Quote from Steve on May 28, 2021, 7:53 am

You suggest the possibility that the VOC handstamp was used at the Cape. I agree that it is a possibility - but where are the proven  examples? You also indicate that genuine forged Cape VOC covers exist with certificates? Can anyone show a genuine Cape VOC cover with certificate?

The fact that an eminent and well-placed South African postal historian - A A Jurgens - had first to be economic with the truth about his apparent discoveries in his book, 'The Handstruck Letter Stamps of the Cape", and then, second, had to fabricate, fake and forge an example of the use of the VOC handstamp at the Cape, suggests that such examples are not easily found, if indeed they exist at all.

Although there are several candidates that have been put forward in recent years as a proof that the VOC handstamp was used on Cape covers, I regret to say that on the evidence I have seen the case for them is not overwhelmingly conclusive.  For me, the jury is still out.  However, as we know that the intention was there to use VOC handstamps at the Cape, I remain open to the possibilty that an example might exist. Indeed, it would be a great development for South African postal history if we could take the origin of handstamps back to the VOC era of Dutch colonial control. However, the proof must be decisive and crystal clear!

The cover you have supplied is, again,wonderful. You have the happy knack of embellishing the South African Philately Club with wonderful material. 'Wonderful' is defined  as "inspiring delight, pleasure, or admiration; marvellous". Your material is all those things AND more. In the old fashioned sense, ' wonderful' used to mean that which caused thought that raises curious and interesting questions. In that regard, you make a valuable contribution to the SAPC site with the quality of your material and, not least, your knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject. Many thanks!

Quote from yannisl on May 28, 2021, 10:13 am

Thanks for you kind words. Many VOC covers exist with certificates. The fact that an expert authority presented an opinion of that the handstamp is genuine is not an endorsement that it was used in the Cape. It was a despatch mark, stamped in Holland in one of the VOC ports. 

All covers I have are incoming, some with certificates some without (see the one in German, this has a PFSA certificate). 

In 2014 Kees Adema proved that there were VOC postmarks sent to the Castle the Good Hope and that they were received there in November 1788.

The postmark which was used there (Wolff de Beer k) is of a much different shape than the others, so there was no doubt about it. Adema showed the three – until then known – letters with the postmark of Cape Town. All are transit letters from 1805-06 and outgoing covers. I have an image for one of the covers, shown below.

My own conclusions so far on the topic:

A. When you buy:

1. Prefer for an Entire Letter (like an aerogram), with letter included as part of the address. We know forgeries exists, this will minimize the chance it is a forgery, as we know Jurgens with the then archivist Botha, removed the wrappers but left entires and letters in the archives, well at least hopefully so. An EL will also date the cover.
2. Prefer with a certificate, at least some other eyes had a look at them also.
3. Prefer EL addressed to names, rather than Orphan Chamber or some other Government Agency.

B. On Adeema's claim

1. I think what he has shown so far is convincing. Letters during the Batavian period, are extremely scarce. Most do not bear any markings, but the image of one of the covers he showed is very convincing.
2. I do not have any more details other than this image and read both his articles in the London Philatelist, bu the arguments are convincing, subject to the covers being genuine. I don't doubt them, but this will perhaps seal the question. It is a great discovery for the Cape Postal History.
3. If someone can research the "letters of loot" in the Kew archives, might also settle the question. These were letters captured by British ships at the time. The loot was shared after the ships were taken back to Great Britain and the loot was shared according to specific rules. So far most of these letters were taken "unofficially" by VOC sailors (i.e. they did not go through the posts) hence do not bear any markings. There are very few Cape of Good Hope. Most were addressed to Batavia and or the Netherlands on the way back home.

C. On Jurgens

1. Jurgens claimed that all VOC handstamps were stamped in the Cape. he was wrong on this count or deliberately mislead the readers.
2. His arguments were very week and circumstantial. Goldblatt rejected his claim.

 

 

 

 

Quote from Steve on May 28, 2021, 6:47 pm

Okay.... I've written this in a hurry. Sorry. It is half-baked.

What surprises me most about Kees Adema's article  is his question "Why would their (the VOC handstamps) use have been postponed for more than three years?" Frankly, had he been truly intrigued by that question, he could have answered it or at least have found some reasonable grounds for explaining the delay. One must ask why he did not. I suspect the answers did not fit his narrative.

1]. The certificates you refer to are for genuine Holland to Cape covers ie. incoming. I have no problem with this. Holland was the headquarters of the VOC and you would expect its employees in Holland to do as instructed. You would also expect its employees in Batavia to do as instructed as this was the source of its wealth and as such needed to be efficiently managed. It was arguably more important than Holland. But the Cape? This was a troublesome backwater with a failing economy afloat with worthless VOC paper money. Who paid the postmaster? And how? What was the incentive to work efficiently while the Cape's VOC gravy train was going down the pan?

2]. Yes, Kees Adema has shown that the Marie Louise delivered a set of handstamps to the Cape on 27th November 1788. I have no problem with this discovery. However, in his excellent and challenging article on the subject of 'The VOC Handstamp used at Cape of Good Hope', (London Philatelist, July/Aug 2014), he says that this set of handstamps was received by a "VOC postal employee". That is a stretch of the imagination. Where and howe does he come by this statement? Presumably he means someone working for the VOC. By all accounts, it was only on the 28th December 1791, over three years later, that the Cape's Raad van Politie (Dutch. Council of Policy) first adopted a resolution to start a post office. So, what was this post office that had an "employee" that he alludes to? As far as we know there wasn't one. In 1788 to send a letter from the Cape overseas it had to be carried "by favour" of passengers or sailors or captain's of passing ships. This is well-documented. Correspondence did not go via a VOC post office which included a "VOC postal employee".

3]. It would take a further two month's before a proclamation saw the resolution of 28th December 1791 to start a post office implemented. In total, it took three and a quarter years after the arrival of the Maria Louisa's handstamps for a post office or a "post comptoir" to be created that could possibly begin to use them on letters leaving the Cape. Adema finds this delay perplexing. "Why", he asks, "would their use have been postponed for more than three years?" The answer is "money". The VOC was insolvent and in a desperate financial meltdown. It no longer enjoyed the goodwill of its employes at the Cape because it was not longer able to splash the cash around to grease the wheels of the carriages of an indulgent lazy Cape bureaucracy who had grown fat in nepotistic sinecures.

4]. If it was the intention of the VOC that the Cape Council of Policy immediately start a postal system at the Cape, then the Council's three year long delay was either a gross failure and or wilful disobedience. As we are unaware of any records indicating that a dispute existed between Holland and the Cape about the latter's tardiness in starting a Cape Post Office, one must assume that the VOC did grant the Council the flexibility to "consider" its response and to commit to the postal system at a time of their own choosing. If this is the case, it would therefore appear that the VOC handstamps were probably placed in storage and not used prior to the start of the Cape Post Office. There is the possibility that the handstamps were lost in storage during this uncertain time, adding to the delays.

5]. As it appears likely that there was no urgent requirement by the VOC for the Cape Council of Policy to start a Post Office until such time as it was ready to do so, the Cape authority took its time during what was a very difficult financial period before adopting the resolution of 28th December 1791. It must be pointed out that 1791 was the end of the same year in which the Cape experienced its most massive military cut-backs, the year in which the German and Swiss mercenaries sailed away for lack of funds to pay them. It is possible that their departure conveniently made the space available for the new Post Office in the Castle. The room that was selected for the purpose of housing the Cape of Good Hope's first Post Office "is described in the old Cape records as the "lodgings of the Dragoons or the Governor's Bodyguard, at this time used as a dispens"" (Dutch. store). (Allis). This suggests that the Governor of the Cape was without a bodyguard as a result of the financial cuts to the military. And the post office is a priority?

6]. Let's forget about the period of the Cape Post Office from its inception in 1792 up to the start of the First British Occupation in 1795. Why? Because the Kees Adema covers you refer to are all from 1805 - 1806, the period of Batavian rule after the First British Occupation of the Cape 1795 - 1803. It seems that covers cannot befound ie. none have been yet recorded from the time when the VOC was in charge at the Cape and when, supposedly, it had a post office at the Cape between 1792 - 1795. Is this because none existed?  If there are no 18th Century 'VOC' handstamps used during the period when the VOC was a commercial entity in charge of the Cape then what this question about use of the VOC handstamp at the Cape has become a debate about the use of VOC handstamps on 19th Century Batavian Republic correspondence. Call them 'VOC' if you will as a descriptor but if such covers are genuine then they are more correctly described as 'Batavian Use of VOC Handstamps'!

7]. Amsterdam was occupied in 1795 (leading the Brtitish to occupy the Cape). The bankrupt VOC was nationalized on 1st March 1796 by the new Batavian Republic, a sister republic to and an ally of France, the enemy of Britain. The VOC's charter was allowed to expire on 31st December 1799. The Batavian Republic assumed responsibility for the VOC's assets and liabilities. The VOC was liquidated in 1800. Following the Peace Treaty of Amiens in 1803, the British returned the Cape to the Batavian Republic as the VOC's successor. It is at this point 1805 - 1806 that it is suggested that the Batavian Republic begins to use the VOC handstamp at the Cape. Just a final thought. Are these the original 'Marie Louise' VOC handstamps or are these new ones bought from Holland by the incoming Batavian administration? Why should the original VOC handstamps still be at the Cape after eight years of British occupation? Why should they now be used if there is no proof that they were ever used while the VOC were in charge at the Cape?  

Quote from Steve on May 29, 2021, 6:21 am

Sorry, I realise now I should have wrapped this up with a concluding paragraph.

8]. In 1806, Britain was at war with Holland and France. (By Waterloo in 1815 Holland would be a British ally.)  As belligerents, the ships of those countries could not call at the Cape for fear of seizure or destruction. That being the case, how did these 1805 - 1806 'VOC covers' reach Holland? And under what postal system were they applied? This is not the first time that a case has been made for the continued use of the VOC handstamp under the British administration. That being the case, why are these  'Cape VOC covers' not found used under the First British Occupation, 1795 - 1803, a far more likely time for their continued use, if ever they were used at the Cape?

The 1805 cover could have been on one of the last Batavian ships to leave the Cape. I admit that much. But from 1806 on once the British had taken the Cape in the Second Occupation? The only route was via Britain, maybe Portugal or Denmark. Do we have records of this route? I don't have the knowledge to comment but I imagine their ships called at the Cape. So, here's the question: "Why were the handstamps of the VOC, a company liquidated in 1800, used at the Cape while the British were in charge from 1806 onwards?"

There was no reason for the British to use them or even to allow their use. I can imagine a thin reason why the Batavians, as the inheritors of the VOC's debts and liabilities, might have used these handstamps while they were in charge. They did create a post office at the Cape. But the British? Their use or the use by a postal agent of the VOC handstamp makes no sense whatsover! The British would have wanted such letters to travel on a British ship as a mark of their authority and also to gain postal revenue. In the absence of a plausible explanation, it is easier to believe that 'British era VOC covers' are an elaborate hoax. The obvious difference in the design between the supposedly Cape-used VOC handstamp from others found on Dutch and Batavian mail is perhaps an indication of forgery.

Quote from yannisl on May 29, 2021, 2:37 pm

Very detail response.

I am re-reading the 2014 Adeema paper and would respond to your post in more detail. However, one point I wish to highlight a disagreement with Adeema is his comment on page 123, "...the only definitive conclusion can be reached by making a comparison of the different strikes."  I would agree provided one, can add images and details also of 100% proven faked handstamps. For example Figure 15 (looks very similar to the one on the cover I have shown). This is why I thought this was an important discovery, as the proof of the faked mark, does not depend on the marking but the fact that Thalman only became a widow in 1821, by which time there  is no question that the VOC handstamp couldn't have been used.  

Quote from Steve on May 29, 2021, 6:23 pm

Maybe you are on to something with your fake mark. It will be a very interesting and challenging development if it looks at all like the Adema VOC mark that is claimed as proof the handstamp was used at the Cape. It's good to talk and have a discussion.  My contribution is background colour. The black and white detail I will leave to those of you who have more knowledge, greater patience and the deternination to get to the bottom of this. I am just happy to add to this discussion. I hope others will now join in with their six stuivers worth.

Quote from yannisl on May 30, 2021, 6:09 pm

The fake mark, that I have shown is for sure not on the cover shown in Adema's article in the London Philatelist and on which he based his conclusion in 2014. In the article he thoroughly explained the background, including some of the packet-boat regulations the usage of other VOC stamps. I have no doubt that the cover he based his conclusions on (in this article),  Figure 30 is genuine,  which I scanned and show below for the sake of our readers. 

1.  The cover in my opinion is genuine and is written in the characteristic formulaic way of writing the addresses on the address panel of the period.
2. The No. 36 on the top right, is in another hand and in different ink. If it was written at the same time as the letter it might represent a series of letters written perhaps by the administration or might represent a "post office" serial number. It can also be a case number in a docket with other documents in an archive. I lean for the latter.
3. Adema did not provide any information as to how the date was established. I assume possibly the letter was still intact. Perhaps if a copy of the letter and a translation was provided it can shed some light as to the author and the circumstances at the time. I also guess that it was written in the Cape, as Adema had to prove only that the handstamp, was the one delivered to the Cape and this by a process of elimination, i.e., he meticulously allocated all the other types to specific places.  
4. It is important to try and find out the name of the sender. The sender at the time might have been a prisoner or a soldier that was still not repatriated. The British treated the prisoners very well and as part of the Articles of Capitulation undertook to repatriate them. They also retained much of the Dutch administration in order to have a smooth transition. If the writer passed away before letters from prisoners could be dispatched it would have been kept in the records as part of the Estate (however meager). The Koopman (merchant) might have owed him money. I cannot make out the addressee's name properly, J. De ..., can someone decipher it?
5. Was the letter ever delivered? In my opinion certainly not by any ship directly from Cape to Batavia. The War was still raging in the East (see the Raid on Batavia of 27 November 1806). 
6. I think there is a high probability that the letter somehow ended up  in an archive and then found its way into the philatelic market. 
7. Is the handstamp genuine? I am not sure, but highly probable. Can it be proven? I hope so. Adema's article and research was so detailed and thoughtful, that I really wish that something shows up to reinforce his thesis. I was actually disappointed that he visited Kew and had a look at the "letters of loot" and found nothing. I was always hoping that a researcher would unearthed something there. It is almost an untouched archive and anything from there would have been 100% genuine. 
8. There might still be something in the British East India Company records of the time located in the British Library and also in India, which is currently being digitized with amazing marine time records. 

The difficulty in such research is that there are very few surviving covers. During the British period think how many "packet letters" are known? Normally auctioneers write about 10. Those were really hard times.  

 

Quote from Steve on May 31, 2021, 9:58 am

I have spent some time in Photoshop playing around with your forged postmark and comparing it to the one in Figure 30 of the Kees Adema article. I agree that they are not the same. The main differences are in the size and shape of the 'O' and 'C' and the position of the 't'. Another possible clue to your cover being a fake is the conceit of the forger. Many are so proud of their work they  leave little clues to allow posterity to guess their names. In your cover's case, the clue is the addressee's name, 'Mevrouw Jurgens'. This must rank as the single best piece of JURGENSIANA known to South African postal history. Show me a better proven forgery with a better if unproven provenance! Wonderful!

Both your and the Adema (Wolff de Beer) covers are ordinary items of mail made exceptional by their VOC handstamps. Remove the VOC handstamp and you are left with relatively unimportant and inexpensive covers that would suit a forger wanting to embellish throwaway items of every day mail. In addition, the  value of Adema (Wolff de Beer) cover is depreciated by foxing. It is not in as good a condition as the other proven genuine covers shown in the same article.

Regarding the letter being delivered to Batavia, how would this have been achieved?

I remind readers that Britain and Holland were at war with each other in 1806. (Thanks for the heads-up on "the Raid on Batavia of 27 November 1806".) The most likely candidate is a neutral ship, one accepatble to both the British at the Cape and the Dutch in Batavia. So, why is the last vestige of a 18th c. Dutch postal system at the Cape, the VOC handstamp, required to be used on mail travelling on a neutral ship leaving the British-controlled Cape in September 1806? During almost all of the 18th c. at the Cape, if you wanted to send a letter to Holland or Batavia, the sender had to solicit the goodwill of the captain or a seaman to carry it to its destination. I imagine that this was the situation again in 1806 if you wanted to send a letter to an enemy destination after the Second British Occupation. Yes, the VOC post office, apparently introduced in 1792, accepted letters delivered to the Castle for transport on a VOC packet once struck with the VOC handstamp but to date no example of a such a letter has been found before Kees Adema's claimed cover of September 1806.

So, why a VOC handstamp on a neutral ship in September 1806? Someone (not me) needs to explain what this Cape postal agency was that required the continued use of the VOC handstamp as proof of postage paid under British rule.

 

Quote from yannisl on June 1, 2021, 8:50 am

This is the sort of discussion that we need to have, with more collectors. Perhaps your idea of introducing Zoom meetings one day can help resolve the remaining questions.