The illustrated stamps are common enough in fact I have hundreds used and MNH.
These illustrated examples are different in that everyone of them still has the original gum, but each has a postmark, and I have lots of them as well.
Technically, therefore IMO they are CTO, but I am intrigued as why all the strange postmarks. The Ship Mail joined pair to me would be true CTO, but do the others qualify as well?
"For the governments of some countries, selling canceled, unused stamps at a discount directly to stamp dealers has provided additional income."
It's hard to determine when the first CTOs flooded the stamp collecting hobby, but these Australian stamps, if they are CTOs, are probably some of the earliest ones known.
The cancellations surely don't meet the classic CTO cancellation.
most of those appear to be machine cancels and not the kind one would expect to see as any kind of favor cancel nor bulk defacer.
in the US, sometimes large blocks were cancelled as a way of accounting for payment of dues or BREs or even make-up amounts for discounted rates (pre-sort etc). I don't know if Aussies did the same. Just a thought
Login to Like this post
"Save the USPS, buy stamps; save the hobby, use commemoratives"
It has me intrigued, but I have only heard of the circular postmark CTO stamps in Australia, and even today they are circular.
Maybe these were issued to Government Instrumentalities, but then they don't have the perforations of state or commonwealth.
Did private organizations buy pre-cancelled items in bulk and use them when needed, and perhaps staff and management saw it as a cheap way to obtain stamps illegally for personal use?
Items two, four, five, six seven and eight, remind me of the USA pre-cancels with their bars. To quote a spoonerism, "the thick plottens"
I wonder if the stamps could have been applied over cellophane or packing tape. I have frequently seen the situation where gummed stamps applied over tape easily pop loose, leaving most of the gum intact on the stamp. I have even seen strips or blocks of gummed stamps just flopping in the wind when such a parcel is delivered. Hey, no need for soaking!
Is the gum truly 'as issued', or are there any hints that the gum was disturbed?
Could at least some of these have been regummed given the Australian interest (and value) in CTO stamps?
I'd expect these stamps' perfs and margins to be more uniform in colour if they were normally used stamps (and the same if they were CTOs) but I'm no expert.
I've just spent a few minutes staring at my ordinary used duplicates of this stamp and I'm still not sure.
The only time that stamps in that era would have been regummed is for fraud, and then the postmarks would have been totally removed.
The stamps were part of a collection that had belonged to a friends uncle, who acummulated the stamps along with his collection of MNH stamps, so I don't think that is the answer.
I still possibly think that maybe in that era, private companies would buy stamps in bulk and possibly have purchased them pre-stamped, but who knows what the solution is.
I don't think that lifting fluid is the answer, as these stamps are not valuable and are very common. I have more than a thousand of them, plus the ones with the gum.
ALso was lifting fluid around in the early 1940's, particularly in Australia, as these were the war years, and such an item would not be considered a necessary commodity for survival in the troubled years of WWII, I have seen envelopes that have been opened and reversed and re-used and have a couple, and that was common in the UK to save paper, but so far it is a puzzle that needs a solution.
I actually deliberately sacrificed one of the stamps with a real messy postmark and stuck it on paper to see if it truly had its gum, and sure enough it did.
Records over the years do get lost, misplaced, stolen and destroyed, somewhere hopefully there is an answer.
I am familiar with that discussion, but it only deals with CTO that are circular.
As said, the Ship Mail one I would say is probably a CTO, but the barred ones I have never heard of, except in USA and Canadian stamps.
Pauls explanation appears the most logical one to me. Traditionally gummed stamps do not stick too well to smooth surfaces, and when you moisten the gum to stick a stamp on a piece of mail, most of it remains on the back of the stamp (or it would not stick). If anything, the gum on such stamps should appear smoother than on unused stamps.
Stamps cancelled in sheets for accounting purposes usually bear handstamps or roller cancels, or sometimes even penstrokes. It would be awkward to try to fit a sheet of stamps through a cancelling machine.
yes that idea sounds feasible, but in the USA and Canada, don't they put whole sheets of stamps through cancelling machines to do pre-cancels?
The cancels on items two, three, four five and six are very similar, which is why I am suggesting that perhaps in the 1940's companies were able to buy such pre-cancels in bulk.
as far as I know, the precancelling machines in North America were essentially printing presses that processed whole sheets of stamps at once. A cancelling machine usually applies a postmark along the edge of a piece of mail, in order to cancel whole sheets you'd need to fold them which would be a bit awkward and slow.
The cancels on the Australian stamps above look like typical machine postmarks of that epoch. I don't know whether they had hand roller cancels with slogans in "Oz". That might be a possibility for a bulk cancellation. By the way, aren't the last two scans duplicates?
D1stamper,
yes, steamed-off stamps often have gum residues on the back, but unless one is very careful, these are very much disturbed and do not look like original gum any more.
Perhaps a scan of the backs of the stamps would help?
incredible as it may seem, the last two scans are entirely different stamps, that is what first led me the think, that possibly there were bulk cancellations for companies.
It one of those mysteries, unless you have access to original archives, it is hard to prove one way or another.
I have never steamed stamps of envelopes, so I can not say whether or not it would leave them sticky, but it sounds feasible, as I have seen people actually steam open envelopes to read other peoples mail, then reseal the letter, but it looks very obvious that the item has been tampered with when steamed.
The last two scans show what happens when a stamp is placed at a point on the envelope where it picks up the same portion of a cancellation machine. They will appear different when placed at differing heights or places on an envelope.
You had better look again. Of the four scans posted, the bottom two scans each show the same two stamps. I'm looking at the perforations on the left side of the left stamp in both scans. Identical.
Presence of gum on a used stamp does not necessarily mean it's a CTO, and its absence does not always mean postal usage.
As far as I remember, CTO stamps (and favour-cancelled ones) haven't been used to pay for postage at all, but bear a cancellation for collecting purposes, either on order from the postal authority or on demand from a customer. Whether they still have gum or not, does not matter (they were sometimes sold glued to sheets of paper, from which they needed to be soaked off). On the other hand, you can have a stamp that's been used for postage, but still has its gum. It could have been cancelled in bulk for accounting purposes or as part of a mass franking, or it could have stuck to some smooth surface and fallen off, but it's postally used nevertheless.
Remember, these are common stamps, there would be little need for CTOs (which at any rate would look nicer, I'd expect), and there is a lot that can have happened to them so that they retain their gum despite having been cancelled.