Army Postmark

Here's a mystery for you cancel experts. A 1916 army post office mark (unfortunately trimmed very close).
Looks like a C22 or S22 at the bottom. Don't know nation of origin.
Any takers?

OOOOH, never noticed this until I looked at the scan. I can make out the word 'FIELD' on the circle coming in off the left. Another clue!

Must be British in origin. US postmarks of the day did not look like that, while I have seen plenty of British ones that do.

This image from postalhistory.com may help identify your cancel, described as "S.22 Canadian Base Army Depot Etaples, France":

wt1! That's brilliant. Amazing detective work. Thanks!!

So more than 7 years after this original post, I have an update on this question, coincidently on Nov 11, 2018, the 100th anniversary of the end of the Great War.
The post mark I had asked about did not originate in Etaples, as wt1 had suggested, but in Harfleur.
According to an article I've just found on postalhistorycanada.net, field post office S22 was located at Harfleur from Aug 1 1916 to May 18 1917 which of course includes the Dec 11 1916 date on the postmark. The FPO did move to Etaples as of May 19 1917 and remained there until Dec of 1918 which includes the date on the example wt1 found.
Small potatoes I know, but always interesting to find an answer.

For interest's sake, here's a link to the article. Thanks again, wt1

http://www.postalhistorycanada.net/...Chapter7.pdf

...and since I brought it up, here's an image of part of the British Army camp at Harfleur in March of 1916




It's found on this website...

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/bat...rfleur-base/

Always good to have context, right?

Nice work James !




Actually, that's an elliptical strike. Not shown anywhere on your attached items.

I now believe that elliptical strike to be a censorship mark, Rod. I have another full envelope postmarked in 1917 with such a strike and the word FIELD is on the narrow end of the ellipse.
I know virtually nothing about these military covers, though I have a few from both world wars. Maybe its time to start paying attention.

Here's another military cover (from my war tax collection), though not the one I mention above, but it has the same elliptical censor mark. This cover is also from Harfleur (S22). Small world!

Again...nice work James!

(Philately begins, where the Catalogue ends)

PS: find that amazing, the cover was flipped so the machine canceller could hit the stamp.

You can see a more complete version of that censor mark here in the Censor Stamps section. (Sorry, can't post the photo from my iPad)

Thanks, Postmaster.

https://www.worldwar1postcards.com/...ers-mail.php

Excellent! thanks guys. That little graphic is now part of my 'library'!

Great thread, 'bumped' at an appropriate time.
I have a couple of questions for any experts on these censor marks.
I have a cut-out of CM2 with what appears to be the same Army Post strike (S2??) but seems to be dated 23 DEC 12, so obviously prior to WW1. Any ideas where the office was pre-war?

Also I have a postcard sent from Egypt on 04 SEP 16 with a CM3 censor mark, so is that a late use of the mark or did all areas not change over the marks at the same time?

Any help much appreciated.
Regards
DavidR

Field Censor type CM2 was introduced in December 1914 in France though the official list of the allottment of its censor numbers to specific military units was prepared on November 10,1914.

So, evidently the year digits have been incorrectly read.

Secondly, Rod's pix is only for Br. and Indian Base and Field Post Offices in France. There were total 8 types of censor stamps of which types CM7 and CM8 were not used in France but in Balkan Peninsula, Thessaloniki (Ellada) as well as in the Middle-East, Türkiye etc., in WW1 and immediately after, during the post-armistice period.

Type CM3 was replaced on January 4,1916 with type CM4 but that change took place only in France.

Indian and Br. military units used type CM3 in different theaters of war in the Middle East till October 1917.

So, the date and location fit in perfectly.

Thanks Joy D, that sorts my second question.
As for the date stamp on the first mark, have always thought it looked a bit odd, much smaller '12' than the rest of the date.
Will try to get a picture on for you to see.
Regards
DavidR