Taxed Covers (Postage Dues on Cover, etc.)

davo · **Posted:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 17:45:07 pm

Herewith, two Australian taxed covers that show more tax paid than noted on the cover, as there were other taxed covers in a bundle and they were all paid at the same time.

The first is a predecimal cover from 1965

[url][/url]

The second is a decimal cover from 1976.

[url][/url]

Wolfgang · **Posted:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 17:47:08 pm

granne50 wrote:

This practice of the postage due all being on the top item is usually found on mail to commercial addresses ......

I am looking for one from PNG with multiple franking!!!

granne50 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 18:23:02 pm

Here's the last page from my exhibit which shows very late use of predecimal stamps but with the new tax marking system. A pretty narrow window of time frame on these usages.

philcovex · **Posted:** Wed Oct 13, 2010 23:35:54 pm

granne50 wrote:

Here's the last page from my exhibit which shows very late use of predecimal stamps but with the new tax marking system. A pretty narrow window of time frame on these usages.

Thank you for posting the late pre-decimal/early Vienna fraction covers from Australia. The denominator in both cases should have been 8, since 8d was the international surface letter rate.

The underpaid cover to New Zealand was correctly taxed, 6/8. The letter was shortpaid 3d. (I assume that the letter rate to New Zealand was 8d.).

Numerator: 6d ( double the deficiency- 2 x 3d.)
Denominator: 8d (International surface letter rate)

The underpaid cover to the British Solomon Islands was incorrectly taxed, 8/12. The Australian post office misunderstood the Vienna system as did many postal administrations. They incorrectly believed that the value of the denominator should be the amount that should have been paid for that class of mail. The air mail rate to the British Solomon Islands must have been 12 d. (Please confirm).

The incorrect tax fraction 8/12:

Numerator: 8d (double the deficiency- 2 x 4d.)
Denominator: 12 d (air mail rate to the British Solomon Islands)

The correct fraction should have been 8/8:

Numerator: 8d (double the deficiency- 2 x 4d.)
Denominator: 8d (international surface letter rate)

If the air mail rate to the British Solomon Islands was not 12d., then my explanation will have to be revised. The analysis of postage due covers is sometimes an art not always a science!

I have written an article dealing with the Canadian post office implementation of the Vienna System:

http://postalhistorycorner.blogspot.com/2010/06/unpaid-and-underpaid-international.html

If board members have other international postage due covers from 1966 I would appreciate seeing them. It would be interesting to see how other countries interpreted the UPU rule.

Congratulations on providing an easy to use message board. Thanks to members who have kindly communicated with me.

philcovex

lithograving · **Posted:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 00:31:09 am

philcovex wrote:

I have written an article dealing with the Canadian post office implementation of the Vienna System:

http://postalhistorycorner.blogspot.com/2010/06/unpaid-and-underpaid-international.html

philcovex

Great research philcovex, so very informative and well written and presented.

I really enjoyed it and I'm really appreciative that Stampboards gives members a platform where they can exhibit any and all aspects of stamp collecting.

philcovex · **Posted:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 03:17:52 am

granne50 wrote:

Here's the last page from my exhibit which shows very late use of predecimal stamps but with the new tax marking system. A pretty narrow window of time frame on these usages.

In my earlier message I missed two things on the cover to New Zealand:

1. I did not notice that the letter had an airmail etiquette. The amount prepaid was 5d. Was the air mail letter rate to New Zealand 8d? If it was, then the Australian post office could have used the air mail rate 8d as the denominator which was the same as the international surface letter rate. That is why I thought that 6/8 was correct. The Australian post office may have gotten it right even though they arrived at the fraction incorrectly.

2. I completely missed the New Zealand tax marking of 5d.

Since the New Zealand international surface letter rate was 7d this is the calculation to arrive at the amount due in New Zealand currency:

6/8 X 7d = 5.25 d.

This could have been rounded down to 5d.

Aren't international postage due covers fun!

An excellent resource for those of you who want to know world-wide international postal rates (letter, post card, registration) is "U.S. International Postal Rates, 1872 -1996" by Anthony Wawrkiewicz and Henry Beecher (CAMA Publishing Company) ("W&B"). W & B lists incoming foreign mail rates from 1879 to 1971. In 1923 for example Portuguese India's UPU letter rate was 3 tangas.

philcovex

davo · **Posted:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 14:44:52 pm

Yes, it is fasinating to look at taxed (International & Domestic) covers and figure out how the tax was calculated.

The Vienna method was so different that it's no wonder that the postal staff made errors in calculations. This was a problem so it was not surprising that Aust Post issued a PO Circular in 1971 to try and stop the errors.

[url][/url]

The second example is good in that it shows the surface rate was used to calculate the tax fraction on an airmail latter.

The inwards mail is also interesting in that one can pick up errors in the overseas calculations.

Postaslh · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 18:20:15 pm

Thanks for the info. There is so much to learn from this board

granne50 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2010 19:01:50 pm

Here's another cover to have fun interpreting. It was a return flight to NZ but this is addressed to England. The only backstamp is Christchurch NZ 11 SP 58 whereas returned covers are backstamped Sydney 14 Oc 58. It was obviously taxed but then deleted. Did it ever get to the UK? Did it get back to Sydney with no return address??

manfaefife · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2010 01:36:20 am

It's not addressed to me but I can imagine what the recipient felt about this cover !

colinscovers · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 03:26:46 am

1902/3 coronation durbar cover showing the special horseshoe postage due marking inscribed Coronation Durbar Delhi

colinscovers · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 04:37:51 am

This is a special flight cover for the visit of the Duke of Gloucester in 1934 to Australia but did not have a stamp affixed so picked up the due marking. The cover is number one so either was done on purpose or missed the system as 200 were produced.

granne50 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 08:50:26 am

colinscovers wrote:

This is a special flight cover for the visit of the Duke of Gloucester in 1934 to Australia but did not have a stamp affixed so picked up the due marking. The cover is number one so either was done on purpose or missed the system as 200 were produced.

Your descroption says 'had not had a stamp affixed' but it appears that it had but the stamp had come off in transit. Hence the part Lismore cancel.

jugoslavija_post · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 14:21:00 pm

Here's a modern one from 1988, (taxed 58p??)

davo · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 16:46:23 pm

davo wrote:

Yes, it is fasinating to look at taxed (International & Domestic) covers and figure out how the tax was calculated.

The Vienna method was so different that it's no wonder that the postal staff made errors in calculations. This was a problem so it was not surprising that Aust Post issued a PO Circular in 1971 to try and stop the errors.

[url][/url]

The second example is good in that it shows the surface rate was used to calculate the tax fraction on an airmail latter.

The inwards mail is also interesting in that one can pick up errors in the overseas calculations.

Jugoslavija-post. Re your UK cover, the tax was noted as the fraction 9/23, i.e. the rate was 23p less 14p postage paid = 9p deficiency. Note that this was only single, not double.

The USA post office converted this to 58 cents (which seems high) presumably using the Vienna convention.

norvic · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 20:30:16 pm

davo wrote:

Jugoslavija-post. Re your UK cover, the tax was noted as the fraction 9/23, i.e. the rate was 23p less 14p postage paid = 9p deficiency. Note that this was only single, not double.

The USA post office converted this to 58 cents (which seems high) presumably using the Vienna convention.

My view exactly - if the USPS charged 58c for the equivalent of 18p, what rate were they using :!:

Surely it wasn't $3.25 to the £ in 88 - or maybe it was? That's twice the current rate (or the rate even in 1998!)

asmodeus · **Posted:** Thu Nov 11, 2010 22:36:58 pm

Insufficiently Stamped.....

asmodeus · **Posted:** Fri Nov 26, 2010 05:14:10 am

New postage due covers- got them today...

norvic · **Posted:** Fri Nov 26, 2010 06:11:20 am

asmodeus wrote:

New postage due covers- got them today...

Nice!

I love the 'returned printed matter' covers. Normally undeliverable letters were RTS free, but for companies that took advantage of the printed paper rate, they had to pay single rate for returns. If they had a lot, they often got a higher value PD stamp stuck on the top cover in the pile, so 24 of these would produce a 1 shilling due which, out of context, takes some explaining!

asmodeus · **Posted:** Fri Nov 26, 2010 06:43:14 am

norvic wrote:

asmodeus wrote:

New postage due covers- got them today...

Nice!

I love the 'returned printed matter' covers. Normally undeliverable letters were RTS free, but for companies that took advantage of the printed paper rate, they had to pay single rate for returns. If they had a lot, they often got a higher value PD stamp stuck on the top cover in the pile, so 24 of these would produce a 1 shilling due which, out of context, takes some explaining!

Thanks for your comments/explanation!

teus · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 09:47:14 am

This postcard from Victoria to France has two tax marks. An octogonal one and an oval one. Why two marks. The octogonal one says 5c, but the tax stamp is 10 centimes. Why the difference?

granne50 · **Posted:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 19:19:24 pm

teus wrote:

This postcard from Victoria to France has two tax marks. An octogonal one and an oval one. Why two marks. The octogonal one says 5c, but the tax stamp is 10 centimes. Why the difference?

The octagonal T5 is certainly Victorian and indicated the single deficiency amount in centimes which in this case converts to ½d short of the foreign postcard rate of 1½d. 1d rate was only for parts of the British Empire in 1902.
The oval T certainly looks like the Victorian undenominated oval and T10c is the doubled amount due to be collected from the receiver. However it was not normal for the sending tax officer to mark both amounts, so you would need to see if anyone is familiar with French markings to find out if this one was in fact applied in France. If it proves to be Victorian this is a nice postcard.

doug2222usa · **Posted:** Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:57:28 am

When a penny really mattered!

See Carrier's note below the address. :roll:

stallzer · **Posted:** Sat Dec 11, 2010 03:39:26 am

Could someone explain this one ? It's a Postcard with a 1¢ Stamp, which should be correct for the 1930's but it has postage due stamps of 12¢ while there is also the 1 & ½ due handstamp. It never left the US.

norvic · **Posted:** Sat Dec 11, 2010 03:46:38 am

Postage due is 1½c for return to sender. My guess is that it was one of 8 in a stack, with 12c shown on the top of the pile, rather than 1½c on each one.

I don't know US rates, but in Britain normal fully paid mail was returned to sender free of charge, but undeliverable printed paper rate mail was destroyed unless the sender wanted it returned, in which case the sender was charged postage due for return. This looks similar. You need to know what Section 562 of the Postal and ???? Regulations was for (see top right).

doug2222usa · **Posted:** Sat Dec 11, 2010 04:10:07 am

If this is a postcard (not sure), then 1c would
have been the correct rate. Possibly Fergus
did not have a valid precancel permit,
thereby triggering a penalty fee.

If it's an envelope, I seem to recall a 1½c
rate for unsealed Christmas cards, but do
not recall the details. It's the right time
of the year for that possibility.

We're on the verge of discovering another
weird postal history item here.

Every item Stallzer puts up here turns out
to have some twist that makes it valuable
and interesting. :lol:

norvic · **Posted:** Sat Dec 11, 2010 04:40:05 am

From http://zipzapkap.com/dating_mail_order.html

Quote:

Sec. 562 P.L.&R.

From October 1, 1932 (until it was superseded in 1949) anything sent third class bulk rate had to have the phrase Sec. 562 P.L.&R. printed on the envelope, indicating the article was in compliance with Section 562 of the Postal Laws and Regulations (which has to make great bath time reading...surely...)

From: Find a case

Quote:

May 26, 1939

HARRIS
v.
UNITED STATES.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri; Albert L. Reeves, Judge.

<extract>

The evidence shows that each count of the indictment was based upon alleged irregularities relating to circulars sent out by what is known as "non-metered mail". Postal regulations provide that any person desiring to mail out circulars of at least two hundred pieces, or of any quantity of not less than twenty pounds, can, for $10, purchase a permit which entitles him to send out the circulars without stamps affixed, but each circular must bear, in the upper righthand corner, a printed block stating the number of the permit that had been issued to the miler, the name of the postoffice from which the permit was issued, and reference to Section 562 of the Postal Laws and Regulations, and the words and letters, "U.S. Postage Paid."

The procedure under the postal regulations was for the mailer of circulars, at the time he presented them for mailing, to fill out what was known as a "Statement of Mailing of Non-metered Matter", the Statement to be prepared wholly by the mailer in ink and to accompany each mailing, in accordance with the instructions printed on the face of the Statement of Mailing and furnished to prospective mailers by the Postoffice Establishment. However, the employees of the Lebanon, Missouri, Postoffice did not follow the regulations, and it was the practice in that office, when a mailer presented his circulars for mailing, for a clerk in the Postoffice to weigh them in and make a notation of the weight on a scractch pad. If more than one parcel of circulars were brought to the Postoffice by the mailer, the different weights would be noted on the acratch pad, the total weight ascertained and the amount of postage determined. The clerk would receive the circulars for mailing and the money dud for postage, but he would not require the mailer to fill out a Statement of Mailing, nor would he execute and deliver to the mailer a receipt for the postage paid.

More to follow, possibly.

norvic · **Posted:** Sat Dec 11, 2010 04:43:48 am

The only online version I found was from 1879 where Sec 562 (spookily) referred to offloading mail from ships (see Paquebot discussions!)

clay11 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 11, 2010 05:12:30 am

norvic wrote:

... but undeliverable printed paper rate mail was destroyed unless the sender wanted it returned, in which case the sender was charged postage due for return. ...

From my book, The London 1945 United Nations Slogan Cancellation, http://www.lulu.com/author/content_revise.php?fCID=169400 :

"Domestic prepaid printed-paper rate posted 4 December 1945. Cover forwarded to "N4" on 8 December 1945. However, the recipient had "gone away," so this insurance invoice was returned to the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and correctly assessed only 1d. due on 10 December 1945. The last postmark is a sloganless Finsbury Park N. "2" hand stamp." Note that all machine cancels at this time carried the London 1945 United Nations slogan cancellation.

Clay

norvic · **Posted:** Sat Dec 11, 2010 06:22:52 am

Yes, the large incomplete mark to the right reads:

POSTAGE
DUE
FOR
RETURN
TO
SENDER

domiziano · **Posted:** Sat Dec 25, 2010 22:20:03 pm

My contribution: Early GB meter cover with US postage due paid.

:shock:

norvic · **Posted:** Sun Dec 26, 2010 21:31:04 pm

domiziano wrote:

My contribution: Early GB meter cover with US postage due paid.

:shock:

I don't think this is for underpaid postage: the 10c due is for Customs examination even though it was determined that no duty was payable.

domiziano · **Posted:** Mon Dec 27, 2010 08:56:15 am

Thank you Norvic.
I did not realize that postage dues
could be used this way.

domiziano · **Posted:** Wed Jan 05, 2011 09:55:37 am

This may be a dumb question--concerning the taxed meter cover above.
Why did they meter it twice? Could they not do a 3 1/2p meter?
:shock:

Wolfgang · **Posted:** Wed Jan 05, 2011 19:04:20 pm

Not a dumb question!
Multiple impressions were often necessary because many of the earlier machines had only fixed postal rates. Higher rates could only be obtained by multiple strikes of the meter.
Despite the double value tablet border, there is only a single date stamp.

With some machines it was possible to swing out the date set for multiple impressions. The second impression could then be placed directly next to the first impression.

Gulfmann · **Posted:** Sat Jan 08, 2011 19:10:06 pm

Macau ATM cover, posted on December 31, 2010 from Macau to Taipei, the cover was postage insufficient, charged NT$11 with 3 pieces postage due stamps by ROC (Taiwan) Yungho post office on January 7, 2011.

Postaslh · **Posted:** Sat Jan 08, 2011 20:56:44 pm

1959 England to USA prepaid only half the required 6d rate, shortage 3d, converted to 21 centimes. On arrival taxed 7 cents due, paid by 1931-56 3c dull scarlet and 1959 4c scarlet

stampmogul · **Posted:** Sat Jan 08, 2011 23:10:43 pm

Another US cover promising "postage will be paid by Addressee".

The 46c in postage due stamps must have related to the total due for all the letters in that bundle.

Postmarked 'Wellsburg, Iowa 2nd Jan,1957.

torstenweller · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 16:07:27 pm

Our next Postal History Auction #6 is now online for viewing and bidding at
http://www.torstenweller.com/auctions
featuring taxed and postage due covers such as -

Papua New Guinea 1970 unfranked domestic letter with 10c Scientist used as postage due

and check out 14,500+ items for direct sale on our main website below

Global Administrator · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 22:05:07 pm

On nicely written up page .. condition looks excellent - far better than on photo really.

Never seen this before. UK 2/6d Postage Due assessed, and the Poms did not recognise this stamp as being valid - one of 4 countries to do so, and it was collected via a 2/6d Due.

Listed it up for sale here today at $40.

norvic · **Posted:** Thu Feb 03, 2011 22:14:59 pm

Kleinberg, there's a dealer name from the past. It was actually Barbara K if memory serves well. Regular advertiser in SCWeekly back in the 70s.

Global Administrator · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 20:58:19 pm

OK .. can anyone decipher what occurred with this 1960 cover New Guinea to Australia?

No markings on back.

I'd say, after looking closely at it, that the wiggly line around the stamps was done with the same pen as the "10d" in Tax circle and initial .. i.e. all that pen originated in PNG is my theory.

What is yours?

I am guessing that when the article arrived here it was not of concern here as it was paid with Australian stamps at that point. Maybe had the wrong stamps in PNG been say USA ones, the ozzies would have pounced on it and demanded postage due, but seeing it bore ozzie stamps, they could not deem it unpaid?

The main mystery to me was, the VALUE of the franking. At first it looked high to me. The 10d due mark infers double 5d but that would only be correct for domestic underpaid - Australia clearly cost more than 5d.

This is 19d franking = 1/7d. However the PNG 1/7d cattle stamp was issued for some specific rate around this time - maybe airmail to Australia? If so this is correctly franked, but in the wrong currency stamps!

Cancel is "Port Moresby 9 NOV 60".

My gut feel is that this cover is NOT philatelic. No cancel on stamps, and no reason whatever for a collector to create it. And my source points to it being commerical -

An hour back I bought 6 large cartons of vaguely stamp related stuff from a guy whose father used to run a rubbish tip here - literally. Some amazing stuff for me to sort thru there in the next weeks/months.

You'd be astounded what people had tossed out, and was destined for landfill. :shock:

A lot of it was commercial mail - a good deal of WW2 censored inward letters to mothers, ancient photos and postcards and tourist view folders, survey maps, a folder of "Classified" WW2 documents, wonderful cigarette card sets, vintage comic books, an absolutely pristine "TV Week" from 1957, Complete wages books festooned with "Relief Tax" stamps - the mind boggles.

That is just what I have seen so far, and there are cartons yet to go. The old fellow hoarded the lot!

Glen

mozzerb · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:02:29 pm

I'd say you're right. From examples I've seen, the standard practice anywhere for items bearing stamps invalid where posted seems to be (or at least to have been, when postal staff took more care over such things) to highlight them in this way but leave them uncancelled.

In theory the surcharge, once raised, should presumably have been collected regardless of whether the stamps were valid in the destination country, but again it often seems that the local staff didn't bother in such a case.

Wolfgang · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:08:33 pm

Starting 1959 postage from PNG to Australia was 5d per ounce.
Registration fee was 2/-shillings.
So the cover was not franked correctly.

As Australian stamps were not valid in PNG they were not cancelled and the letter marked Tax 10d.

There should be an Australian stamp for postage due.
One can only suggest why this didn`t happen.

Global Administrator · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:19:54 pm

Wolfgang - Perry seems to say postage to Austrlaia was 7d?

http://www.rap.com.au/vpages.asp?vpagesid=PNG

The 1/7d rate used here was for letters to Europe and far overseas rates. So if the sender was used to mailing to either place, guessing at the 1/7d would be understandable.

It appears not to have been handed over at a counter hence the lack of a cds on stamps.

Lakatoi 4 · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:28:11 pm

Wolfgang wrote:

As Australian stamps were not valid in PNG they were not cancelled and the letter marked Tax 10d.

This is past my collecting period for Papua so I'm probably wrong, but weren't Australian stamps valid in PNG until Independence as it was still under Australian administration :?:

Wolfgang · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:29:07 pm

Postage from PNG to Australia was 5d per ounce. 7d postage finished 30.11.1959!
Same postage within PNG but up to 2 ounces.

Postage to USA was 2/-sh and Europe 2/3 sh.

There was no 1/7 postage at that time.

Wolfgang · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:30:52 pm

Lakatoi 4 wrote:

...but weren't Australian stamps valid in PNG until Independence as it was still under Australian administration :?:

No, last day of validity for Austalian stamps was 28th February 1953.

Global Administrator · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:44:06 pm

Wolfgang .. so Rod Perry is wrong?

http://www.rap.com.au/vpages.asp?vpagesid=PNG

And why no 2/- stamp in the new Defins of that era if your rate is correct?

Wolfgang · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 23:46:08 pm

Perry is not wrong but postage changed from 7d to 5d on 1. December 1959.

There was issued a 2/- sh stamp on 26. July 1961.


*Click For Our Newest Issues*	*Click for our Current Auction*	Internet Auctions-Buy & Sell Stamps	Melbourne 2013 - May 10-15

Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum

Taxed Covers (Postage Dues on Cover, etc.)

Who is online