New South Wales Numeral Cancels

I would say that one of the key differences between 9(1) and 9(2), apart from the size difference stated by Hugh (and he was meticulous with those measurements), is the shape of the upper loop of the 9.

In Hugh's example and the Manwood example, 9(1) has a more circular opening within the loop while the 9(2) is an upright oval.




The rarity is based on the number of each cancel in the five major collections and those arrived on the philatelic scene up until publishing, so he must have recorded more of the former than the latter. 9(2) was a replacement for 9(1) but I don't know which was in use for longer. 9(2) may have had a shorter life or been used less often. Either way, it appears that 9(2) was less present in the collections and others recorded since.

Thanks fairdinkumstamps for being a fresh pair of eyes! I think you're right on both counts.

Hugh's 9 (2) is on a plate 1 Laureate (early impression too!) so that's July 1851. His (3) is on a plate 3 Laureate so that will be January 1854 at the earliest.

So, (1) was perhaps in use for up to 18 months and (2) for at least 2.5 years.

The usage of the (2) may be lessened by the gold rush, as the towns emptied out with everyone going to the diggings.

I think a (1) might only be on a Sydney View, and an earlier one at that, so that'll involve some decent money!!

I'll have a look through some auction catalogues tomorrow and see if I can find a (2) on a Sydney View, which might indicate a shorter usage life of the (1) device.

Although it could have been used at a later date...

Hi Al,

1516 East Balmain, 228 Drake, 1146 Bexley (rated R), 216 Uralla, 215 Qurindi, 1158 Moonbi Railway Station (rated SS)

Last lot until I dig up more .

Hi Al,

865 Haymarket, 397 Lucknow, 45 Binalong, 82 Armidale, 132 Glen Innes, 557 Candelo.

Hope this helps Al. I will send you an email later this afternoon!

Thanks heaps Bobby ,I'll keep watch for your email cheers .

Members,

Opinions/corrections welcomed, my best guess post editing is 1379.

Hi Finches,

Yes 1379 of Burradoo, not rated.

The long tail on the 9 sealed the deal.

On the first two devices for Bathurst, I went through my auction catalogues and also found a few others on Philasearch at Prestige.

This is a 2d Sydney View plate 5 with what I think is the first device. Carrington sale lot 266 & Prestige sale 179 lot 1198.



I also found this in the White sale, lot 305. I'm guessing its the second device but it looks like it's been damaged. Maybe that's why Bathurst received a third barred numeral device, with the number facing the right way.

I was looking through Freeman's book this afternoon and noticed the 4B device allocated to office 34 Bungonia is, to my eyes, actually 134 of Manilla.

Any thoughts?

As hesitant as I am to go against the great Hugh Freeman, I agree Bobby De La Rue - the numeral 1 shows on the right-hand postmark in the correct position for 134 Manilla.

Thanks fairdinkumstamps

I have one other I'm suspicious on and that's the 3R16 of numeral 138.

Hugh records a 3R16 for Fish River Creek at its original site and also after the office moved in 1866. Both are rated 5R.

Below are three examples of the 2R20. The first two are on 2d DLRs (the one on the left a single line 2 wmk, the other no wmk) and the third on a postcard from 1908.







I'd love to see a 3R16 example as the no wmk 2d DLR should (in theory) bear it, but the postcard definitely should.

The Titania postcard looks to be 3R16 with clearly 8 rays counting to the horizontal on the right.
The lower right is cluttered with other markings but through the clutter there are probably only 8 rays back to and including the other horizontal.

Thanks fairdinkumstamps.

The problem I have is the 3R16 cancel should be dashes. Whilst the postcard is very late use, the ray you've numbered 4 is clearly dots. Further, the five rays around the 1 seem to match on the the first DLR stamp & the postcard.

A puzzler, especially with the scant material available to study. It took my a good while to pin down exactly where Titania was!