"I have read the various notes on Bahamas which have appeared from time to time in the Bulletins with great interest and would like to take the opportunity to add to the data already given and also to raise a number of queries. By so doing I hope that other members who collect this colony will be encouraged to make a careful study of their pages which may bring to light further information.
'NASSAU TOURIST SEASON/DEC to APL'. I have a cover dated 4th December 1917.
'HOPE TOWN-ABACO/The Beauty Spot/of the Bahamas'. I have am example used as a cachet in 1937. It is in a boxed rectangle 62mm x 12mm approx. in three lines. The words in capitals are in large type and the remainder in small letters. The lower two lines are flanked with ornaments.
|
Link to Prev Related Article
|
|
(a) & (b) I have examples on S.G.177.
(c) The earliest date I have on a stamp is 13.10.1911 and on a cover dated 8.10.1911 the postmark shows some sign of damage.
(d) I have a cover showing this fault dated 8.6.1919.
(f) I have a cover showing the broken 'H' dated 21.7.1912.
LIGNUM VITAE CAY have a recent cover where the circle above 'NUM' appears to be damaged but not to a great extent. It also shows a slight damage between the 'A' and 'M' of BAHAMAS. Has any other member an example?
Mr. Ludington in Bulletin No.15 pp. 50/2 and Bulletin No. 16. pp. 4/5 has added considerably to the recorded information on Bahamas postmarks and whilst the many dates he gives are very important it would he most helpful if we knew on what he bases his information. I cannot agree with some of the dates but in saying this I am, of course, only relying on stamps or covers in my possession or have seen elsewhere. My dates are earlier or later which I admit are not necessarily the earliest or latest ones known. It seems reasonable to assume that the appearance of a new postmark on a stamp or cover is the first evidence of its issue and the only way to establish the period of issue, in my view, is by finding out what members and others can provide by way of dated copies or stamps on covers. A census of postmarks will, indeed, be a big task which can only be dealt with a little at a time. Mr. Ludington has used Gisburn's numbers, presumably for convenience but in my opinion one should start from 'scratch' and in any general revision of the chapter on postmarks new numbers should be assigned to the whole range. Following a study of my collection I would like to comment on and in some instances add to the information given by Mr. Ludington on the various types:
Type 1. Whilst this postmark is known cancelling postage stamps I suggest it was irregular. It was, I believe, issued in 1841 in connection with the mail carried by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Line and following the issue of adhesive stamps it was, I understand, used as a backstamp.
Type 4. I have a registered cover dated 24th November 1896 but I believe this cancellor may have been in use after 1900.
Type 5. Is this really so or is it because it had been in use for over 70 years and was worn? Gisburn states that it was known to have been used to cancel stamps on letters posted on board the inter-island mail vessels and handed over by the Master to the G.P.O. It seems unlikely that a new cancellor of this killer type would have been made in modern times. It is, of course, possible that it had been repaired.
Type 7. The reason for the use of this cancellation is obscure. lNAGUA had its own named cancellor at this date so why use the old general type? I can think of four reasons that would fit the case: (a) unusually heavy mail and it was pressed into service to help clear it before the inter-island boat sailed, (b) in error, (c) the named cancellor was mislaid and (d) as a favour although this seems unlikely in 1907. A point of interest is that the '27' cancellor was retained by the post office and not returned when the named canceller was issued. It would be of interest to know what offices in addition to INAGUA were issued with the '27' cancellor."
|
|
Link to Next Article in Bulletin
|