Machine Marks
The time, day and month on Bickersdyke cancellers were changeable slugs, but it looks as if the year was engraved on the date-stamp, and that they needed a new one each year, which explains why the size varies (and may explain why I haven't seen 1901 - perhaps they had a supply problem?).
Bas/Steve
Thanks for the additional images and your write up.
According to Peach who wrote the book for the UK Machine Marks (I don't have the book, but have a series of articles written by him in the Stamp Magazine), the dater part of the postmark was made into two parts, the "town part" on the top and the "dater" part at the bottom. The year was not settable but was engraved integrally; the dater was made from removable slugs. The machine was probably either on loan or rented for a year and hence its reappearance again later on.
In the UK they were tried in April/June 1899, again quoting Peach, followed by Field Tests later known as the "Bickerdike and Boston Field Trials."
It appears that only the Bickerdike had the "c-crown-c" in the obliterator part. The Boston marks, were straight lines.
The crown was changed during the King Edward period, as apparently he did not like the "Victorian Crown."
@steve the image sizes of postmark scans are sometimes out by 2-3%, and copied from Goldblatt. Should I get my hands on some rotring pens and tracing paper, I will update quite a few of them, as this is the quickest method.
The "mystery mark" is the one with the asterisks. There is nothing similar that I know of used in the UK. My copy which I post below, is dated 30 Dec 1903 and the ink is bluish-black (certainly a test run) and the cover that made me look for more answers. I see on your cover the date is not very clear, are there any hints on the other side of the card?
Uploaded files:
Later a continuous machine mark was used on cheap rate mail. The example is just before union. This is probably from a "Krag" machine. The "Krag" machine was very reliable, used less power and accommodated variations of envelope sizes and thicknesses.
Without these machines post-offices would have never managed to cope with the millions of post cards being sent, as well as the considerable increase in the volume of posts during the Great War.
Uploaded files:
Returning to the Bickersdyke machine, Bas states that "they needed a new one each year, which explains why the size varies (and may explain why I haven't seen 1901 - perhaps they had a supply problem?)" while Yannis's PDF article says "After an interruption the machine came into use again for one year in 1903".
It would be useful to determine exactly the extent of the "interruption" by determining the missing year/s. I assume these are 1901 and 1902. Does anyone have examples of this canceller showing these year dates? I guess the Bickersdyke machine was not used / leased during this time when co-incidentally Victoria died and Edward VII ascended the throne. Perhaps there was some uncertainty about using a canceller with the "wrong crown". Whatever the reservations or reasons, they ultimately did decide to use the Bickersdyke machine in 1903.
Regarding image sizes, postmark images shown in reference books were often slightly reduced to frustrate forgers. (Perhaps Yannis taught me that! Thanks if you did!) From my side, I re-create postmarks in PhotoShop Elements. I scan the postmark at a high resolution, then zoom in and using various software tools trace over the postmark. The hardest part is the text. I am willing to write and post a tutorial or article on how to do this should anyone want to give it a try. PhotoShop Elements costs about £79. It is sometimes provided free with scanners.
Steve/YannisL
"Boston" canceller: I have scans of four examples (yours included): the dates etc. are:
DEC 2 / 12 30 p / 1903; DEC 16 / 12 30 p / 1903; DEC 30 / 11 AM /1903; JAN 12 / 3 45 p / 1904
They all look reasonably clear.
Bickersdyke: Here's one dated DEC 1 1902; I don't think I have yet seen one dated 1901.
Krag continuous with 8 straight lines: Nice example - the first pre-Union example I've seen. (The 1909 cancellation which I posted an image of earlier has a different "flag", with 7 lines, and probably wasn't continuous, but the date-stamp may be the same!)
Uploaded files:
Bas
Thanks for the additional information. Based on this, will I be correct to at least for the time being conclude that the the "Boston" trial took place between Dec 1903-Jan 1903?
The piece you showed for the Bickerdike machine is important. I have also never seen a 1901.
For the rest I have to look a bit harder on the material I have, as they are all over the place. I am sure I have a few more on pieces.
@Steve thanks for the offer of a tutorial. I am using Gimp, but find that it takes too long and the results are not so good. Can you post before and after images of what one can achieve? I am in need of buying a new scanner and will look into your suggestion.
Yannisl:
Yes - December 1903 - January 1904 covers all the examples of the "Boston" machine cancellation that I've seen so far. It has been labelled a "trial", but I don't know whether there is any evidence for this other than its short life (the examples we have cover about 6 weeks), which could simply be because it broke down .....
Has anyone done any digging in relevant Cape archives? You might expect some record - correspondence between the PMG and the Minister about the cost of machines; advertisement in the government gazette inviting tenders for supply of machines, and related correspondence, and so on ....
Bas
My suggestion that these were trials is based on similar events in the UK. I am not aware of anyone having looked at the archives and if anything survived there.
What I find puzzling no machines were ever mentioned in the PMG reports.
Yannisl:
Ah - you've checked the reports? I have been meaning to try, but don't know where in the UK I'd find a set. Does anyone know? Does the British Library have a set?, or one of the other copyright libraries? Is there any mention in them of cancellers, date stamps or other postmarks?
Yannis, further to your request for before and after images of postmarks created in PhotoShop Elements (PE), I have opened a new Forum, 'The Tyranny of Technology' where members can discuss their technical solutions, their methods and their madness. I have posted a few images created in PE. I have used it for years and still only know those parts that I need. Its worst feature is the text which must be traced. However, that is not a bad thing.... Other programs will do much the same. All have Pros and Cons. My Pro is that I already own PE and know enough about it to do what I want. Those new to it might find the learning curve steep. However, with a tutorial dedicated to postmark creation, the learning curve might be flattened a bit. The advantage of members using the same software is that postmarks created with it could be shared among members. Alternatively, we can exchange JPGs but these will not contain useful layer info. The Bottom Line is that members will prefer to use what they already have. Each to his own.