Please or Register to create posts and topics.

The Hooded Datestamps of Southern Africa 1888 - 1903

PreviousPage 4 of 7Next

Cape Hooded Circular date-stamps and ZAR Truncated Double Circle (TDC) date-stamps.

There are interesting similarities between Type 2 Cape Hooded date-stamps and ZAR truncated double circle (TDC) date-stamps, probably because they were made by the same British manufacturer; and interesting differences in their use; these are discussed in the attached file.  Comment would be very welcome.

Uploaded files:
Steve has reacted to this post.
Steve

I was looking at some covers yesterday and came to the same conclusion, that the TDC is closer to the hooded rather than the Dated Town Oval, actually a bad impression as per the second image below makes this very clear. All these "experimental" datestamps, appear to have been patented by Berri. When I was a student in London, as part of my final project I had to get copies of some old patents. I think at that time it was housed in the British Library, if someone is in London it would be worth spending a few hours and digging the patent(s) out. It was an impressive place with huge binded volumes of patents. I always speculated that one of the reasons of all these different experimental stamps was that they were patentable (due to non conforming shapes). Both the TDC and the hooded provide space to write a longer town name than what a smaller circular would do. The two bars in a way emulate the BONCs. The time codes in the Cape were first introduced in 1864 and these codes have been interpreted both for the single letters as well as for the double letters, although I am sure down the line we might get some surprises with the double letter ones, which I think were introduced to more accurately assess the time for late fees and maybe even for telegraphs (speculating). Codes were also used to denote ships for the Ocean Posts. 

Uploaded files:
  • cape-time-codes.JPG
  • tdc.JPG
Steve has reacted to this post.
Steve

This web site is brilliant for sharing information. I wish I could access it more often. I do not have an interweb connection at home and go to the library to do this.

I have a number of old cards like this showing stamps with postmarks on piece. According to the list from Alex this is the earliest recorded for Grahams-Town. The date is 6 AUG 88. Older by 10 days.

Uploaded files:
  • Bob-GT-HCDS-May-23-1xx.jpg

Thanks. I have sent the above to Alex Visser who confirms it is a new ER (Earliest Recorded).

Well done! Congratulations. Keep 'em coming!

That is good to know.  Thanks. I have a few more hoods but don't think any are ERs.

This set of three below are all from the same PO, Simons Town. They have the asterisk above the bar and are dated 1892 - 1898. Simon mentions that the asterisk is either vertical or horizontal. These three are all vertical. Can we assume that the asterisk was fixed in this position in the hooded date stamp between 1892 and 1898, and probably before and after those dates? What do you think Steve? You are the Simons Town expert.

Must go. Library is closing.

Uploaded files:
  • Bob-HCDS-May-23-1c.jpg

Okay, I resume this thread having been away doing a lot of work on researching the HCD which I hope to share with you. I think I am starting to get somewhere but I need more data.

Please send me scans of 1888 CoGH Hooded Circular Datestamps as 300 dpi JPGs, please.

Over the next few weeks I will post PDFs of the work I have done to date on the towns that received the HCD in 1888. I look forward hearing your comments - and getting some examples from you! Every little bit helps.

Sorry, Underbidder, I have been too busy to answer you. Grovelling apologies. If you do not mind I will give you a considered reply when I post the Simons Town part of my HCD research. I have not finished compiling it yet. I have a lot of examples, more than for any of the other towns! :>) Fatal statement - I think it will be straightforward.

BEACONSFIELD SUMMARY

  • This is a good place to start - it is the easiest of all the HCDs.
  • We are missing the example of the Beaconsfield HCD ER. Our understanding remains incomplete without it.
  • We show only four examples, one drawn. A feature of the Beaconsfield HCD is its broken circle.
  • Putzel's earliest example, his No. 6, is hand-drawn, never a good start.
  • The two 1888 - 1889 examples have date as Month Day Year.
  • The two 1891 - 189x (4?) examples have date as Day Month Year.
  • All 4 examples, (we need more), show an Asterisk top. (3 vertical, 1 horizontal.)
  • Visser's No. 6a shows no example. We list one from Kelly. (More examples please!)
  • We show an unlisted variety missing its Time Code letter at base.  Sent to Visser 04/07/23.
  • In total, we have identified three diferent examples of the Beaconsfield HCD.

INITIAL CONCLUSION BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA

With just four postmarks covering the life of the Beaconsfield HCD, we do not have enough data to make a judgement.

If we can take anything from this it is that the earliest HCD uses Date as Month, Day, Year which changes, apparently, to Day, Month, Year by the 1890s when we see the third variety, the absence of a Time Code Letter.

 

Uploaded files:

We now take a first tentative step into the sprawling minefield that is the HCD. (Actually, East London is surprisingly straightforward, perhaps a result of my limited data set.)

Frescura does not recognise an East London HCD without a Dot. His 'Post Offices and Postal Markings of the CoGH', (September 2021), defines the 'HC HOODED CIRCLE' as having a 'dot separator'. (He uses the QUEENS TOWN HCD as his example of the type.) His supporters argue that the Dot was lost during late 1891 or thereabouts and as a result the East London (No Dot) is the East London (Dot) without the Dot! Be that as it may, I take exception to this because the loss of the Dot, true or false, has resulted in a distinctive variety which should be listed. I therefore list the EAST LONDON (DOT) and (NO DOT) separately here.

EAST LONDON (DOT) SUMMARY

  • We are missing Frescura / Visser's example of the East London HCD ER. '02 JU 88'.
  • We show only one drawn example. A feature of the early East London HCD is its raised Dot.
  • Putzel's example, his No. 8, is a 'No Dot' dated with what looks like 'JY xx 93'.
  • All our East London (Dot) HCDs shown run from 1889 -1891.
  • All have the date as Month Day Year.
  • All  examples shown have an Asterisk top. All are Vertical.
  • All have a Time Code Letter bottom.

EAST LONDON (NO DOT) SUMMARY

  • Again, we are missing Frescura / Visser's example of the East London HCD ER. '02 JU 88'.
  • It would appear likely that the Frescura / Visser East London HCD ER is a 'Dot'.
  • Frescura / Visser's LR is '06 AU 1894' fits in with our findings below BUT NOT Putzel's cover of 1898.
  • We show only one drawn example.
  • Putzel's sole example, his No. 8, is a 'No Dot' dated with what looks like 'JY xx 93'.
  • All our East London (No Dot) HCDs shown run from 1892 - 1894.
  • All have the date as Month Day Year.
  • All  examples shown have an Asterisk top. All but one are Vertical.
  • All have a Time Code Letter bottom

INITIAL CONCLUSION BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA

There are two types of EAST LONDON HCD, one with a Dot and the other without.

  • The Dot variety was introduced when the HCD wase first issued and was used from 1888 to 1891/2 in the format Asterisk top; Date as Month, Day, Year; Time Code Letter at base. There are no exceptions here.

******

  • The No Dot variety is recorded from 1892 - 1894 (1898 if Putzel's Athol Murray cover is confirmed).  It was used in the format Asterisk top; Date as Month, Day, Year; Time Code Letter at base. There are no exceptions here.

This conclusion is made on the basis of a very small sample set. Further examples are needed before a Final Conclusion can be made. I look forward your your contributions upsetting my apple cart.

Uploaded files:

Is this of any help? I think is the Putzel (Murray) example! Why did he list it as rare?

Uploaded files:
  • east-london.JPG

Thank you. This is a great contribution because it confirms my finding to date that "The No Dot variety is recorded from 1892 - 1894 (1898 if Putzel's Athol Murray cover is confirmed). It was used in the format Asterisk top; Date as Month, Day, Year; Time Code Letter at base. There are no exceptions here". I was hesitant about making the claim that there were 'no exceptions' ie, variations. There probably are some somewhere but until we see them we do not know. So far, with our limited data set it appears that the EAST LONDON (Dot) and (No Dot) HCD is remarkably predictable. I find it hard to accept that this will contine and fully expect to have to make a retraction once we receive more examples. We need more examples!

As to why Putzel rated the Athol Murray cover 'scarce', here's my best guess. We know that these covers are not scarce. Putzel's example in his book, his No. 8,  is rated 400 which is high, going on scarce. As it is from 1893 I assume he did not have earlier examples with Dots to use in his book. If he had been aware of the Dot he would have listed it as either a variety or a new postmark. Clearly, he did not know about the Dot. So, with just a poor 1893 HCD to show, in his mind the HCD was a scarce postmark and he rated it as such.

It should be noted that the Putzel / Murray cover of 1898 flies in the face of Frescura / Visser's  ER / LR list which has the Last Recorded date as ''06 AU 1894''. This makes the Putzel / Murray cover an anomaly. That said, its date is fairly indecipherable in Putzel's book. Perhaps it is an error that Frescura is aware of or was not willing to credit given its poor quality and uncertainty?

There is a further complication Steve, my cover is dated clearly as 1893 and backstamped NY 1-17-04. Putzel used 1898 possibly a typo. I appreciate that you post the images from Putzel as we can refer to them easily, so I think the Last Recorded date by Frescura/Visser stands so far.  

 

PreviousPage 4 of 7Next