________________________________________

Contents

Editorial 2

British Charge Mark Update Steve Wells 3 GB 1934

Application of the U.P.U. Minimum Surcharge Rule in 4 AT 1921-1925

Austria, 1921-1925 Michael Furfie

‘TO PAY / POSTED / UNDERPAID’ and Other Inland 13 GB 1962-1970

Section Handstamps, 1962-1970 Michael Furfie

Underpaid Airmail from San Diego, U.S.A. July 1926 24 US/GB 1926

Ken Snelson

Small Barred British Charge Marks: A New Find 28 IE 1952

Michael Furfie

Irregular Acceptance of Air Parcel to Greece in 1982 29 GB/GR 1982

Ken Snelson

Online Auction and Sale Review: First Quarter 2014 32 CH/GB 1923

Steve Wells

Questions & Answers 33 GB/IN 1904

SO/CH/GB 1949

GH/CH 1952

FR/GB 1860-1888

_____________________________________________________________________

2 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014

Editorial

This issue has been delayed by personal problems affecting your Editor. In early February my wife

fractured her leg. As a result I had to become head cook and bottle-washer, laundry man, personal

shopper and chauffeur! My mother-in-law lives with us and my wife is her primary carer, so this

exacerbated the problems yet further. I was obliged to take dependency leave to facilitate visits from

carers at an early hour but was at the same time unable to work early shifts myself. As if this was not

enough, my employer brought forward my annual safety training course and examinations by a month to

April, which meant I had to bury my head in the manual for revision purposes for much of March. None

of this was conducive to spending time on philatelic matters.

___________

Nevertheless, with the help of our usual contributors, I have managed to produce a journal, if somewhat

belatedly. Michael Furfie has written an article on the application of the U.P.U. minimum surcharge rule

in Austria in the 1920s and a separate article on ‘TO PAY / POSTED / UNDERPAID’ and other kinds of

charge and explanatory stamps used at the Inland Section on mail from abroad in the 1960s. Ken Snelson

looks at an item of underpaid airmail from 1926 and a more modern irregularly posted parcel. We have a

number of members’ queries, many with a Swiss flavour, along with answers to most of them. Do please

keep sending these!

___________

In the next issue I hope to start running a series of articles by Michael Furfie and Ken Snelson on the

G.P.U. Prior to commencing publication, it would be useful if they could obtain a selection of pre-G.P.U.

covers to show some of the different postage due calculation formulae then in effect under the various

bilateral and multilateral treaties.

What they require are the following:

(i) presentable illustrations of international mail charged postage due before 1st July 1875

(ii) the rates for prepaid mail on the same route to be known

(iii) the rules relating to the admissibility (or otherwise) of mail not fully prepaid to be known

(iv) the rules relating to the calculation of postage due to be known (and exemplified by the

items)

(v) the relevant markings on the item to be explicable in relation to the above

They are looking for variety, particularly in the fourth point, but also in the countries involved - i.e. not all

to or from Britain. If you can help please get in touch via the Editorial address with a good quality

photocopy or e-mail the details with a high-resolution scan.

___________

I mentioned in previous Editorials my intention to include examples of British surcharged mail bearing

meter marks from a 1990s south coast trial. You will recall Ray Oates showed some at our September

meeting. In the last Editorial I noted that I had asked members to forward examples in their collections

but had received no submissions. This, in fact, was not the case: Clive A. Williams had sent me three

from his collection but his letter had got misplaced. I showed Ray’s covers at the February meeting of

Worthing Philatelic Society and one member came forward with an example. I shall include these with

those from Ray’s collection in an article in the next issue. There is still time, however, to forward scans or

photocopies from your collection in order to provide the broadest possible picture of these marks.

___________

Steve Wells


BRITISH CHARGE MARK UPDATE

Steve Wells

Ian Baker contacted me again with reference to Tim Hadley’s British Charge Mark Study article in

Journal #67 to inform me of another new find and submitted a copy of the postcard, which is shown

below.

Ian writes:

I found the card shown below at the Glasgow Postcard & Stamp Fair organised by Richard Stenlake and

Scotfairs in January.

It bears two strikes of the unrecorded ……D TO PAY / S. 84 charge mark, one of which has a

manuscript ‘2’ added. It was used at Stonehaven in Kincardineshire on the 11th July 1934.

Tim Hadley replies:

I have recorded this mark as DTP / Ciii / 106. It is particularly interesting because Inverness appear to

have allowed the charge through at 1d, instead of 2d as marked quite properly (2 x Postcard Rate of 1d)

and it was also correctly initialled by the Officer assessing the charge. It is another very nice DTP

example.


APPLICATION OF THE U.P.U. MINIMUM

SURCHARGE RULE IN AUSTRIA, 1921-1925

Michael Furfie Members who have read my articles in this Journal over the years will probably have realised that

international mail sent during the period of operation of the 1920 U.P.U. Convention of Madrid is a

particular interest. Currency instability, and especially inflation, while worrying for those who experience

it at the time, creates fascinating postal history which can be a challenge to collect. The short rate periods

of the German hyperinflation of autumn 1923, several of them lasting barely a week and a few even less,

are not difficult to find if one is content with fully paid mail, but postage due mail has so far defeated my

attempts to form anything like a comprehensive collection.

I have had more success with Austria. Although a table of foreign rates was included in an earlier article

on the Madrid Convention [1], I shall repeat the main ones here for ease of reference.

Effective Letters Letters Post Printed Papers

Date first 20g additional 20g Cards per 50g

1.2.1921 5 2.50 3 1

1.8.1921 10 5 6 2

1.12.1921 25 12.50 15 5

1.5.1922 75 37.50 45 15

21.8.1922 300 150 180 60

18.9.1922 600 300 360 120

1.11.1922 1500 750 900 300

1.8.1923 2000 1000 1200 400

1.12.1923 3000 1500 1800 600

1.12.1924 4000 2000 2400 800

1.3.1925 40g 20g 24g 8g

(to 30.9.1925)

Rates are in kronen until the last set, which are those of December 1924 in the reformed currency,

converting at 1 groschen = 100 kronen.

All these rates conform precisely to the ratios implicit in the standard U.P.U. rates set by the Madrid

Convention, namely 50, 25, 30 and 10 gold centimes respectively for the four categories listed in the

table. The new minimum surcharge rule included in the Convention specified a minimum of 30 gold

centimes, the same as the standard postcard rate. Austrian minimum charges on inward U.P.U. mail also

conformed to the U.P.U. standard, the minimum charge always being the same as the foreign postcard

rate.

As two previous articles have shown [1, 2], Austria did not introduce the 30 gold centimes minimum

surcharge rule until the 1st August 1921, so there was never a minimum of 3 kronen. There are therefore

nine rate periods with nine different minimum charges, disregarding the currency change. The shortest

two, by some margin, are those beginning on the 21st August 1922 (four weeks) and the 18th September

1922 (six weeks and one day). These were the only occasions when the severity of the inflationary

pressure obliged Austria to break the U.P.U. rule that rate changes should take effect on the first day of a

calendar month.


Figure 1a.

Figure 1b.


These U.P.U. minimum charges did not apply to all inward foreign mail in Austria. The main exception

was mail from Germany (including Danzig). Inland rates applied to this mail, so Austria charged its lower

inland minimum surcharges. The inland minima also applied on mail from Hungary during the first three

periods listed in the table. But there were no reductions in the minimum surcharges on mail from other

countries with which Austria had reduced rates from 1922 onwards.

Figure 1b shows the first U.P.U. minimum charge, 6 kronen, on a November 1921 postcard from the

Italian colony of Eritrea. Rates were the same as in Italy: 60 centesimi (50 gold centimes) for letters, 40

centesimi (30 gold centimes) for postcards. The card was underpaid by 10 centesimi (Figure 1a) or about

8 gold centimes, so double the deficiency was well below 30 gold centimes.

Figure 2 has a late example of the 15 kronen minimum on an underpaid 6 cents rate postcard from

Canada. Double the deficiency was 2 cents = 10 gold centimes. It shows use of a mixture of the 1920

postage due issue and the relatively short-lived first inflation series of January 1922.

Figure 3a is a postcard from Sweden dated the 1st July 1922. It is paid 20 ore, which became the Swedish

foreign rate three months later, but in July the Swedish rates of February 1921 still applied: letters 40 ore,

postcards 25 ore. Double deficiency was 10 ore, about 12.5 gold centimes, so Sweden applied a boxed

taxe mark for the 30 centimes minimum surcharge and Austria collected its local equivalent, by then 45

kronen (Figure 3b).

Figure 4 is another underpaid card from Scandinavia, dated 29th August 1922. Norwegian rates were then

the same as Sweden’s, so once again the 30 gold centimes minimum surcharge was applied. The Austrian

equivalent was 180 kronen, which always needed at least three postage due stamps and on this occasion

was accounted for using five. The 180 kronen minimum was in effect for only four weeks and is the

hardest of the nine to find.

Figure 5, courtesy of Colin Tobitt, shows an underpaid postcard from Greece, dated late September 1922.

It is paid 40 lepta. (There is a second 5 lepta stamp, partly visible under the attached paper at the left.)

Greek rates had been increased a month or two before this, the foreign postcard rate rising from 30 to 50

lepta. Double the deficiency was therefore 20 lepta, equivalent to about 12½ gold centimes, taking the

Greek letter rate of 80 lepta as the standard 50 gold centimes. As well as illustrating the 360K minimum

charge, this card is an example of Austria’s practice of attaching a small slip of paper to items of mail on

which there was not enough space to affix the postage due stamps, and sticking the stamps on that slip. It

does seem perverse that, at the time when the denominations available were the least well suited to some

of the commonest postage due charges, Austrian postage due stamps should have been so large.

At this point, examples start to become less elusive again. To make a change from the diet of postcards

(on which minimum charges are most often to be found), Figure 6a shows the 900 kronen minimum

charge on a May 1923 letter from Britain, the sender having anticipated by nine days the reduction in

Britain’s foreign letter rate from 3d to 2½d. Double the deficiency was 1d, so the minimum taxe of 30

gold centimes was marked. This minimum charge was in effect for nine months. It was collected here

using a block of six 150K stamps of the second inflation series, issued from mid-1922 onwards, affixed to

the back of the cover (Figure 6b).

Figure 7 is a 50 bani inland rate Romanian postal stationery card to which the sender added a 2 lei

adhesive stamp before sending the card to Austria in October 1923. Romania’s U.P.U. rates at that time

were 6 lei for letters, 4 lei for postcards, and a reduction of 25% applied for mail to Austria. The card was

thus underpaid by 50 bani, equivalent to about 4 gold centimes. Postage due in Austria was therefore the

1200K minimum, in effect from August to November 1923.


Figure 2a.

Figure 2b.


Figure 3a.

Figure 3b.


Figure 4.

Figure 5.


Figure 6a.

Figure 6b.


Figure 7.

Figure 8.


The final Austrian minimum surcharge under the Madrid Convention was 2400K, or 24g in the new

currency. There was no single stamp available to collect it in either currency; the 24g value in the

reformed currency series begun in June 1925 was not issued until 1932. Figure 9 is a June 1925 postcard

from Yugoslavia, paid 1D instead of the 1.50D required. The Yugoslav letter rate was 3D, so twice the

deficiency was 1D or 16.7 gold centimes. An Austrian postal official wrote ‘2400K Nachporto’ at the top,

but postage due stamps in the new currency were used to account for it. They are postmarked on the

4th June, the fourth day on which they were used.

Figure 9.

The Stockholm U.P.U. Convention of 1924 came into effect on the 1st October 1925, reducing standard

rates by about 50% and the minimum surcharge to 10 gold centimes, which was interpreted as 14g in

Austria. Examples of this minimum charge are very common, since it lasted for more than twice as long

as all previous minima combined.

References and acknowledgments

1. The Madrid U.P.U. Convention of 1920 and its Effect on Postage Due Mail, Michael Furfie,

Journal # 8, December 1998

2. Italy-Austria, March/April 1921: The Same Card, 3 Different Surcharges, Michael Furfie,

Journal # 67, September 2013

3. International Postage Rates 1890s-1957, Michael Furfie, Ashford: published by the author, 2010.

ISBN 978-0-9522208-2-4.

I am grateful to Colin Tobitt for supplying the illustration included as Figure 5 and for permission to use

it.

Copyright © Michael Furfie 2014


‘TO PAY / POSTED / UNDERPAID’ AND OTHER

INLAND SECTION HANDSTAMPS, 1962 - 1970

Michael Furfie Introduction

At our recent Stampex meeting, Tim Hadley once again encouraged members to participate in research

into some of the many and varied types of charge and explanatory handstamps used in Britain during the

late 19th and 20th centuries. We are indeed fortunate, compared with many of our continental neighbours,

in having such a wide range to collect and study. This present article covers the series of handstamps

which were mentioned in part 3 of our study of the London large F.B. and I.S. charge marks (Journal #26,

June 2003) as the replacements for the large I.S. handstamps, after more than 60 years. I shall also look at

the other kinds of charge and explanatory stamps used at the Inland Section on mail from abroad over the

same period. Finally, I shall consider a series of small marks, consisting of between one and three letters,

sometimes used in conjunction with these handstamps, and propose a hypothesis about their meaning.

Issue of ‘To Pay / Posted / Underpaid’ handstamps, August 1962

The proof books show that 74 handstamps were struck on the 2nd August 1962. There were two stamps

of each of 37 different denominations: halfpenny steps from 1d to 1s, then penny steps up to 2s, plus 1s

3½d and 1s 4½d. There are some small differences of detail between pairs of stamps of the same value,

but I do not propose to address them here.

The basic style of these handstamps is that of the standard series of stamps, MS76 - MS96, introduced in

1934. They were metal, with fairly thick single frame lines. The office of use was identified by the initials

MPIS for Mount Pleasant Inland Section. The box containing the value always has the letter D for pence

at the top, even when the value is 1s or more, which could lead to confusion - see Figure 2.

The earliest example of use of one of these handstamps that I have found is about the 26th September

1962, but it is likely that they may be found a few weeks earlier that this. Figure 1 shows the 5½d value,

struck in green (as the marks almost invariably are), on a postcard from the U.S.A. paid 6¢ and marked

‘AIR MAIL’. The airmail postcard rate and the surface letter rate were both 11¢. No taxe in centimes was

marked in the U.S.A. The British surcharge was calculated proportionally by equating the letter rates, 11¢

and 6d, to give double deficiency 10¢ x 6d / 11¢ = 5.45d, rounded up to 5½d. The small handstamp ‘M’

below the charge mark is one of the personal handstamps that will be discussed later.

Figure 2 shows an airmail item from New Zealand dated March 1963. It was superscribed ‘2nd class’ (i.e.

printed papers) but was found to be ‘liable to letter rate’, which was 1s 9d, so it was taxed ‘2/-’ in New

Zealand. Both the charge and the reason for it were confirmed at London Inland Section, where the

personal handstamp ‘O'T’ was also applied. Because of the large D in the charge handstamp, the delivery

office misread the amount due as 2d.


Figure 1.

Figure 2.


The pattern of use of the 1962 handstamps

The foreign letter rate was 6d when these handstamps were introduced, and the minimum surcharge on

mail from abroad was 1d, but a deficiency would have had to be very small to have given rise to such a

low charge. The 1d and 1½d marks are quite scarce for this reason. Values between 2d and about 9d are

relatively common, and the higher ones gradually become scarcer as the value rises, with one or two

exceptions: for example, 1s 4½d was the charge on an overweight airmail letter from the U.S.A., so it is

found fairly often; indeed it might have been included in the series specifically for use on such letters.

Britain’s letter rate was increased to 9d on the 3rd October 1966 and the minimum surcharge then became

3d. Use of values below 3d after that date is theoretically possible, on redirected mail liable to single

deficiency postage due with no minimum, but I have not seen any examples.

A total of 31 of the MPIS ‘To Pay / Posted / Underpaid’ handstamps appear in the security scrap book

dated the 29th August 1968. They consist of one of each of the values with odd ½ds (except for 6½d, but

with both 1½d stamps) and one each of the values 1d, 2d, 8d and in steps of 1d from 10d to 2s. Most of

the strikes are fine, suggesting that the stamps had had little or no use. It may be that one of the two

original sets sufficed for normal use, with the other being kept as a spare until it was decided to dispose of

most of it, retaining only the values 3d, 4d, 5d, 6d, 7d and 9d (and possibly 6½d).

The halfpenny coin was withdrawn from circulation at the end of July 1969, making charges including

odd ½ds impossible to collect. The latest example I have seen of a 1962 handstamp with an odd ½d is the

6½d value used in September 1968 - see Figure 10 - but they might well be found a few months later than

this.

In view of the approach of decimalisation, which took place on the 15th February 1971 but had been

planned several years in advance, it is surprising to find that the 1962 handstamps were withdrawn in the

summer of 1970 and replaced with handstamps of the new standard pattern, known as IR99. This is the

familiar multi-purpose boxed mark. Those used at London Inland Section had a range of fixed values, and

stamps with the value box blank were also used there. Although it is not always possible to be sure where

handstamps of this type were struck, it is thought that most or all of those used at the Inland Section had

the non-standard phrase POST UNPAID in place of the normal POSTED UNPAID.

This change seems to have happened in July 1970, so that the fixed value IR99 handstamps had a working

life of only seven months. The latest strike of a 1962 handstamp seen is of the 3d value, used on a letter

from France on about the 10th July.

Other charge and explanatory handstamps in use at MPIS during the 1960s

I have recorded nine non-standard boxed rectangular handstamps used on inward foreign mail.

TO PAY / I.S. 35 x 27 mm 8.62 - 4.70 J#14 p29

LIABLE TO LETTER RATE / I.S. 72 x 18 mm 1.69 Figure 5

LIABLE TO / LETTER RATE | I. / S. 63 x 20 mm 3.63 - 1965 Figure 2

M.P. / I.S. | RECEIVED IN / AIR MAIL 51 x 15 mm 1.69 Figure 5

.... RATES / EXCEEDS GRAMMES / OZS. 39 x 26 mm 1964 - 9.67 Figure 3

EXPRESS / FEE PARTLY / PAID / TO PAY / MPIS 35 x 28 mm 11.69 Figure 4

INVALID STAMPS / USED / MP / IS POSTAGE DUE .... 51 x 29 mm 1.66 - 9.70 J#31 p7

STAMP DISALLOWED / BY OFFICE OF POSTING / MP / IS TO PAY .... 51 x 27 mm 7.68 - 9.74 Figure 6

Liable to Letter / rate. Contains | To Pay. 67 x 25 mm 1.69 Figure 5


Figure 3. .... RATES ... and 1/- charge handstamps on an underpaid airmail letter from Israel, August

1967. The taxe fraction 40/30, the 60a franking and the manuscript additions (1 S[urface] R[ate] 2 AIR)

imply that the surface rate was 30a and the deficiency 20a; the air fee must therefore have been 25a per

10g. Postage due was calculated by multiplying the fraction by Britain’s 9d foreign rate giving 12d = 1s.

Figure 4 (72%). EXPRESS ..’ handstamp on an underpaid airmail express letter from Italy, October

1969. Surface rate 90L plus twice the 15L per 5g air fee and 180L express fee make 300L, so it was

underpaid by 25L. Taxe fraction double deficiency / letter rate = 50/90; 50/90 x 9d = 5d postage due.


Figure 5 (71%). Three different Inland Section handstamps were used on this January 1969 airmail letter

from Canada. It was paid $1.95, 13 times the 15¢ per ounce airmail printed papers rate, but was found to

contain a letter, making it liable to 26 times the 15¢ per half ounce airmail letter rate, and so $1.95

underpaid. Canada’s foreign letter rate was 12¢, so the taxe fraction would have been 390/12, and

multiplying this by Britain’s 9d rate gives 292½d = £1 4s 4½d, though 2½d more than this was charged.


Figure 6. 1968 postcard sent from Lugano, Switzerland, with an Italian stamp. STAMP DISALLOWED

BY OFFICE OF POSTING I.S. mark, with personal handstamp H.E.G. above it. Swiss rates 50c for

letters, 30c for postcards. Taxe fraction 60 / 50, postage due 60 / 50 x 9d = 10.8d, rounded down to 10d.

Metal ‘TO PAY / POSTED / UNPAID’ handstamps (type MS76), 1962-1968

A small number of these were in use alongside the main 1962 issue. I have recorded three:

blank value 1966-1967 unpaid mail from Switzerland, with manuscript ‘11D’ or ‘10D’

8d fixed value June 1964, unpaid postcard from the Netherlands

1/- fixed value May 1966, unpaid letter from Sweden

These three stamps appear in the Security Scrap book for the 29th August 1968, with the 31

UNDERPAID handstamps noted earlier.

The Inland Section also had a large number of other metal handstamps of this general pattern that were

used primarily on inland mail. Wordings such as TO PAY / LIABLE TO / POSTCARD RATE and TO

PAY / LIABLE TO / LETTER / RATE, with fixed amounts, are common. Among a group of these

marks in the security scrap book for March 1973 are two further TO PAY / POSTED / UNPAID marks,

with values 6d and 1s. Tim Hadley has shown me examples with fixed value 8d, used on unpaid inland

letters in 1969 and 1970. So it is possible that marks of this kind with values other than those listed above

may be found on mail from abroad.


Rubber handstamps of types IR76 and IR79, 1967-1970

These rubber handstamps seem to have come into use at Mount Pleasant in the late 1960s, perhaps to

replace some of the withdrawn 1962 handstamps. I have seen only one IR76 type ( D TO PAY

POSTED UNPAID), with examples dating between May 1968 and September 1970. It is unusual in that

the office initials are in two lines: IS / MP. Figure 7 shows use on an unpaid March 1970 letter from

France to Jersey. Although the Channel Islands were postally independent by then, their inward mail

usually still passed through offices of exchange in mainland Britain.

Figure 7. Unpaid 1970 letter from France, charged double Britain’s 9d

foreign letter rate, accounted for with postage due stamps of Jersey.

I have seen four distinct handstamps of type IR79 ( D MORE TO PAY .... RATE ABOVE .... oz) used

on inward mail at the Inland Section during this period. One of them has the fixed value 3d, representing

the minimum charge on inward mail; an example was shown in Journal #65 (March 2013) on page 29. I

have seen examples used between May 1968 and July 1970. See also Figure 9.

There are two versions of this handstamp without a value.

The one on the left has square corners, with the dots clear and separate. The examples I have seen date

between June 1968 and 1969. The one on the right has rounded corners and the dotted lines are blurred,

with the dots tending to form groups, as on the 3d fixed value stamp of this design. I have seen three

examples of this version dating between March and May 1970.


There was also a version of this type IR79 handstamp which looks as if it has been mutilated, since the

word ‘MORE’ is missing. Figure 8 shows this mark on a January 1970 letter from the U.S.A. Note the

presence of a dot in the value box, above the letter ‘S’. I have seen a very clear strike of this handstamp

dated December 1967, suggesting that it was then new.

Figure 8. Underpaid 13¢ rate letter from U.S.A. Taxe fraction 14/13, due 14/13 x 9x = 9.69d ~ 10d.

Figure 9. Was the office code 18 in this handstamp a mistake for IS? It has also been seen on a 1970

letter from Japan. There is no office numbered 18 that could sensibly have surcharged this card.


Small letter stamps accompanying 1962 and other MPIS charge marks

An aspect of British postage due mail which has rarely, if ever, been studied is the practice of initialling

charge marks on items liable to surcharges. MPIS charge marks used between 1962 and 1970 are found in

one of three states: without initials, with manuscript initials or with handstamped initials in the same

green colour as the charge mark. The first of these is self-explanatory, and is sufficiently common as to

show that either initialling was not always compulsory, or it was compulsory but enforcement was very

lax.

The handstamped initials are perhaps the more interesting. Brief mention was made of a few of them in

answer to a member’s question (Q14/1 in Journal #14, June 2000, p 29-30). I have recorded eight

different sets, one of them existing in two different versions, as follows. (The dimension given is the

height of the letters.)

M 5.5 mm Figure 1 September 1962 - June 1964

O ' T 5 mm Figure 2 November 1962 - August 1963 (two different styles)

O 5 mm May 1964 - September 1964

H . 4.5 mm Figure 11 August 1964 - September 1967

H 2.5 mm Figure 12 November 1965 - January 1968

H.E.G. 2.5 mm Figure 6 December 1967 - April 1970

G H T 3 mm Figure 10 September 1968 only

T 3.5 mm January 1969 - 1970

The two versions of the ‘O ' T’ handstamp are shown in the Journal #14 reference given above (round

‘O’) and Figure 2 (narrow ‘O’). The fourth of these handstamps, H . appears in the security scrap book

for March 1973, among a group of Inland Section charge and explanatory handstamps. The H.E.G.

handstamp deteriorated over its period of use, and late examples are blurred and often illegible.

I have also seen two examples of a further handstamp, 7mm high, which resembles an ‘L’ but may be an

incomplete strike of some other letter. They are dated July 1963 and July 1964.

The questions then arise: whose initials (manuscript or stamped) are these, and what was their purpose?

There are two possibilities, I would suggest. They may be the initials of the person who applied the

charge handstamp or they may be those of someone who later checked that the charge was correct - an

inspector or supervisor of some kind.

A few broader observations may help. First, no covers appear to have both handstamped and manuscript

initials, which suggests that each kind served the same purpose. Second, if we go back to the time before

1962, when the large I.S. charge stamps were in use, we do not find initialling of I.S. charge marks. Why

not? Because it would have been superfluous: the index letter in the charge handstamp itself identified the

person who applied it. If no ‘inspection marks’ were needed with the large I.S. charge handstamps, there

is no reason why they would have been needed with the handstamps that replaced them. Therefore the

initials, stamped or manuscript, identify the person who applied the charge stamp, and I shall refer to the

stamped ones as personal handstamps.


Figure 10 (87%). September 1968 letter from Sweden, paid the 45 öre inland rate

instead of the 70 öre foreign rate. Taxe fraction double deficiency / letter rate = 50/70.

Multiplying this by the British 9d foreign rate gave 50/70 x 9d = 6.43d, rounded up to

6½d. As became increasingly common from about 1965, the delivery office neglected to

collect the odd ½d, affixing only a 6d postage due stamp. G H T personal handstamp.

Figure 11. August 1964 postcard from Italy, paid the L15 printed papers rate but, with a lengthy

message, liable to the L40 postcard rate. Postage due was calculated using the respective letter

rates, L70 and 6d, to give double deficiency L50 x 6d / L70 = 4.29d, rounded to 4½d. The

personal handstamp H . was applied next to the usual Inland Section charge mark.


Manuscript initialling

This is a more difficult topic to analyse. Look first at Figures 5 and 8, and the initials next to the charges

calculated on them. They are almost identical, reading perhaps ‘JcG’. The same initialling is present on

one of the other items bearing the charge handstamp shown on Figure 8. Figure 7 shows an initial which

is most likely a letter ‘S’ that begins with a long flourish. An almost identical initial appears with two of

the other three examples seen of this IR76 handstamp, and a very similar one has been seen with various

charge marks on items dating between 1964 and 1967.

Surcharging was a specialised job, and it is not surprising that the same members of staff at the Inland

Section should perform it over long periods. There is scope for research on this topic.

The ‘2 A R’ handstamp

This handstamp has been seen on overweight airmail items, liable to 2 air rates. No doubt that is what it

signified within the Inland Section, though it is unlikely to have had any meaning for members of the

public unfortunate enough to have had to pay the surcharge on such an item as Figure 12, a November

1965 airmail letter from the U.S.A. paid the 15¢ rate for ½oz but liable to double this rate. Taxe was

calculated at 1¢ = 3 centimes to give double deficiency 30¢ = 90 centimes, as marked in New York.

Postage due was calculated at London Inland Section thus: 30¢ x 6d / 11¢ = 16.36d ~ 1s 4½d. A

handstamp for this amount is partly covered by postage due stamps. Note also the small H personal

handstamp at the right.

Figure 12.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Ken Snelson for the use of some of the illustrations and to Tim Hadley for information

gleaned from his large collection of surcharged mail of this period.



UNDERPAID AIRMAIL FROM SAN DIEGO, U.S.A.

JULY 1926

Ken Snelson In a previous article I showed a number of covers to, or from, the U.K., which had been carried by air in

North America for at least part of the journey. These were taken from a one-frame exhibit that covered

the period prior to the establishment of Zonal Air Rates in 1947.i Since then I have acquired an additional

cover, earlier than any shown in the article, which provides some additional insight into the treatment of

underpaid airmail and is illustrated as Figure 2a and 2b.

The cover was mailed in an airmail envelope from Coronado near San Diego on the 4th July 1926

addressed to London, England. It was paid 27¢. In the U.S. it was marked for 23¢ postage due. The

London Foreign Branch applied two charge marks to show 11½d postage due, which was collected by

means of two 5d, one 1d and one ½d label. The New York date stamp on the back is the 6th July, two days

after mailing in San Diego, which is consistent with the cover having been carried by air across the U.S.

Making sense of these charges was an education for me, helped by some advice from Michael Furfie. The

answer could be determined from the standard references on U.S. Domestic Postal Ratesii and U.S.

International Postal Rates.iii

At this time the internal U.S. letter and the rate to the U.K. were both 2¢ per oz. For underpaid

international mail the U.S. charged double deficiency according to U.P.U. regulations. For underpaid

internal mail the practise was more complicated. If the item was not paid one full rate, it was held for

postage so that the sender could make up the deficiency. If an item paid less than one full rate was

inadvertently sent to its destination, the addressee was charged double the deficiency. Items that were

paid at least one full rate were sent on and charged single deficiency to the addressee.

Figure 1. U.S. Internal Airmail Network 1926-1927.

i U.K. Postage Due Mail by Air In North America to 1947, PDMSG Journal #66 June 2013, Pages 4 – 26. ii U.S. Domestic Postal Rates, 1872 – 1993 by Henry W. Beecher and Anthony S. Wawrukiewicz,

The Traditions Press, 1994. iii U. S. International Postal Rates, 1872 – 1996 by Anthony S. Wawrukiewicz and Henry W. Beecher,

Cama Publishing Company, 1996.


At this time there was no airmail across the North Atlantic but mail could be sent across the U.S. by air

for onward transmission by sea. The U.S. internal airmail network as it was from the 26th January 1926 to

the 31st January 1927 is shown as Figure 1. The backbone of the network was a U.S. Government route

from San Francisco to New York. There were a number of feeders into this route from other cities called

Contract Airmail Routes (C.A.M.).

The airmail rates were different for the two classes of service. All the rates quoted are per ounce,

inclusive of normal surface transportation to destination. They are not air-fees to be added to normal

rates. For the Government airmail the rate was 8¢ per zone. The country was divided into three zones so

from San Francisco to New York the rate was 24¢. The rate on the C.A.M. services was 10¢ for routes

not exceeding 1,000 miles and 15¢ for the route from Seattle to Los Angeles, the only route over 1,000

miles. If a letter was carried on both C.A.M. and Government services the C.A.M. rate applied but the

Government rate in addition was reduced to 5¢ per zone.

This particular cover was posted in San Diego, which was not on an airmail route. The nearest point on

the airmail network was Los Angeles. It seems probable that the cover was sent by rail to Los Angeles, by

C.A.M. airmail to Salt Lake City, less than 1,000 miles, and by Government air service to New York,

three Zones. From New York it would have been sent by sea. The rate for internal U.S. airmail by this

service would have been 10¢ for C.A.M. service plus 15¢ for three zones of Government service giving a

total of 25¢.

The additional cost for international mail carried on U.S. internal airmails depended on the surface rate to

the destination country. If the 5¢ U.P.U. rate applied, an additional 3¢ was charged as the internal air rate

included the 2¢ internal letter rate. For countries such as the U.K. where there was a 2¢ concessionary

rate, there was no extra charge. Therefore this cover was subject to a rate of 25¢ for air in the U.S. and

onward transmission by sea.

The cover was paid 27¢, which overpaid the 25¢ single rate by 2¢. The sender may have thought that the

cover was subject to the 2¢ rate to the U.K. in addition to the U.S. internal air rate. The cover must have

been over an ounce and was charges as 23¢ short on the 50¢ double rate. The U.S. Post Office marked it

for single deficiency postage due as they would for internal U.S. mail at this time.

Until the Hague Convention came into operation on the 1st January 1928, there were no international rules

on how to treat underpaid airmail. Each postal administration made up their own rules as they went along.

In this case the British Post Office just converted the U.S. postage due indication based on 1d = 2¢ to

11½d which was duly collected.


Figure 2a. Front.


SMALL BARRED BRITISH

CHARGE MARKS: A NEW FIND

Michael Furfie

More than ten years ago, I collated reports of four ‘Small barred British charge marks’ (Journal #20,

December 2001, p.2-3). Three of them were examples of their use on unpaid postcards from widely

separated parts of England and Wales (½d October 1914, 1d June 1912, 2d September 1928). The report

of the 1½d value was from James Mackay’s book Surcharged Mail of the British Isles (published by the

author, 1984), where it is recorded for ‘Turriff 1937, Ireland general’, Turriff being in Scotland.

I proposed a hypothesis, based on the shape of the marks, that these handstamps were designed for use on

some form where they needed to fill a box completely in order to prevent later alteration. I invited

comment or further reports, but there has been no feedback from the article.

The cover shown, bearing the 1½d mark reported by Mackay, is one of the many undelivered printed

papers returned to Dublin Rates Office between the 1940s and the 1960s. A late friend and neighbour,

George Ithell, told the story that an Irish philatelist worked in that office for many years, and collected all

the interesting mail from the post room. At an annual convention of one of the specialised societies for

Irish collectors, he gave every member attending the convention a set of these postage due covers,

including each of the five rates from ½d to 3d (there was never a 2½d rate in the Irish Republic). Single-

handedly, this man ensured that returned printed papers such as this would be by far the commonest

examples of Irish postage due mail a collector is likely to encounter.

The date is August 1952, and the cover is backstamped ‘Baile Phib’, which is Gaelic for Phibsborough, a

district north-west of Dublin city centre, and no doubt the area of the city to which the rates demand was

addressed. So we can tick off Mackay’s ‘Ireland general’. I still have doubts about Turriff, though, and

the overall question of why such strangely-shaped marks should have existed remains unanswered -

unless, of course, you know differently.



IRREGULAR ACCEPTANCE OF AIR PARCEL

TO GREECE IN 1982

Ken Snelson Collecting parcel post subject to postage due is not easy as the wrappings etc. that show the story are not

usually suitable for mounting in albums and for display. Nevertheless items can be found that show the

treatment of underpaid parcels. Figure 2 shows an unusual form that I recently acquired. It is Form OE

(Office of Exchange) 13 for the Overseas Letter and Parcel Post regarding the irregular acceptance of an

underpaid airmail parcel to Greece. This form tells the whole story.

In July 1982.Dick James Music Ltd mailed a parcel to Ms. Maria Margariti, Administration Manager,

Blackwood Music Publishing, in Athens Greece as shown by the address on the back (Figure 1). The

parcel weighed 8.7 kg and was paid £13.50. It was underpaid and should not have been accepted. The

accepting office is ‘Not Shown.’

Figure 1.

In the London Overseas Mail Office the irregularity was detected and this form was prepared on the

26th July. The manuscript notation at the top left indicated the rate that applied, £5.20 for the 1st half kg

plus £0.75 for each extra half kg. The rate that should have been paid for a parcel between 8.5 and 9 kg

would have been £5.20 plus 17 x £0.75 = £17.95. Giving credit for the £13.50 paid, the deficiency was

£4.45 as shown on the form.

According to the instructions on the form it was to be sent to the ‘Head Postmaster of the District in

which the packet was posted.’ Since the accepting office was ‘Not Shown’ it is likely that it was sent to

the Head Postmaster in WC1, the postal district including the address for Dick James Music.

By whatever route, the request for the additional postage reached Dick James Music who paid the £4.45

using an impression from its postage meter (Figure 3). At the left of the postage meter impression can be

seen the advert for ‘...CK JAMES

....NISATION’


Figure 2. Form OE 13.


Figure 3. Form OE13 with meter impression enhanced for legibility.

Under the postage meter there is printed

‘Postage stamps for the amount of the deficiency to

be affixed here and cancelled. High value postage stamps

should be effectively mutilated.

N.B. Any officer who causes loss to the

Revenue by his negligence is liable for the

amount so lost’

Note that this is single deficiency postage due. The parcel should not have been accepted underpaid. The

error was mostly that of the postal clerk who accepted it. There was no reason to penalize the sender in

addition to the single deficiency. Since the sender made up the deficiency I doubt that the postal clerk was

charged for this error. In any case since the accepting office was ‘Not Shown’ the Post Office might have

had trouble tracking down the delinquent clerk.

Copyright Ken Snelson 2014


ONLINE AUCTION AND SALE REVIEW:

FIRST QUARTER 2014

Steve Wells

Introduction

Ken Snelson has provided his comments on the one item in this much-reduced quarterly review.

ebay

Bob Medland spotted this 1923 piece of parcel wrapper sent from Switzerland, which was listed for sale

on ebay during March with a price of 99p by seller ‘pom_poko51’.

The Swiss letter rate in September 1923 was 40 Swiss centimes for the first 20g and 20 Swiss ctms. for

each extra 20g. The ‘11’ in manuscript indicates that it was 11 rates.

It should have been paid (40 + 10 x 20) = 240 Swiss ctms.

It was actually paid 50 Swiss ctms. and was therefore 190 Swiss ctms. underpaid.

Equating the 40 Swiss ctms. rate to 50 U.P.U. ctms. double deficiency =

2 x 190 x 50/ 40 = 475 as indicated in manuscript

In the U.K. a fractional method based on the British U.P.U. rate of 2.5d was likely used to calculate the

amount due

2 x 190 x 2.5d/40 Swiss ctms. = 23.75d which rounds to 24d or 2s due


QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q69/1 GB/IN 1904 Ian Baker writes by e-mail:

I obtained the picture post card shown below of Gareloch and Clynder Pier dated 18th August 1904 at the

Glasgow Postcard Fair on the 19th January. Can you help explain the route and correct rate that explain

the marks? Presumably it should have been stamped 1d to Calcutta. Was the single ring OVERLAND

POSTAGE / DUE / A / 1 applied in London and to what extent was the ‘land’ part involved?

The T/5/GW mark is slimmer than the one illustrated in Ken’s book; is this therefore one of the ‘recut’

impressions?

On the green oval UNPAID mark do you know the abbreviation ‘S’ in S.P.O., i.e. [ ] Post Office?

Presumably all common marks but nice to have them all on the one card.

A69/1 GB/IN 1904 Ken Snelson replies:

The explanation of the Overland Postage Due Marks can be found in PDMSG Journal #44 (Dec 2007)

India-Underpaid Mail and the Sea Post Office by Cliff Gregory and also in Postal History No 227 (1983)

Overland Postage Due by Murray Graham.

The gist of the story is that the Overland designation referred initially to mail that was sent overland

through Europe to Marseille or Brindisi when the rate by this route was higher than the rate by the all sea

route via Southampton. From 1879 these marks were applied on the Sea Post Office from Aden to

Bombay. It seems odd that a mark inscribed Overland should be used in a Sea Post Office. The Sea Post

Office from Aden ceased operation in August 1914 but the Overland Postage Due marks continued to be

used by the Bombay G.P.O.

The mark you suggest is S.P.O. is I believe G.P.O. and stands for General Post Office.


Q69/2 SO/CH/GB 1949 Mike Sanders writes by e-mail:

I have not been able to make any headway with the manuscript charge marks and postage due values on

this cover, shown below, and hope that our expert philatelic detectives may be able to help.

The following notes may be useful:

The sender of this cover was with the 1st Battn. The Border Regiment (BORDER) in British occupied

Somalia in May 1949. The 25c/21/2d stamp pays the Forces concession airmail rate to the U.K. but not to

Switzerland. The civilian air rate to both countries was 1sh 30c (East African) so the deficiency is 105

cents East African and double = 210. The T taxe mark and the INSUFFICIENTLY PREPAID FOR

TRANSMISSION BY AIR struck in violet were applied in Mogadishu. On arrival in Muralto

(a municipality of Locarno in Ticino canton), 15c in Swiss postage dues were applied. However the

black manuscript ‘15’ has been deleted - what calculation does this represent and where does the red

‘18c’ manuscript charge mark come from? I think the wording across the postage dues – also in

manuscript – indicates the charge was not collected. If so how would the cover have been sent to London?

There are no markings on the reverse.

A69/2 SO/CH/GB 1949 Ken Snelson replies:

I have some suggestions that may go partway to explaining this cover but there are some aspects that

remain a mystery.

I believe that Mogadishu was in Italian Somaliland, which in 1949 was under British Administration. As

Mike points out Forces Airmail was not available to Switzerland. This would have been noticed in

Mogadishu. I notice that the ‘By Forces Airmail’ is struck through in what looks like the same red crayon

as the 18c manuscript. On that basis I suggest that the 18c was applied in Mogadishu and is the postage

due charge in gold centimes.


According to Michael Furfie’s book on International Postage Rates, the U.P.U. surface letter rate from

Italian Somaliland was 40 cents. There may be complications I am not aware of but the 18c could have

been derived as follows:

Assuming the 40 cents UPU rate = 25 g ctms

2 x 15 cents deficiency x 25 g ctms / 40 cents = 18.75 g ctms rounded down to 18.

The calculation in Switzerland completely defeats me.

The Swiss U.P.U. rate was 40 Swiss ctms. Based on a ratio of rates the charge would have been 30 Swiss

ctms. Other methods of calculation also result in charge higher than 15 ctms. If the postage due was not

collected in Switzerland it should have been collected on re-direction to London. But as often was the

case in such situations there is no evidence of postage due being charged in the U.K.

Michael Furfie adds:

The Swiss 15c charge on this is single deficiency, but I can see no reason why it should have been, unless

it was an extension of their policy on mail from foreign forces. The manuscript ‘Annulato’ across the

dues is unusual. It was more often done with a handstamp, and this Italian version is much less common

than the French and German versions, Annulé and Ungultig.

Q69/3 GH/CH 1952 Bob Medland writes by e-mail:

I’ve not seen this style of circular T hand-stamp shown on the cover below before – presumably unique to

the colony? I can’t comment on the Gold Coast end but assuming it was correctly calculated, the Swiss

30c (violet) treatment of postage due was correct.


A69/3 GH/CH 1952 Michael Furfie replies

Gold Coast/Ghana used various T marks, and these large, plain T in circles were one of the common

types. There are variations in the size and thickness.

Gold Coast’s U.P.U. letter rate was 4d, the same as Britain’s, and the taxe of 30 centimes suggests that it

calculated it in the same way as Britain did, converting at 4d = 20 centimes, the U.P.U. standard, so that

double deficiency 6d = 30 centimes. But the Swiss charge is wrong. Their foreign letter rate was 40 Swiss

centimes, and they hadn’t then started using reduction factors (5/8 from 1953). Their equivalence was

therefore 40 Swiss centimes = 20 gold centimes, a 2:1 ratio, so the marked 30 gold centimes should have

become 60 Swiss centimes. Proportional calculation gives the same result: 6d = 60 Swiss centimes.

Because of this 2:1 ratio, outward Swiss taxes were very easy to calculate: the taxe in gold centimes was

equal to the deficiency in Swiss centimes. Maybe someone thought that a similar rule applied inwards -

taxe in gold centimes = postage due in Swiss centimes...

Q69/4 FR/GB 1860-1888 Bob Medland writes by e-mail:

Figure 1.

Figure 1 above shows a Swiss 20c ‘Sitting Helvetia’ stamp of 1862-67, which was struck with a hand-

stamp that mystified me for a long time. The stamp was struck first with an unidentifiable Swiss c.d.s.

dated 2/IV/88 - nearly five years after the validity of the stamp expired. The stamp was over-struck with a

boxed cachet that was not Swiss.

FR.

1F78c

The peculiar denomination is intriguing. In an old auction catalogue I came across a cover (Figure 2)

struck with the same cachet, which at least confirms it as being French. Addressed to London, the cover

was posted at St. Aubin with 60c franking on 26/11/1862 and struck with a boxed PD (Payée jusq’ua

Destination) mark. At the Swiss outward transit office at Pontarlier the PD was crossed-out in brown ink

and the cover was marked with a large figure ‘2’ (decimes?) and struck with handstamp AFFR.INSUF

(Affranchisement Insufficient). The PD mark was obliterated further in black ink, in which the figures ‘8½

/ 2’ were written at top left, doubtless relating to the weight/required franking. I do not have the postal

rates for that period. The SUISSE 3 PONTARLIER c.d.s. struck in red indicated that it was to be routed

via Calais.

There is no evidence of postage due treatment in Great Britain. I am thinking that the boxed cachet

indicated that the deficiency was collected in full by the French post office. The cachet appears to have

been made this specific amount (unless it had changeable plugs for different amounts), suggesting that

this deficiency was regularly encountered. Possibly the deficiency was 20c, the same amount as my

invalidated stamp.

Can anyone help with the postal rates for that period?


Figure 2.

A69/4 FR/GB 1860-1888 Ken Snelson replies:

I cannot provide all the answers on this cover as it outside my collecting area. However, I am reasonably

sure that the boxed FR/1f 78c mark is not a postage due mark. It is an accountancy mark. The difference

is that postage due marks relate to deficiencies that the recipient usually has to pay while accountancy

marks relate to charges for accounting purposes between postal administrations. Accountancy marks often

occur on fully paid covers. In this case the Swiss Postage has received 60 centimes in revenue. Some of

this revenue was likely to be shared with France and or Great Britain according to the various bilateral

treaties.

Many marks similar to this one were used under the 1857 Anglo-French Convention (see Robertson

Revisited i pages 218 and 219 and Mackay Surcharged Mail of the British Isles ii page 113 and plate LIX.)

Under this convention the accountancy charges were not by each letter. Instead the charges were for each

30 grammes. I expect that all the letters in the same category were bundled together and weighed. This

particular mark is not in either of the references I have cited.

I don’t know enough to figure out the specifics for this cover.

i Robertson Revisited, Colin Tabeart, Limassol: James Bendon, 1997, ISBN 9963 579 77 9 ii Surcharged Mail of the British Isles, James A. Mackay, Dumfries: published by the author, 1984


Q69/4 FR/GB 1860-1888 Bob Medland writes by e-mail:

Further to my initial query, as luck would have it I’ve just found the same mark on another cover for sale

on ebay (see Figure 3a/b).

Posted at Versoix, Switzerland on 16/10/1860 it passed through Geneva the same day but didn’t clear the

Swiss (indecipherable) exchange office in France until the 18th. It reached London the next day and

arrived at Wakefield a day after. (What price the efficiency of the mail system today?) The manuscript ‘6’

marked on the front advised that the equivalent of 6 decimes was the postage collectible from the

addressee.

Figure 3a. Front.

Figure 3b. Rear.

Editor – If any members have more information about this particular mark do please get in contact or

send examples on cover.

postage due mail study group newsletter no. … … · · 2016-10-02postage due mail study group...

Documents