Cape of Good Hope: Crowned Circle Handstamps
For a period of 32 years pre-adhesive covers marked with a Crown in Circle (CiC) handstamps can be found.
These handstamps are difficult to find in good condition as they were used also to impress wax seals and were not cleaned properly. They are mostly found on wrappers rather than entires, making it difficult to date them.
Covers from this period are interesting as they show the birth of a more organized Post Office as well as the expansion of the Cape population to the north and the frontier towns of the Eastern Province.
The reference work for these handstamps like many others is Goldblatt's book, which sometimes can be a little bit difficult to interpret.
When I examine these covers I normally look for the following:
- Is the cover official in nature? If there are any markings handwritten or by means of Paid or To Pay handstamp is clearly a private letter. What was the rate?
- Is the cover addressed to a high ranking official, such as a Governor?
- If official, does it have a signature?
- Are there any receiving marks?
- Are there any transit marks?
- Are there any receiving marks?
- Ink colour
- Is there a wax seal at the back?
To avoid a single post with a sea of text, I am splitting this topic in more posts as a reply to this one, hoping for additions from other members.
The first images I am attaching are from two wrappers from Tulbagh and Swellendam respectively showing these towns ' Crowned Circle' handstamps, both issued in 1818 and the latter spelt "Zwellendham".
The first example, despite being signed by the Fiscal Dennijssen and addressed to the Landdrost at Tulbagh, has been adjudged as liable for postage with the Cape Town 'To Pay' handstamp (Type I) without hyphen applied to the top.
The second example, from Swellendham to Tulbagh - routed via Cape Town where that Crowned Circle handstamp was applied as a transit mark - has been endorsed '4 to pay' most probably as the correspondent (the Swellendham District Clerk) failed to sign the endorsement.
The third image (2a) is a wax seal at the back of the Swellenham cover. A bit indistinct like most of them.
Uploaded files:
The postal regulations required that the dispatching office will stamp the cover at the top right and the receiving office at the bottom left. Almost none of the covers seen adhered to the regulations.
The attached image shows a letter wrapper emanating form the Laddrost of Graaf-Reinet addressed to his counterpart in Stellenbosch. The cover is correctly endorsed to indicate mail of an official nature and thus qualify for free conveyance, the wrapper shows a particularly fine strike of the Graaf Reinett (sic) crowned circle handstamp and the same mark for the General Post Offfice Cape Town that was applied in transit.
The interesting part of this cover is the wax seal. In 1824 the incumbent Cape Governor, Lord Charles Somerset, prohibited the continued use on mail and documents of the Dutch Drostdy seals. This wrapper illustrates the replacement seal including the British coat of arms.
Uploaded files:
Earlier I mentioned the difficulty in getting covers with clear impressions of the handstamp. In the attached images is a letter wrapper from Somerset West to Cape Town endorsed 'Post Paid' and 'Paid 3' in manuscript (the single letter sheet rate of 3d between the two offices) and this verified on receipt at the General Post Office in Cape Town (oval dated letter stamp) with additional application of the boxed, instructional marking.
The poor impression quality of the dispatching office's crowned circle handstamp is to be noted. Several offices did not care too well for their postal devices - which were put to uses that they were not intended. The second image shows examples of such abuse with CiC handstamps of Port Elizabeth and Somerset being utilized to effect wax seals.
Uploaded files:
First, this is a really useful discussion with excellent material, a good reason for the existence of the South African Philately Club. Your observations, Yannisl, have again given me reason to pause and reconsider my collecting habits and practices. Thank you. Also, avoiding seas of text is good.
I attach a wrapper from Simonstown which had a postmistress who apparently did an above-average job of keeping her CiC handstamp clean. I have seen but do not own a Simonstown wax seal CiC impression. (I collect Simonstown). You will note that while there was some attempt to follow regulations, the CiC handstamps have been placed in the wrong sides diagonal corners.
Regarding wrappers and the difficulty of dating them, many have a pencilled-in date. When I remarked at a SACC meeting that the pencilled-in date on one of my pre-adhesive covers was probably wrong, (on the basis that the cover was addressed in Dutch to the 'Commander at the Cape', an early title used from 1652 - 1691, rather than the 'Governor', used later, 1695 - 1795), Ian Shapiro (of Spinks) commented that when A A Jurgens convinced C Graham Botha at the SA Museum (Archive ?) to separate letters from their archived wrappers and to allow these wrappers to be sold off to collectors, they pencilled-in the letter date on the wrapper first. His point is those pencilled-in dates are probably correct. So, do not erase them! In any event, they are all part of the wrapper's long story.
Regarding what you look for, I usually look for something attractive in the first instance and whether I can afford it in the second. This usually results in some sort of compromise. Okay a question.
1]. Were Official covers ie. FREE ones required to bear the sender's signature? I see one of the covers was charged 4d for not doing so. I see you say as much but was this a hard and fast rule?
2]. Regarding wax seals, I have only one wrapper with a largely complete wax seal. I think this is the seal of the Zeeland Chapter of the VOC. All the covers I have had their seals cut off or they have been lost over time. I realise the desirability of having an intact seal but it seems they are not common? I attach a wax seal impression of the British Army's Oval Medallion Seal on which the postal handstamp was based.
3]. You suggest 'SWELLENDHAM'. I think this is a typo. I have a ZWELLENDAM CiC handstamp - I see no 'H'.
4]. Finally check this out. I bet it won't be the CiC handstamp that get's you going. Is this a piece of Jurgensiana?
POSTSCRIPT 24/10/2020: Subsequent to this earlier thread, specifically item No. 4]., I saw this reference to it on Alex Visser's Addendum this morning. I show it here now as as an example of 'Fake Creep' or as Alex more generously says "Currently status is unclear". The seller, Stephen Gardiner, now sadly deceased, was adamant in his insistence that this was genuine. Stephen told me it was Alex's Addendum. I eventually bought it from him on the basis that it was an interesting fake. I am pleased to see that Alex has treated it with the caution it deserves.
Uploaded files:
I am grateful you started the South African Philately Club. I find it a good way to interact with collectors and personally I am too far from everywhere to meet in person fellow collectors. So online is the way to go.
The postmistress of Simonstown was indeed more careful. As far as following regulations, meaningless instructions tend to be ignored. If you provide a dispatch stamp on the cover, the receiving officer will stamp the receiving mark where it is convenient rather where it was prescribed. Once the letter has been delivered, no one would really be bothered to check if the letter was stamped according to regulations, so why bother?
I was always wondering how all these wrappers came to the market and assumed wrongly that dealers split them from their content to maximize their income, by selling two items instead of one. I am grateful for the information you provided, especially coming from a well known and respectable person in the trade. I have always kept the penciled marks on the assumption that the person (most probably a Dealer) who penciled the date was more knowledgeable than me. Graham Botha is a well known archivist and an author of a number of books. There is an entry for him in wikipedia.
You pose a number of interesting questions and below are my thoughts:
1]. Were Official covers ie. FREE ones required to bear the sender's signature? I see one of the covers was charged 4d for not doing so. I see you say as much but was this a hard and fast rule?
At the beginning it doesn't appear so. Due to misuse the regulations were tighten later and there was an absurd decision at a point that all letters had to be signed by John Bell (who made a hanstamp with his signature)! (See Goldblatt p.66). See attached example.
2]. Very few survived with the wax seals intact or at least to the point where one can determine the design of the seal.
The seal you have attached as MLS1 precursor I haven't seen it earlier, but I have a wrapper that demonstrates how the MLS1 was used originally. (see attachment 1). It appears that it was a sort of an afterthought that they decided to use the MLS1 as a handstamp to denote prepayment.
3]. You suggest 'SWELLENDHAM'. I think this is a typo. I have a ZWELLENDAM CiC handstamp - I see no 'H'.
You right this is a typo, I will have it fixed.
4]. Finally check this out. I bet it won't be the CiC handstamp that get's you going. Is this a piece of Jurgensiana?
The cover is genuine, as well as the receiving and despatch handstamps but the PREPAID not. I don't think it was a Jurgen's fabrication, as he was wise enough not to make it look too good. He would have also probably erased the date as the handstamp only appeared 9 years later in 1846 (according to Golblatt p.51). The ink also is a give away.
True the PREPAID is a difficult and more scarce handstamp than the rest, but not really something that can earn a forger earth shuttering rewards. It is an obvious fake.
Besides, the handstamp's dimensions also differ materially from those of genuine specimens. Possibly made by a modern amateur forger.
I couldn't make up the name and the address, care to give it a try?
Uploaded files:
Wow, that is a superb MLS1 cover. Dare I say that it is an excellent example of the Cape's and South Africa's first postally used handstamp? Or do you have an example of a 1]. VOC handstamp proven postally used at the Cape or 2]. a Burgher Senate handstamp used as more than just a cachet? Perhaps the postal use of a VOC handstamp at the Cape is the subject of a new thread? I have none of these VOC covers. I believe SA collectors who buy Holland to the Cape covers dispatched with the VOC handstamp to show what might have been used at the Cape are perpetuating an unproven myth.
Regarding the Prepaid fake cover, I bought it because it was an obvious fake. Or rather, as you say, a genuine cover that had been 'improved' with a little less than sensitive historic embellishment. I thought it would make a conversation piece at display times. Given how different it is from other similar genuine and recorded Prepaid handstamps, whoever made this was hoping to create a new and unidentified one, thus making this cover more desirable and valuable.
The dealer who sold it to me was adamant it was genuine and protested so long and so hard in its defence that he died soon after I bought it for considerably less than he originally wanted. (Actually, he threw it as with some other covers as a sweetener). There are many reasons why it is a fake but off the top of my head the most compelling are the date, the typeface, the ink and the quality of it. My guess is that it was made in the mid-20th century by someone using a popular and common John Bull-type rubber stamp kit. Hence my suggestion of it as a piece of Jurgensiana. It is, I believe, reported somewhere that A A Jurgens RDPSA, had and used rubber stamp sets among other devices to create his fakes. I have tried to determine if this stamp lies on top of or beneath the red line but without more powerful magnification I cannot say yea or nay. It remains a mysterious fake.
In the cover's defence, I note that your 'John Bell' handstamp also appears to use a different ink to that which addressed the cover. Given that the handstamp was pressed into a pad, it seems likely that such a pad contained a different, thicker, less runny ink to that with which the cover was addressed.
The name appears to be ' J G Borcherds'. The first initial could also be 'C' or 'L'.
Quote from Steve on May 24, 2020, 12:13 pmWow, that is a superb MLS1 cover. Dare I say that it is an excellent example of the Cape's and South Africa's first postally used handstamp? Or do you have an example of a 1]. VOC handstamp proven postally used at the Cape or 2]. a Burgher Senate handstamp used as more than just a cachet? Perhaps the postal use of a VOC handstamp at the Cape is the subject of a new thread? I have none of these VOC covers. I believe SA collectors who buy Holland to the Cape covers dispatched with the VOC handstamp to show what might have been used at the Cape are perpetuating an unproven myth.
I am of the opinion until I see a cover from the Cape to Batavia or Holland that the VOC handstamp was not used in the Cape. I have some and it is a good idea to maybe start a different thread for this. I don't have a Burgher Senate handstamp. For sure it was not used postally. Goldblatt strange enough leaves it out, although from memory it was shown in Jurgen's book.
Regarding the Prepaid fake cover, I bought it because it was an obvious fake. Or rather, as you say, a genuine cover that had been 'improved' with a little less than sensitive historic embellishment. I thought it would make a conversation piece at display times. Given how different it is from other similar genuine and recorded Prepaid handstamps, whoever made this was hoping to create a new and unidentified one, thus making this cover more desirable and valuable.
The dealer who sold it to me was adamant it was genuine and protested so long and so hard in its defence that he died soon after I bought it for considerably less than he originally wanted. (Actually, he threw it as with some other covers as a sweetener). There are many reasons why it is a fake but off the top of my head the most compelling are the date, the typeface, the ink and the quality of it. My guess is that it was made in the mid-20th century by someone using a popular and common John Bull-type rubber stamp kit. Hence my suggestion of it as a piece of Jurgensiana. It is, I believe, reported somewhere that A A Jurgens RDPSA, had and used rubber stamp sets among other devices to create his fakes. I have tried to determine if this stamp lies on top of or beneath the red line but without more powerful magnification I cannot say yea or nay. It remains a mysterious fake.
In the cover's defence, I note that your 'John Bell' handstamp also appears to use a different ink to that which addressed the cover. Given that the handstamp was pressed into a pad, it seems likely that such a pad contained a different, thicker, less runny ink to that with which the cover was addressed.
The name appears to be ' J G Borcherds'. The first initial could also be 'C' or 'L'.
Your cover can possibly be Jurgensiana and it is interesting in itself, even if it is a fake. The 'John Bell' handstamp's ink is normally darker than the one used by the post office clerks and certainly was not impressed in the Post Office, but in his office possibly by a dedicated clerk.
Thanks for deciphering the 'J G Borcherds' name. According to the 1840 Almanac he was an attorney and sworn translator, linking him nicely to the cover.
Wow. Good result about the name. Thanks. Do you know where he practised? This indicates that it was a genuine cover misapropriated for nefarious ends. On the other hand, perhaps he was innovative enough to make his own Prepaid handstamp! :>) Only kidding!
He seems to have been practicing in the Cape Town and Wynberg area. He was also the Treasurer in the Wynberg Joint Stock Company.
This fake conversation piece seems to be doing its job. It is good to know that the underlying cover is genuine. The pencilled-in notation suggests it was posted in Uitenhage where it was dispatched with a very poor quality, totally illegible, CiC handstamp. Whoever wrote in pencil that it was from Uitenhage must have had access to the enclosed letter as there is nothing there to indicate where it came from. (There is another signature bottom left that appears to be 'Borcherds' as well. Why?) On the other hand, with neither postmark being particularly desirable, this inexpensive cover was an ideal candidate for embellishment. If someone was prepared to add a fake PREPAID cachet, why not just make up a story about the CiC coming from Uitenhage as well? Does anyone else have a similar faked piece?