A Couple Of Covers (#28 And #29 And #28A)

here are a couple of covers which might be of interest as the display the differences of these issues from newfoundland

#28a from 1870 on the Austrian ship to Poole.

#28 and #29 together to Montreal in 1897

I've got more to share later--been busy this summer

Enjoy!

I had commented on the unusualness of having both issuers (28 and 29) on one cover, but I've deleted it.
Looking at it again, I'm suspicious if that cover is legit.
Sorry tommy, but look at the multi line cancel on the #29 (the darker brown stamp). It does not match the similar cancel on the left hand stamp and is in fact not tied to the cover. There are some hatch lines on the envelope to the right of the #29 which match the cancel on the 28, but they are totally dissimilar to those on the right hand stamp.
Is this making sense?

Does anyone share my suspicions, or am I out to lunch?

It looks suspicious to me also. But would need a closer look to be sure. The grid cancel on the darker stamp looks to be a darker black and the thickness of the grid lines is different.

The first cover looks nice. Transatlantic cover to Dorsetshire. I've just confirmed the Cunard Ship SS Austrian departed Quebec June 18 and arrived in Liverpool June 28, 1870 using my JC Arnell book - Atlantic Mails.

I welcome all questioning and examinations and take no offense. No need to apologize.

A couple of my observations:

1. It is possible the cover has been somehow doctored--and the only way to know for sure is to have it expertized. All other opinions are just that in my opinion (irony)

2. I have examined it in detail and I believe that while it looks odd, it is genuine for these reasons: The larger bar cancel is repeated on the back with a BS date. Both of the front stamps have 9 bars--though the right one is very faint and the one on the left is less full--could be re-inking for the 2nd cancel strike (but again could be fake--but why do a fake so much larger?). The image posted does not show what I see under a magnifying--that the right strikes do run up off the stamp onto the cover in line (though again, that could be part of a clever forgery). These stamps were nearly always used over the top postage wise and this late were sort of philatelic--and so it being Registered it would suggest a clerk saw it, and if the right stamp was not there, what was there and canceled? Weak argument, but why would someone post a cover with negative space in the upper right? IE, if the entire cover is legit and genuine, the only question is whether the upper right stamp was added later--which again I admit is possible and yet in either case is unprovable.

Lastly, in my experience : the provenance or history of where the cover came from is somewhat relevant. in this case, I acquired it from a highly regarded, longtime BNAPS member--an individual that is considered an expert of the "Cents" issue, and who Walsh and Butts rely upon and cite in their book for the "Cents" issues (which this stamp is among). This cover came from his personal collection and so it gives me some comfort as to its legitimacy. But again--it could be false in some regard.

Debate and questioning and sharing of suspicious is part of this hobby, and as long as its not personal--I welcome it.

Also--thanks for the info on the ship involved with the blue cover

Tommy - as usual attractive covers. I also have a few questions about the #28 and #29 cover:

1. Is the registered rate correct? I remember thinking when you first posted them that it was curious that the registered rate to Canada was twice as much as the rate to England.
2. The #28 was issued in 1870. Really late usage? Philatelic?
3. What is the cancellation at top right? It looks completely foreign to the lower much bolder cancel.

I'm not sure of the rates from Newfoundland to Canada in 1897. A registered rate would be a bit more. And a heavier cover would be double rate plus registration.

If I was thinking that there was a stamp added, I would guess the light brown stamp was the added stamp along with the thinner, lighter cancel. Because it looks cleaner than the darker stamp. Notice how the darker stamp is a little soiled on the white part of the stamp. But the light brown stamp looks clean and newer. Also, the dark ink on the right stamp looks closer to the shade of black of the ST. JOHN's oval postmark.

I can't say I'm an expert on postal history so I would take my remarks with a grain of salt. Now that you have it posted, maybe you can find out some good info on it. Your covers all look quite nice and interesting. I have some covers that are in this grey area, too.

Here's a Hechler philatelic cover that has older stamps posted in 1896 which proves that collector's were making these nice covers at this time. Different colour paper on these two stamps also.

All very good questions and comments.

Whatever the situation--these are very late uses of these stamps, being canceled in 1897:

#28 according to Walsh/NSSC has a EKU of Dec. 27, 1865 for the thin yellow pelure variety and Oct 21, 1870 for the white paper variety (impossible to know which one this cover has on it)
#29 was issued in August 1894

My hunch is that this was quasi philatelic in that 24 cents was not required for Registered mail to Montreal. Walsh's NSSC cites the Almanac of Newfoundland from 1897 as requiring 5 cents for a letter to Canada and another 5 cents for registration (excepting a parcel or extra weight). So in either case : 12 cents was sufficient and 24 cents was over the top.

I had not thought about JimJung's hypothesis of the 28 being the suspicious one (on the left)...hmh. This would be consistent with my observation that the back cancel is heavier and like the cancel on the #29 and since the #29 was issued just 3 years earlier, it might be the one that led the way.

I'm still of the opinion that it was legit and a collector created both as a registered novelty using the newish #29 with a really old #28 at the counter to send to his pal (Lawson?) in Montreal. Plus, the source of the cover is an unimpeachable expert on this issues, so that weighs on the scale. still, as JimJung notes : take it with a grain of salt.

I'm glad to spark interest and dialog and keep this going...