POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP NEWSLETTER No. … … · · 2016-10-02postage due mail study group newsletter no. 69 march 2014 ... editor [email protected] ... john rawlins postage
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUPNEWSLETTER No. 69 MARCH 2014
Published quarterly and distributed with thePOSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL
Our website www.postageduemail.org.ukMEMBERSHIPWe welcome Dr Geoffrey Eibl-Kaye FRPSL from Winchester.
16 members who have not renewed will not be reading this, but I will try and contact them.Paid up membership is 98 including 12 overseas, and 26 online members.
OUR JOURNAL AND NEWSLETTER ON THE WEBSITE26 members have signed up. I hope it works satisfactorily. Members paying the fullsubscription are welcome to download all or part of the Journal at no extra cost. Send me anemail and I will put you on the list to receive the quarterly password.
AUCTIONMichael Furfie has again volunteered to run one in June. If you have material for sale pleasesend it to him with a brief description and reserve. Not too many under £5, please. 37 TownTree Rd ASHFORD Middlesex TW15 2PN
MEETING AT STAMPEX SATURDAY 22nd FEBRUARY 2014
13 members attended, including Willem Tukker, Hans Van Dooremalen and JamesHeal from Holland and Gero Schmitz le Hanne from Germany.
Pat Campbell showed us the start of his research into the marks and stationery usedwhen undeliverable printed matter was returned at the request of the sender, andreturn postage was charged, 1895–1968.
Tim Hadley showed the results of his survey of …D TO PAY marks, and suggestedareas of research which we should follow with other charge marks: in particular, thedouble line boxed marks.
Michael Furfie has been looking at the charge marks introduced in Birmingham in1915 when the minimum postage on UK letters was reduced from 4oz to 1oz. We sawcopies of the proof sheets and examples on cover.
He continued with the complicated charging system 1875-9 during the period of theGeneral Postal Union: in particular underpaid mail from countries not in the Union.
Finally, he looked at underpaid overseas mail from the UK during the reign ofGeorgeVI, with three different rates and several changes in the UPU equivalents.
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP NEWSLETTER No. 69 MARCH 2014
As well as the opportunity to see interesting material it was nice to meet up with oldand new friends, and it was agreed that we should try to have another meeting at theAutumn Stampex on Saturday 22 September 2014.
PAYPALSome members have suggested that we use PayPal to collect subs. I have looked at theirwebsite and it seems that payments from abroad attract both an exchange fee and commission.Is it possible for the remitter to pay all charges? If any member has had experience ofreceiving small payments from abroad would they please contact me.
Better still, would any member with a PayPal account volunteer to collect subs on our behalf?
There is no benefit for UK members as they can use bank transfers if they prefer, althoughonly three members do so at present.
POSTAGE STAMPSThank you, those who used a variety of stamps on your mail. They will find a good home.However, although Integrated Mail Processors using PostJet postmarks are supposed torecognise stamp designs, most letters with old commemoratives don’t get cancelled, or withjust seven wavy lines, being the right hand end of a PostJet mark. I think these are applied onarrival, and are dumb, as including the post town would suggest they had been posted locally.
AUXILIARY MARKINGS ON GB POST OFFICE WRAPPERS
Our member, Dr. John Courtis has written an eight page article in the March 2014 issue ofPostal History the journal of the Postal History Society. The well illustrated article covers anumber of charge marks and their usage, as well as other instructional marks.
‘THE USUAL SUSPECTS’ (With apologies to Casablanca)
Siew Ng has given me these photos taken at the Autumn 2013 Stampex meeting. Tim Hadley,Ken Snelson, Siew Ng, JR and Doug Nottingham. There are photos from the spring meetingon the website.
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP NEWSLETTER No. 69 MARCH 2014
RESEARCH CO-ORDINATORS
Tim Hadley has suggested a number of areas where we need to record all available examplesof certain types of charge marks, and examples are attached. We need volunteers to take onone (or more) category and receive details from members and collate the results. Help couldbe given in preparing the final account. If you feel you could help, please let me know, sayingwhich category you would like to adopt.
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP NEWSLETTER No. 69 MARCH 2014
CONTACT LIST. MARCH 2014
Applications for membership Peter Williams41 Manvers RoadChildwallLIVERPOOL, L16 3NP0151 280 1482or see our website
Articles for publication in the Journalincluding book reviews
Steve Wells42 High StreetTarringWORTHINGBN14 7NREditor [email protected]
News Letter for minor news items, forthcomingmeetings and displays, general ‘housekeeping’matters, requests for help with researchprojects. Wants lists. (And/or put on website-see below)
24 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
UNDERPAID AIRMAIL FROM SAN DIEGO, U.S.A.
JULY 1926
Ken Snelson In a previous article I showed a number of covers to, or from, the U.K., which had been carried by air in
North America for at least part of the journey. These were taken from a one-frame exhibit that covered
the period prior to the establishment of Zonal Air Rates in 1947.i Since then I have acquired an additional
cover, earlier than any shown in the article, which provides some additional insight into the treatment of
underpaid airmail and is illustrated as Figure 2a and 2b.
The cover was mailed in an airmail envelope from Coronado near San Diego on the 4th July 1926
addressed to London, England. It was paid 27¢. In the U.S. it was marked for 23¢ postage due. The
London Foreign Branch applied two charge marks to show 11½d postage due, which was collected by
means of two 5d, one 1d and one ½d label. The New York date stamp on the back is the 6th July, two days
after mailing in San Diego, which is consistent with the cover having been carried by air across the U.S.
Making sense of these charges was an education for me, helped by some advice from Michael Furfie. The
answer could be determined from the standard references on U.S. Domestic Postal Ratesii and U.S.
International Postal Rates.iii
At this time the internal U.S. letter and the rate to the U.K. were both 2¢ per oz. For underpaid
international mail the U.S. charged double deficiency according to U.P.U. regulations. For underpaid
internal mail the practise was more complicated. If the item was not paid one full rate, it was held for
postage so that the sender could make up the deficiency. If an item paid less than one full rate was
inadvertently sent to its destination, the addressee was charged double the deficiency. Items that were
paid at least one full rate were sent on and charged single deficiency to the addressee.
Figure 1. U.S. Internal Airmail Network 1926-1927.
i U.K. Postage Due Mail by Air In North America to 1947, PDMSG Journal #66 June 2013, Pages 4 – 26. ii U.S. Domestic Postal Rates, 1872 – 1993 by Henry W. Beecher and Anthony S. Wawrukiewicz,
The Traditions Press, 1994. iii U. S. International Postal Rates, 1872 – 1996 by Anthony S. Wawrukiewicz and Henry W. Beecher,
Cama Publishing Company, 1996.
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 25
At this time there was no airmail across the North Atlantic but mail could be sent across the U.S. by air
for onward transmission by sea. The U.S. internal airmail network as it was from the 26th January 1926 to
the 31st January 1927 is shown as Figure 1. The backbone of the network was a U.S. Government route
from San Francisco to New York. There were a number of feeders into this route from other cities called
Contract Airmail Routes (C.A.M.).
The airmail rates were different for the two classes of service. All the rates quoted are per ounce,
inclusive of normal surface transportation to destination. They are not air-fees to be added to normal
rates. For the Government airmail the rate was 8¢ per zone. The country was divided into three zones so
from San Francisco to New York the rate was 24¢. The rate on the C.A.M. services was 10¢ for routes
not exceeding 1,000 miles and 15¢ for the route from Seattle to Los Angeles, the only route over 1,000
miles. If a letter was carried on both C.A.M. and Government services the C.A.M. rate applied but the
Government rate in addition was reduced to 5¢ per zone.
This particular cover was posted in San Diego, which was not on an airmail route. The nearest point on
the airmail network was Los Angeles. It seems probable that the cover was sent by rail to Los Angeles, by
C.A.M. airmail to Salt Lake City, less than 1,000 miles, and by Government air service to New York,
three Zones. From New York it would have been sent by sea. The rate for internal U.S. airmail by this
service would have been 10¢ for C.A.M. service plus 15¢ for three zones of Government service giving a
total of 25¢.
The additional cost for international mail carried on U.S. internal airmails depended on the surface rate to
the destination country. If the 5¢ U.P.U. rate applied, an additional 3¢ was charged as the internal air rate
included the 2¢ internal letter rate. For countries such as the U.K. where there was a 2¢ concessionary
rate, there was no extra charge. Therefore this cover was subject to a rate of 25¢ for air in the U.S. and
onward transmission by sea.
The cover was paid 27¢, which overpaid the 25¢ single rate by 2¢. The sender may have thought that the
cover was subject to the 2¢ rate to the U.K. in addition to the U.S. internal air rate. The cover must have
been over an ounce and was charges as 23¢ short on the 50¢ double rate. The U.S. Post Office marked it
for single deficiency postage due as they would for internal U.S. mail at this time.
Until the Hague Convention came into operation on the 1st January 1928, there were no international rules
on how to treat underpaid airmail. Each postal administration made up their own rules as they went along.
In this case the British Post Office just converted the U.S. postage due indication based on 1d = 2¢ to
11½d which was duly collected.
26 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
Figure 2a. Front.
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 27
Figure 2b. Rear.
Copyright Ken Snelson 2014
28 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
SMALL BARRED BRITISH
CHARGE MARKS: A NEW FIND
Michael Furfie
More than ten years ago, I collated reports of four ‘Small barred British charge marks’ (Journal #20,
December 2001, p.2-3). Three of them were examples of their use on unpaid postcards from widely
separated parts of England and Wales (½d October 1914, 1d June 1912, 2d September 1928). The report
of the 1½d value was from James Mackay’s book Surcharged Mail of the British Isles (published by the
author, 1984), where it is recorded for ‘Turriff 1937, Ireland general’, Turriff being in Scotland.
I proposed a hypothesis, based on the shape of the marks, that these handstamps were designed for use on
some form where they needed to fill a box completely in order to prevent later alteration. I invited
comment or further reports, but there has been no feedback from the article.
The cover shown, bearing the 1½d mark reported by Mackay, is one of the many undelivered printed
papers returned to Dublin Rates Office between the 1940s and the 1960s. A late friend and neighbour,
George Ithell, told the story that an Irish philatelist worked in that office for many years, and collected all
the interesting mail from the post room. At an annual convention of one of the specialised societies for
Irish collectors, he gave every member attending the convention a set of these postage due covers,
including each of the five rates from ½d to 3d (there was never a 2½d rate in the Irish Republic). Single-
handedly, this man ensured that returned printed papers such as this would be by far the commonest
examples of Irish postage due mail a collector is likely to encounter.
The date is August 1952, and the cover is backstamped ‘Baile Phib’, which is Gaelic for Phibsborough, a
district north-west of Dublin city centre, and no doubt the area of the city to which the rates demand was
addressed. So we can tick off Mackay’s ‘Ireland general’. I still have doubts about Turriff, though, and
the overall question of why such strangely-shaped marks should have existed remains unanswered -
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 29
IRREGULAR ACCEPTANCE OF AIR PARCEL
TO GREECE IN 1982
Ken Snelson Collecting parcel post subject to postage due is not easy as the wrappings etc. that show the story are not
usually suitable for mounting in albums and for display. Nevertheless items can be found that show the
treatment of underpaid parcels. Figure 2 shows an unusual form that I recently acquired. It is Form OE
(Office of Exchange) 13 for the Overseas Letter and Parcel Post regarding the irregular acceptance of an
underpaid airmail parcel to Greece. This form tells the whole story.
In July 1982.Dick James Music Ltd mailed a parcel to Ms. Maria Margariti, Administration Manager,
Blackwood Music Publishing, in Athens Greece as shown by the address on the back (Figure 1). The
parcel weighed 8.7 kg and was paid £13.50. It was underpaid and should not have been accepted. The
accepting office is ‘Not Shown.’
Figure 1.
In the London Overseas Mail Office the irregularity was detected and this form was prepared on the
26th July. The manuscript notation at the top left indicated the rate that applied, £5.20 for the 1st half kg
plus £0.75 for each extra half kg. The rate that should have been paid for a parcel between 8.5 and 9 kg
would have been £5.20 plus 17 x £0.75 = £17.95. Giving credit for the £13.50 paid, the deficiency was
£4.45 as shown on the form.
According to the instructions on the form it was to be sent to the ‘Head Postmaster of the District in
which the packet was posted.’ Since the accepting office was ‘Not Shown’ it is likely that it was sent to
the Head Postmaster in WC1, the postal district including the address for Dick James Music.
By whatever route, the request for the additional postage reached Dick James Music who paid the £4.45
using an impression from its postage meter (Figure 3). At the left of the postage meter impression can be
seen the advert for ‘...CK JAMES
....NISATION’
30 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
Figure 2. Form OE 13.
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 31
Figure 3. Form OE13 with meter impression enhanced for legibility.
Under the postage meter there is printed
‘Postage stamps for the amount of the deficiency to
be affixed here and cancelled. High value postage stamps
should be effectively mutilated.
N.B. Any officer who causes loss to the
Revenue by his negligence is liable for the
amount so lost’
Note that this is single deficiency postage due. The parcel should not have been accepted underpaid. The
error was mostly that of the postal clerk who accepted it. There was no reason to penalize the sender in
addition to the single deficiency. Since the sender made up the deficiency I doubt that the postal clerk was
charged for this error. In any case since the accepting office was ‘Not Shown’ the Post Office might have
had trouble tracking down the delinquent clerk.
Copyright Ken Snelson 2014
32 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
ONLINE AUCTION AND SALE REVIEW:
FIRST QUARTER 2014
Steve Wells
Introduction
Ken Snelson has provided his comments on the one item in this much-reduced quarterly review.
ebay
Bob Medland spotted this 1923 piece of parcel wrapper sent from Switzerland, which was listed for sale
on ebay during March with a price of 99p by seller ‘pom_poko51’.
The Swiss letter rate in September 1923 was 40 Swiss centimes for the first 20g and 20 Swiss ctms. for
each extra 20g. The ‘11’ in manuscript indicates that it was 11 rates.
It should have been paid (40 + 10 x 20) = 240 Swiss ctms.
It was actually paid 50 Swiss ctms. and was therefore 190 Swiss ctms. underpaid.
Equating the 40 Swiss ctms. rate to 50 U.P.U. ctms. double deficiency =
2 x 190 x 50/ 40 = 475 as indicated in manuscript
In the U.K. a fractional method based on the British U.P.U. rate of 2.5d was likely used to calculate the
amount due
2 x 190 x 2.5d/40 Swiss ctms. = 23.75d which rounds to 24d or 2s due
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 33
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q69/1 GB/IN 1904 Ian Baker writes by e-mail:
I obtained the picture post card shown below of Gareloch and Clynder Pier dated 18th August 1904 at the
Glasgow Postcard Fair on the 19th January. Can you help explain the route and correct rate that explain
the marks? Presumably it should have been stamped 1d to Calcutta. Was the single ring OVERLAND
POSTAGE / DUE / A / 1 applied in London and to what extent was the ‘land’ part involved?
The T/5/GW mark is slimmer than the one illustrated in Ken’s book; is this therefore one of the ‘recut’
impressions?
On the green oval UNPAID mark do you know the abbreviation ‘S’ in S.P.O., i.e. [ ] Post Office?
Presumably all common marks but nice to have them all on the one card.
A69/1 GB/IN 1904 Ken Snelson replies:
The explanation of the Overland Postage Due Marks can be found in PDMSG Journal #44 (Dec 2007)
India-Underpaid Mail and the Sea Post Office by Cliff Gregory and also in Postal History No 227 (1983)
Overland Postage Due by Murray Graham.
The gist of the story is that the Overland designation referred initially to mail that was sent overland
through Europe to Marseille or Brindisi when the rate by this route was higher than the rate by the all sea
route via Southampton. From 1879 these marks were applied on the Sea Post Office from Aden to
Bombay. It seems odd that a mark inscribed Overland should be used in a Sea Post Office. The Sea Post
Office from Aden ceased operation in August 1914 but the Overland Postage Due marks continued to be
used by the Bombay G.P.O.
The mark you suggest is S.P.O. is I believe G.P.O. and stands for General Post Office.
34 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
Q69/2 SO/CH/GB 1949 Mike Sanders writes by e-mail:
I have not been able to make any headway with the manuscript charge marks and postage due values on
this cover, shown below, and hope that our expert philatelic detectives may be able to help.
The following notes may be useful:
The sender of this cover was with the 1st Battn. The Border Regiment (BORDER) in British occupied
Somalia in May 1949. The 25c/21/2d stamp pays the Forces concession airmail rate to the U.K. but not to
Switzerland. The civilian air rate to both countries was 1sh 30c (East African) so the deficiency is 105
cents East African and double = 210. The T taxe mark and the INSUFFICIENTLY PREPAID FOR
TRANSMISSION BY AIR struck in violet were applied in Mogadishu. On arrival in Muralto
(a municipality of Locarno in Ticino canton), 15c in Swiss postage dues were applied. However the
black manuscript ‘15’ has been deleted - what calculation does this represent and where does the red
‘18c’ manuscript charge mark come from? I think the wording across the postage dues – also in
manuscript – indicates the charge was not collected. If so how would the cover have been sent to London?
There are no markings on the reverse.
A69/2 SO/CH/GB 1949 Ken Snelson replies:
I have some suggestions that may go partway to explaining this cover but there are some aspects that
remain a mystery.
I believe that Mogadishu was in Italian Somaliland, which in 1949 was under British Administration. As
Mike points out Forces Airmail was not available to Switzerland. This would have been noticed in
Mogadishu. I notice that the ‘By Forces Airmail’ is struck through in what looks like the same red crayon
as the 18c manuscript. On that basis I suggest that the 18c was applied in Mogadishu and is the postage
due charge in gold centimes.
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 35
According to Michael Furfie’s book on International Postage Rates, the U.P.U. surface letter rate from
Italian Somaliland was 40 cents. There may be complications I am not aware of but the 18c could have
been derived as follows:
Assuming the 40 cents UPU rate = 25 g ctms
2 x 15 cents deficiency x 25 g ctms / 40 cents = 18.75 g ctms rounded down to 18.
The calculation in Switzerland completely defeats me.
The Swiss U.P.U. rate was 40 Swiss ctms. Based on a ratio of rates the charge would have been 30 Swiss
ctms. Other methods of calculation also result in charge higher than 15 ctms. If the postage due was not
collected in Switzerland it should have been collected on re-direction to London. But as often was the
case in such situations there is no evidence of postage due being charged in the U.K.
Michael Furfie adds:
The Swiss 15c charge on this is single deficiency, but I can see no reason why it should have been, unless
it was an extension of their policy on mail from foreign forces. The manuscript ‘Annulato’ across the
dues is unusual. It was more often done with a handstamp, and this Italian version is much less common
than the French and German versions, Annulé and Ungultig.
Q69/3 GH/CH 1952 Bob Medland writes by e-mail:
I’ve not seen this style of circular T hand-stamp shown on the cover below before – presumably unique to
the colony? I can’t comment on the Gold Coast end but assuming it was correctly calculated, the Swiss
30c (violet) treatment of postage due was correct.
36 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
A69/3 GH/CH 1952 Michael Furfie replies
Gold Coast/Ghana used various T marks, and these large, plain T in circles were one of the common
types. There are variations in the size and thickness.
Gold Coast’s U.P.U. letter rate was 4d, the same as Britain’s, and the taxe of 30 centimes suggests that it
calculated it in the same way as Britain did, converting at 4d = 20 centimes, the U.P.U. standard, so that
double deficiency 6d = 30 centimes. But the Swiss charge is wrong. Their foreign letter rate was 40 Swiss
centimes, and they hadn’t then started using reduction factors (5/8 from 1953). Their equivalence was
therefore 40 Swiss centimes = 20 gold centimes, a 2:1 ratio, so the marked 30 gold centimes should have
become 60 Swiss centimes. Proportional calculation gives the same result: 6d = 60 Swiss centimes.
Because of this 2:1 ratio, outward Swiss taxes were very easy to calculate: the taxe in gold centimes was
equal to the deficiency in Swiss centimes. Maybe someone thought that a similar rule applied inwards -
taxe in gold centimes = postage due in Swiss centimes...
Q69/4 FR/GB 1860-1888 Bob Medland writes by e-mail:
Figure 1.
Figure 1 above shows a Swiss 20c ‘Sitting Helvetia’ stamp of 1862-67, which was struck with a hand-
stamp that mystified me for a long time. The stamp was struck first with an unidentifiable Swiss c.d.s.
dated 2/IV/88 - nearly five years after the validity of the stamp expired. The stamp was over-struck with a
boxed cachet that was not Swiss.
FR.
1F78c
The peculiar denomination is intriguing. In an old auction catalogue I came across a cover (Figure 2)
struck with the same cachet, which at least confirms it as being French. Addressed to London, the cover
was posted at St. Aubin with 60c franking on 26/11/1862 and struck with a boxed PD (Payée jusq’ua
Destination) mark. At the Swiss outward transit office at Pontarlier the PD was crossed-out in brown ink
and the cover was marked with a large figure ‘2’ (decimes?) and struck with handstamp AFFR.INSUF
(Affranchisement Insufficient). The PD mark was obliterated further in black ink, in which the figures ‘8½
/ 2’ were written at top left, doubtless relating to the weight/required franking. I do not have the postal
rates for that period. The SUISSE 3 PONTARLIER c.d.s. struck in red indicated that it was to be routed
via Calais.
There is no evidence of postage due treatment in Great Britain. I am thinking that the boxed cachet
indicated that the deficiency was collected in full by the French post office. The cachet appears to have
been made this specific amount (unless it had changeable plugs for different amounts), suggesting that
this deficiency was regularly encountered. Possibly the deficiency was 20c, the same amount as my
invalidated stamp.
Can anyone help with the postal rates for that period?
POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014 37
Figure 2.
A69/4 FR/GB 1860-1888 Ken Snelson replies:
I cannot provide all the answers on this cover as it outside my collecting area. However, I am reasonably
sure that the boxed FR/1f 78c mark is not a postage due mark. It is an accountancy mark. The difference
is that postage due marks relate to deficiencies that the recipient usually has to pay while accountancy
marks relate to charges for accounting purposes between postal administrations. Accountancy marks often
occur on fully paid covers. In this case the Swiss Postage has received 60 centimes in revenue. Some of
this revenue was likely to be shared with France and or Great Britain according to the various bilateral
treaties.
Many marks similar to this one were used under the 1857 Anglo-French Convention (see Robertson
Revisited i pages 218 and 219 and Mackay Surcharged Mail of the British Isles ii page 113 and plate LIX.)
Under this convention the accountancy charges were not by each letter. Instead the charges were for each
30 grammes. I expect that all the letters in the same category were bundled together and weighed. This
particular mark is not in either of the references I have cited.
I don’t know enough to figure out the specifics for this cover.
i Robertson Revisited, Colin Tabeart, Limassol: James Bendon, 1997, ISBN 9963 579 77 9 ii Surcharged Mail of the British Isles, James A. Mackay, Dumfries: published by the author, 1984
38 POSTAGE DUE MAIL STUDY GROUP JOURNAL No. 69 MARCH 2014
Q69/4 FR/GB 1860-1888 Bob Medland writes by e-mail:
Further to my initial query, as luck would have it I’ve just found the same mark on another cover for sale
on ebay (see Figure 3a/b).
Posted at Versoix, Switzerland on 16/10/1860 it passed through Geneva the same day but didn’t clear the
Swiss (indecipherable) exchange office in France until the 18th. It reached London the next day and
arrived at Wakefield a day after. (What price the efficiency of the mail system today?) The manuscript ‘6’
marked on the front advised that the equivalent of 6 decimes was the postage collectible from the
addressee.
Figure 3a. Front.
Figure 3b. Rear.
Editor – If any members have more information about this particular mark do please get in contact or