New South Wales Numeral Cancels

Sometimes the segments look quite 'dotty' (see 3R16 cancellers 151 and 394) and sometimes it seems they were dots - 3R16 cancellers 118, 391, 393, 403, 405, 406, 407, 408 etc..

The pair below was in lot 93 of Millennium's auction number 70.




By my count it's a 2R17

The wmk is a single line 1

I was actually looking for information on the double line 2 wmk pair in the same lot and knew I had saved the image a while ago!

Beautiful strike - that clears that one up then!

Bobby De La Rue

Where the arrows are, is it part of your pair, or from the stamp hidden behind this pair..???

Robert

Hi Robert,

How I wish it was my pair!

Yes, the rays you've highlighted are on the pair.

Four more that could use a sharp eye please

Hi Al,

1518 Sussex Street
595 Attunga
1262 Byrock
165 Wallabadah

A thought on numerals 111 and 114.

Initially 111 was used at Bowenfels and 114 at Tambaroora. At some stage the numerals were switched, but when?

If the 114 (3) 3R16 device was initially used at Tambaroora, as per Freeman's note, then it would make perfect sense that the 111 (3) 3R16 must've been used initially at Bowenfels.

Are there any 3R16 covers from either office in support of Freeman's note? I did a historical search of Prestige, Phoenix, Premier and Millennium but couldn't find one.

If there are covers, they must bear DLR &/or Diadem stamps, Wmk Crown/NSW type 1 or earlier, and be dated between 1863 (the year the 3R16 type was introduced) and 1878.

Freeman's note on 114 (3) says "Initially, or up to 31.12.1878, used at Tambaroora".

The following day, Numerals 114 (Bowenfels to South Bowenfels), 456 (Lithgow to Bowenfels) & 752 (Eskbank to Lithgow) changed their names.

Could it be a case of when the 3R16 devices were issued, the 111 went to Tambaroora and the 114 went to Bowenfels, instead of the other way around, and the Post Office didn't pick up on their error, and subsequently left things as they were?

Alternatively, with the reshuffle on 1.1.1879, the 111 and 114 numerals were switched, although this surely is an unlikely scenario.

PS: I'd like to see a cover of the 2R type from either office but have only ever seen stamps. What if the switch happened in 1857 with the introduction of the 2R type?

Some more information.

Numeral 456 types 2 and 3 - these do not exist. The listings are a duplication of the 2 and 3 types for numeral 454.

Numeral 1788 - the illustration is numeral 788. The office was closed before the 1d shield stamp was issued.

Numeral 758 type 4B - I don't believe this exists. The 3R12 type was still being used in 1903-4. I'd suggest it's a case of mistaken identity.

Some more information on the numerals for Tambaroora and Bowenfels.

The image below is from the NSW Government Gazette, 6th August 1852.



White says Bowenfels opened as a Receiving Office on 30 April 1852 and was raised to Post Office status on 1 October 1852.

Hopson & Tobin say Bowenfels Post Office opened on 1 July 1852 and do not mention the Receiving Office. If this is correct it should've been in the Gazette notice.

Binda was opened 1 May 1852, Jamberoo 1 July 1852 and Tambaroora 9 July 1952.

If White is correct the sequence should've been Binda 111, Jamberoo 112, Tambaroora 113 and Bowenfels 114.

By the time the Tambaroora/Bowenfels error was realised it would've been easier to swap the numerals of these two offices rather than renumber all four offices affected.

Some information on numeral 154, type 2R34.

This device must've been in use at both Pure Point and Myrtleville. Hugh's note says the device is recorded on a 2d diadem, perf. 12.

Pure Point was closed 31/1/1859 and perforation was introduced in February 1860.

Myrtleville was opened on 1/5/1861 so the stamp Hugh is describing must've been used at Myrtleville.

For the device to be used at Pure Point, it must be on an imperf. diadem.

Is there only one known strike of this device?

Thank you for sharing your research Bobby - I would like to look into the available material on Post Office opening dates and allocations one day. Emu, opened at the same time as others mentioned above, received a much higher number (190).

I wonder if a learned member might give their opinion on this one:

A 1585 of Cowlong I'd say.

I wonder what happened? Looks like heat damage to me.

Thanks Bobby De La Rue, that's a good one then at RRRR.
Maybe the distortion is why not many have been found?

You might be right on the money there fairdinkumstamps. Hugh's example isn't too flash either, but not in the damaged state kind of way!