Wrong Postcard Rate in 1922

The postcard below dated 3rd May 1922 was only franked at 1d, rather than the 1½d rate that had been in force from 13th June 1921.  The rate reverted to 1d from 29th May 1922.

The postcard has a framed "Inadmissable at .... Rate / 864" cachet with a manuscript "1d" inserted.

This contrasts with the items below which received "Liable to Letter Rate / 864" cachets because the postcards were invalid (material stuck on the front, concertina picture postcard).  The concertina postcard could have been sent at the printed matter rate if there was little or no message written. 

½d Postage Due for Return to Sender, 1924

The front below was sent from West Bromwich to 'Stone & Tinson, Crews Hole, Bristol' on 3rd September 1924 but Stone & Tinson had moved (or ceased trading), so the mail was marked as undelivered, return to sender, receiving a red ½d postage due cachet for the return postage back to the sender.

 

More Bristol Postage Due or other Cachets

The airmail envelope below from Bristol to USA in 1977 had charge marks applied in Reading as it was franked with the internal letter rate rather than the airmail rate.

The airmail letter below from Bristol to USA in 1984 was caught in Bristol and transferred to surface mail as it was insufficiently franked.

In 1986 the underfranked envelope below from Bristol to USA was caught at Reading.

The envelope below from Bristol to Weston-super-Mare has a revenue protection cachet - presumably the meter account would have been charged directly for the postage due.

 

Below are two more insufficiently franked envelopes to the USA in 2001 which were caught and diverted to surface mail.

Some Bristol Postage Due covers

Here are a few postage due items associated with Bristol starting with two postcards from 1922 and 1925 going to the USA with insufficient stamps - resulting in hexagonal "T" tax stamps as they passed through Bristol.  The top has a "T / 10 / BS" and the bottom a "T / 10 / 134" handstamp.

The envelope below from Australia was marked as Airmail but has a framed "INSUFFICIENTLY / PREPAID" cachet and a "5D / 134" postage due mark applied in Bristol.

The Postcard Rate went up in October 1957 catching out the sender of the postcard below sent in 1959.

Both envelopes below were sent unfranked.  In 1964 the top one was charged 5d based on the Printed Matter rate, while the bottom one was charged 6d based on the Letter Rate.

The envelope below, sent in 1964, has an incomplete meter mark so was charged 5d postage due.

Both envelopes below were charged 8d postage due in 1965 and 1966 being double the 4d Letter Rate.

Taunton Postage Due

Some postage due items from Taunton starting with a postcard that was underfranked in 1950.  The Postcard Rate was 2d not 1d.

The envelope below was not delivered so the sender was charged 1d for return to sender in 1957.  The cachet was applied in Ilminster.

The envelope below was unfranked and received a green Posted Unpaid cachet in Manchester in 1959, with the postage dues being cancelled in Taunton with oval Registered cancels.

The unfranked postcard (a registration for guarantee for a "Tidyspin Deluxe") was refused in Birmingham in March 1971 so the sender had to pay.

The windowed envelope below had an incomplete meter mark in November 1975 so was liable to postage due.  The green cachet applied was an old one, still referring to old pence ("D").

The postage stamp on the envelope below had been fixed with adhesive tape in April 1978, and was marked as "Stamp Defaced".

And finally an example of the post office being over keen in 1987 and charging postage due on an unfranked envelope that was addressed to a Freepost address - the postage due stamps were "Cancelled".

Ilminster Postage Dues - Right or Wrong ?

Here are two unfranked postcard from abroad going to Ilminster with postage due, one of which I think is right and one wrong (with my pencil calculations in the margins).

The top postcard was sent in March 1989 and has two red "-8 MAR 1989 41P TO PAY" cachets and a Tax cachet of "T 550/750".  The Airmail Postcard rate was 27p from 5th September 1988 to 1st October 1989 so I think the postage due should be 550/750 x 27p x 2 which equals 39.6p, or 40p when rounded not 41p as in the TO PAY cachet.

The bottom postcard was sent in July 1994 and has a red "28 JUL 1994 49P TO PAY" cachet along with manuscript "T 450/550" Tax mark.  The non-airmail UPU letter rate was 30p from 1st November 1993 to 7th July 1996 so the postage due works out at 450/550 x 30p x 2 which equals 49.1p, or 49p if rounded down.  I admit I worked backwards from the 49P TO PAY to find the non-airmail UPU postage rate, and it seems a bit odd especially as there is an "A PRIORITAIRE / PAR AVION" cachet !

On this next sheet are two unfranked postcards received on the same date with two different postage due assessments - so one has to be wrong.

Both cards have manuscript Tax markings of "T 600/1000" but one has been assessed with 43p to pay and the other 42p.  With an Airmail Postcard rate of 35p from 1st November 1993 to 7th July 1996, I think the correct assessment is 600/1000 x 35p x 2 which equals 42p.  So I think the top one is wrong and the bottom one correct.

"Stamp Inadmissable", 1938

The envelope below also has a Bristol Postage Due mark but for a somewhat different type of reason.  It was posted on 27th January 1938 bearing an 1880 Queen Victoria 1d venetian red stamp as well as a KGVI ½d.  The QV stamps was circled and marked "Stamp inadmissable", and the envelope was charged 2d postage due.

In 1901 Queen Victoria stamps that were earlier than the 1881 "postage and revenue" stamps were invalidated.  The remaining QV stamps were invalidated from 1st July 1915.

Bristol Postage Dues - part 4

Finally (for the moment) here are some slightly later postage dues from Bristol.  I'm not clear why the top postcard sent in 1920 franked with the international postcard rate at the time of 1d, was marked with the Bristol hexagonal tax mark, but by 1931, the date of the lower postcard, the international rate had risen to 1½d so the postcard was underfranked.

Below are more examples from when the domestic postcard rate had risen.  The lower postcard has the later style charge mark, "1D / TO PAY / 134" rather than the olderstyle "2D / 134" of the top card.

... again the examples below are international postcards only franked at 1d when the rate had risen to 1½d.

The envelope below sent in December 1948 has a Canadian meter mark that was flagged with a turquoise "T / 6 / CENTIMES" tax mark which was translated in to 1½d to pay - indicated by 1d and ½d "TO PAY" charge marks.  The postage due stamps were cancelled by straight line cancels, a type of cancel also known used in 1940.

The two underfranked international postcards below have the later style "TO PAY" charge marks.  The lower card from 1954 also has a black framed "INSUFFICIENTLY / PREPAID" cachet.

Here is another example of the "TO PAY" charge mark and framed "INSUFFICIENTLY / PREPAID" cachet, this time on a domestic postcard from 1951.  The domestic postcard rate increased to 2d in May 1940.

Bristol Postage Dues - part 3

Yet more .... starting with a postcard that had an embossed design so was not valid as a postcard and was charged at the domestic Letter Rate with 1d postage due.

.... two postcards from the USA franked at the domestic rate so also 1d postage due on each.

.... a couple of unfranked postcards, one from 1908 when the rate was ½d, and one from 1920 when it was 1d.

This postcard sent in 1909 had a packet of shamrock seed attached to the front so was invalid and charged at the Letter Rate.

Outgoing postcards had hexagonal "T" tax marks with the value indicating the deficiency in gold centimes.  They were both only bearing the domestic rate stamps.

Back going the other way, this card from the USA only had the domestic postcard postage.

Bristol Postage Dues - part 2

Some more postage dues from Bristol, starting with a postcard from Canada that was only franked at the 1c domestic postcard rate (=½d) so incurred 1d postage due.  Note that the stamp was on the picture side.  The UK probably had a bilateral agreement with Canada (or the British Empire countries) that permitted stamps on the picture side.

The postcard below from the USA was franked at the correct international postcard rate but was treated as a letter because it was a divided postcard and the USA did not authorise these for use until the 1906 Rome UPU convention came into force on 1st October 1907.

Two postcards that had glitter on the picture side so were liable to the letter rate.

Until the implementation of the 1906 Rome UPU convention on 1st October 1907, stamps had to be on the address side of postcards (UNLESS the two countries concerned had a separate bilateral agreement - see the earlier Canada example).  This postcard from France had the stamp on the wrong side so was treated as a letter and charged 3d postage due ... BUT the stamp has been removed - if this was done at the time the postcard should probably have been treated as an unfranked postcard and only been liable for 2d postage due !

This postcard was franked at the correct international rate but had glitter on the picture side so was treated as a letter and thus liable to 3d postage due.

Bristol Postage Dues - part 1

The next few posts are going to focus on Bristol Postage Dues.  There are some common causes for covers owing postage due, one of the most common is being posted without a stamp, as shown in the postcard below from Penarth to Bristol in May 1904 which received a large "1d" charge mark.

Another very common cause of postage due is postcards with glitter on the front, which was not allowed and made the postcard liable to the letter rate.

Postcard from abroad that were underfranked, typically with the domestic rather than the international rate, were also common, as in the example below from Canada that was franked on the picture side (more of this later !).

The unfranked domestic postcard below also had glitter on the front so was liable to 2d postage due in 1905.

The international postcard below was unfranked and has a 3d postage due charge.  This is a bit of a mystery.  As an unfranked international postcard it should have been charged 2d postage due, being deficient of the 1d international postcard rate.  There are no obvious reasons why it should be charged at the letter rate (no glitter), and as an unfranked postcard it whould have been charged 5d at the letter rate.  The only way one can get a 3d charge that I can see is if it was correctly franked at the international postcard rate (1d) but was liable to pay the letter rate (2½d), giving rise to a 1½d deficiency and thus 3d postage due.

Here is an example of a postcard from the USA that was only franked at the domestic 1c rate and was thus liable to 1d postage due.

1938 2d Postage Due because "Stamp inadmissable"

The cover below from Bristol in January 1938 has been charged 2d postage due because one of the stamps was 'inadmissable'.

The first tranche of Queen Victoria stamps, those prior to the 1881 "postage and revenue" stamps, were invalidated from 1st June 1901.  The Notice was published in The London Gazette on 19th April 1901. 

Further Queen Victoria stamps were invalidated from 1st July 1915 by a Notice published in The London Gazette on 21st May 1915.

The information above came from an article by Douglas Muir in the GBPS Journal published in July/August 2002.