Great Britain Postmarks - Printable Version

+- Kingston Stamp Club Community Forum (https://kingstonstampclub.ca/forum)
+-- Forum: Philatelic Discussions - Country / Region Specific Forums (https://kingstonstampclub.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+--- Forum: United Kingdom and British Colonies / Commonwealth (https://kingstonstampclub.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Great Britain Postmarks (/showthread.php?tid=52)

---

Great Britain Postmarks - Hugh - 05-08-2025

A couple of Columbia machine cancels from the Edwardian era.

Stamp: Great Britain
King Eward VII (1901-1910)
Issued on January 1, 1902
1d, Scarlet
SG 219

Manufactured by the US-based Columbia Postal Supply Company, the Columbia single-impression cancelation machine was used in Great Britain between 1901 and 1910. Unlike continuous impression machines the Columbia machine make one impression at a time with every drop of the cancelling head. Each envelope had to be individually positioned. In short, not a very rapid machine canceller. They were used primarily in the large cities - most commonly London.

This example was used in LONDON S.W. (South West) on APR 22 / 5:15PM / 1904. It has a single circle town die with the London district S W centered within seven straight lines as an obliterator. (Whitney 10/75)

[attachment=72]

This next one is delightful. It was applied in LONDON. M. P. (Mount Pleasant Sorting Office) on Sep 28 / 6 PM / 1904. The single circle die is joined to an obliterator portion with two straight lines above and two below, and five wavy lines in between in three segments separated by two vertical lines after the first and second segment. The central segment has die number 3. Similar to Whitney 10/73.

[attachment=73]

A great resource, if you don't already have it is ... Collecting British Postmarks by Dr. J. T. Whitney.

---

RE: Great Britain Postmarks - Hugh - 07-08-2025

Here's a few more types of Columbia single impression machine cancels.

Whitney 10/70
Single circle town die (London W) with seven straight bars
LONDON. W
APL 28 / 12 15. PM / 1905

[attachment=83]

Whitney 10/83
Three line town die (lines above and below) with six straight bars and die number between 3rd and 4th line / [Newcastle-on-Tyne] No. 1
NEWCASTLE / ON-TYNE / 10. PM / APR 1? 04

[attachment=84]

Whitney 10/88
Three line town die (no line above and below) with six straight bars and die number between 3rd and 4th line / [Bristol] No. 1
BRISTOL / 4.45 PM / MAY 15 06

[attachment=85]

Whitney 10/86
Three line town die (no lines above and below) with six straight bars (no die number)
HULL / 1. 30 PM / AUG ? 06 A

[attachment=86]

Whitney 10/86
Three line town die (no lines above or below) with six straight bars (no die number) 
LEEDS / 9.  PM / AUG 21 11 A

[attachment=87]

---

RE: Great Britain Postmarks - RICHARD - 10-10-2025

[attachment=1060]New Arrived today[attachment=643][attachment=776][attachment=643]Essex to Edinburgh 1948 Scott 267, 2 half P, Brt ultra perf 14.5x14

---

RE: Great Britain Postmarks - Hugh - 20-11-2025

Here's an interesting Edwardian postcard marked Contrary to Regulations / S.E. inside an irregular shaped framw and paired with a 1d / S.E. postage due hand-stamp -- both in black ink.

It was mailed from Portsmouth late in the morning of April 29, 1905 and sent to London, S.E. When it arrived later that day. A south east London postal worker took exception to the glitter used on the picture side of the card and applied the contrary to regulations and postage due hand-stamps.

[attachment=1084]

Stamp:
King Edward VII
Issued on November 26, 1904
½d, Pale Yellowish Green
SG 217

Cancels:
Receiving - Double Circle, medium arc CDS, black ink (Whitney 9/26)
PORTSMOUTH / 5
11:45 AM / AP 29 / 05

Arrival - Single Circle Backstamp, black ink
LONDON.S.E
E 5 / AP 29 / 05

Instructional / Auxiliary Markings
Irregular frame, black ink
Contrary to Regulations / S.E. (Whitney, 18/40)

Postage due oval hand-stamp, black ink
1d / S.E. (Whitney, 18/4)

The UK didn't use postage due stamps until 1914, hence the hand-stamp.

By the early 1900s the British Post Office allowed private picture postcards at the ½d rate, but they were subject to certain physical rules: they had to be on a standard card within set dimensions and thickness, and could not have anything inserted in or attached to the card. The addition of 'glitter' to the card meant the item was no longer a postcard but liable to the letter rate of 1d. Therefore, as seen here, postage due of 1d, double the missing postage, was taxed as postage due.

Here's a link to a similar card offered in a 2024 auction: 
https://sgbaldwins.com/auctions/e-sale-great-britain-contrary-to-regulations-novelty-postcards-se24004/lot/33

[attachment=1085]

Postcard:
Picture Side Text, Clarence Esplanade, Southsea
Halftone printed photograph with chromolithographic tinting, plus the application of coloured glitter.
The 'National' Series / Printed in Britain [Publisher not indicated]

Despite the postal regulations, glitter cards were fairly common -- especially at Christmas and New Year's. Initially, the post office didn't ban them outright they just charged postage due and treated them like a letter. In time, as they gummed up the machinery, glitter cards were sent as enclosures in regular mail, a practice followed to this day. The glitter was made of very fine ground glass and would have been glued on the card by shaking a jar of glitter over gum arabic applied by hand probably using a stencil, or brushed on by hand.

Although the publisher is not indicated on the card, this series is known to have been produced by Millar & Lang, Art Publishing Company founded in 1902 and based in Glasgow. For more information see ... www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_PCV_M/0_post_card_views_national.htm

It's hard to see the glitter in the scan. Here's a couple of close ups.

 [attachment=1086][attachment=1087]

Cheers, Hugh

---

RE: Great Britain Postmarks - Carmen - 20-11-2025

Wow Hugh, that's very cool. I can just picture some woman, I assume, thinking "ooh, this picture is boring. I'll add glitter!" and some anal- retentive post office employee, who got to work late and hadn't had his second cuppa yet, seeing it and yelling "CONTRARY TO REGULATIONS! Hey wait, I'll make a rubber stamp about that!" 

Who can blame them, though, if the glitter was gumming up their machines? 

---