Cover 29 March 1932 - Query

My initial thought was that the rather tatty lower stamp had been added later, although the cancellation appears at first blush to tie the two stamps together.

Geoff
Agree
The cancel definitely ties the two stamps together
Thankyou

Correct
Scott # 130 and #133

Just chasing up the Pmk
(Can we conclude you Pmk is faded Green?)

Chapter and verse.

There is the argument that the cachet appears a much lighter colour on the top stamp. However, the '29' in the date is on that later typography stamp.

It is odd the cachet was applied in a different orientation. You would expect someone applying two strikes not to turn his or her wrist. The top stamp, however, does appear to be tied to the cover. Also, it looks like the stamp was cancelled with a different canceller than that used on the cover. But that is difficult to say with handstamps.

I would not be surprised if someone actually did add the bottom stamp. That raises the question when that second stamp was cancelled.

Yes, top one is engraved, the bottom typographed, easily seen in the blowup and confirmed by the perf measurements. The boxed cancel is in green as it is supposed to be.

See the upper cover shown above in Collyer/Peck; the cancel has been turned for the second and lighter strike, too. Not suspicious to me. Even covers like this weren't cancelled one at a time, otherwise they'd still be there cancelling them. A clerk would generally spread out a stack of covers and cancel each one after another as fast as possible. A quick check for misses would be made and corrected, which is my guess is what happened with the OP cover. Find me another such cover with a second strike on cover, missing the stamp; it appears that the left strike was a clean miss and corrected. Is there another one like it in Collyer/Peck?

There are other covers, with all four stamps or both 2d values, with cancels dated in March. A quick check of Hipstamp shows two of the typographed stamps there with April 1932 cancels. Both Scott and Gibbons have exact issue dates lumping all four Bridge stamps together and implying the same issue date.

Thanks everyone
I'm still trying to get my head around all the comments.
Can anyone summarise in layman terms?
Thanks

You have two different stamps printed by different methods. Nothing to get really excited about, they just were. The June issue date for one is a sticking point which doesn't seem to be correct to me based on what I've found and what two catalogs say. If indeed issued at the same time, no worries.

Thankyou

"
The June issue date for one"
Which one ?
Still trying to understand

Recess - No watermark. Letterpress - Watermark.

@rob041256

Lithographed or typographed?




That makes sense. Hence my doubts about the online listing.

It's Lithograph.

Has there ever been a later typo issue in June, or is everything in the online listing incorrect?
Except maybe the perf. gauge.

Ok
I get it
Apologies for my ignorance
But I have learnt something
Had no idea about the difference

@Pshann,

If you see two stamps that appear different, the most likely explanations are:
* different printing runs with variation in the ink mix, or
* two different issues.

A good catalogue, almost, always settles whether or not it is the second explanation.