Tracy_Barber@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
found these unused words:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:46:06 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
><jaSPAMc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Tracy_Barber@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
found these unused words:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:52:21 +0800, "rodney"
>>><pookiethai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><Tracy_Barber@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>
>>>>> Still a little bit crooked. Slanted a little. Need a better,
>>>>> straighter example.
>>>>> --- :^P
>>>>
>>>>Surely some points off for too much oil in the cancelling ink,
>>>>causing ink bleed, a common blight amongst commonwealth
>>>>countries. ---:^P
>>>
>>>Absolutely. Sometimes they look like they've been burnt into the
>>>stamp. Maybe that was the first true reference to "going postal", a
>>>postal clerk taking his / her frustration out on a £1 or £5 Vickie.
>>
>>A reading of the GPO's instructions to postmasters shows that the device
>>used was called an 'obliterator'. It was designed and intended to
obliterate
>>the stamp! As evidence the GB "1844" type cancels with heavy bars
framing
>>the PO's ID numeral. Lighter CDS and other cancels came into being after
the
>>officialdom lost its fear of having a stamp cleaned and used - well at
least
>>most of it! <G>
>
>That's why it's called a Killer Cancel. Hey, this leads to more
>discussion about "going postal". Maybe there's a postal history or
>philatelic reference from the 1800s?
About the term, probably not, but about the obliterators ... I've quite a
bit.
>>I'd offer the grilled issue of the US as another indication of the PO's
>>intention to 'destroy' the stamp against possible re-use.
>
>OK... the only time when one would have a problem is if one would
>scrub the stamp. Simple soaking has not done too much harm to those
>stamps I've worked on, albeit a small number.
However, ther fibres of the stamps were pierced (GB thought of using a
'canceller' that would pierce while ON the letter!) and to some early
writes, those stamps were 'damaged'!
>>>I reviewed said comments from previous posts and found that Sir Rien
>>>is "almost" right, considering the number of people who have stated
>>>that the cancel should be socked on the stamp, but doesn't have to
>>>square up to perfection. It would be a small collection indeed if
>>>that requirement were in effect.
>>
>>It would be a very 'difficult' collection, but by no means 'small'.
>
>If they were truly centered on a stamp, with the millimeters checked,
>it would truly be small indeed.
Not so, It would be on the order of perfectly centered stamps with fresh
PO
'colour'.
>>It would be similar to a Penny Black collection ... there's only -=one=-
>>Penny Black, isn't there? <G>
>
>Aha! But nobody has one EXACTLY like mine! I still think about the
>people who used to put them up on their walls. Hmmm...
Every postally used stamp is unique. <G>
The point was though, are there four (shades), 12 (plates), 240
(positions), leading to over 10,000 identifiable items (plates, positions,
shades & known repaired 'states' !) ??? That's for -=mint=- [or used if ou
don't bother with the effect of usage!
Now add in red/black MX, town & special MX cancels, a few coloured MX
cancels and various postal rates 2d combinations & multiples, plus those
known added to Mulready covers and you've a monster in used.
|
