Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
In another thread, Bujutsu recently posted an image of a 1953 cover from the Canadian destroyer, H.M.C.S. Crusader. “Hmmm,†I hummed to myself, “that looks familiar!â€
Turns out I was right. I have a Crusader cover in my small Korean War collection. Except for the postmarked date, it’s virtually identical, as you can see:
Are both covers philatelic, and created by the hundred or thousand? I’m thinking not: Since the postmarks differ by more than a month (Bujutsu’s is dated November 19, mine December 21), and are addressed to the same woman, I’m thinking that she was probably a relative or friend. In addition, my cover was opened somewhat careless, tearing the flap; a collector desiring a cover for a collection probably wouldn’t have opened it, and certainly not opened it carelessly! (A minor problem: I can’t explain why the dates of the postmarks and those of the Royal Canadian Naval Mail handstamps differ. Nor can I explain why there is no field post inscription on either cover; I have one cover from a Canadian soldier in Korea, writing in 1951, which has an “On Active Service†inscription indicating its postage-free status.
Bujutsu’s cover was postmarked just a day before Crusader entered its Korean area of operations. It operated in Korean waters until August 15, 1954. (Source: For Posterity’s Sake.)
Crusader was a C Class destroyer, similar in appearance to the wartime Tribal Class destroyers like the one shown on the “Dollar Destroyer†of Canada’s “War Issue†stamp.
The differences between the Tribal Class and C Class destroyers were relatively minor, and seem mainly to be reflected in different engines and improved armament for the C Class. Their sizes and speeds are essentially identical.
Bujutsu’s cover and mine were both postmarked during Crusader’s second tour in Korea, following the the ceasefire; in Crusader’s first Korean tour, it was used as in a “train busting†role, firing on North Korean coastal trains with its 4.5†QF 4.5-inch Mk IV naval guns. I’ve seen (and heard!) 5†naval guns in use, and I would hate to be on the receiving end!
Bob
Login to Like
this post
they're kinda not unique because the dates are different. i guess it depends on what you consider to be the significant features.
but may i ask a (stupid?) question ... how come there's no stamp on the envelope? why would it be delivered without proof of postage paid?
Login to Like
this post
Geroge asked what he said was a "stupid question," but there really aren't any stupid questions:
"...how come there's no stamp on the envelope?"
I dunno! As I said in my post, "Nor can I explain why there is no field post inscription on either cover; I have one cover from a Canadian soldier in Korea, writing in 1951, which has an “On Active Service†inscription indicating its postage-free status."
I dunno. Maybe "the fog of war"? Most soldiers in modern times have not had to pay postage for letters travelling overland or by sea, but their envelopes are almost always marked "Free" or "On Active Duty" or (in the case of French soldiers) "F.M." or France Militaire. German soldiers in both the First and Second World Wars wrote Feldpost where a stamp would be stuck. Letters from Canadian soldiers in the First World War were stamped with a Military Post Office postmark, and while they didn't have to pay postage, it was not free: when the letters arrived in Canada, civilian organizations bought stamps and applied them.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
George,
Bob, being both a postal historian and sailor serving in harm's way, would be able to answer this, but I'll jump in. Many countries, including the US and Commonwealth, allow their service members on active duty to post first class mail for free. The free franking is generally reserved only for first class; those wanting air mail, registration, etc., need to pay. This is sometimes extended to those serving on domestic bases training for war during war and for occupation service.
this will give you more background on US free franking in war-time; it's not exhaustive, but it is a start: http://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=20&id=6475
David
Login to Like
this post
darn, Bob beat me, posting while I was typing
Login to Like
this post
11:34:09pm
"Nor can I explain why there is no field post inscription on either cover; I have one cover from a Canadian soldier in Korea, writing in 1951, which has an “On Active Service†inscription indicating its postage-free status."
Ummm... isn't that what the rubber stamp in the upper left corner says?
Looks to me like you guys have two covers from the same Active Service correspondence.
"(A minor problem: I can’t explain why the dates of the postmarks and those of the Royal Canadian Naval Mail handstamps differ."
The blue one was likely applied aboard ship, while the Canadian Base PO postmark was likely applied at the first Canadian Base where the mail was accumulated for sending on, possibly in Korea, but also possibly in a Canadian base in Vancouver.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
Thanks Bob for that great follow-up. Actually, I have two covers from this ship, and, again addressed to the same lady. This one is dated December 2, 1953. The reason I keep this cover in my collection as well is simply because the back of the cover has the ship's logo, whereas, the first one in my original posting does not.
What I am not sure about is whether or not this was a private rubber hand-stamp used for the cachet? This particular cachet has been published in different journals and papers as well. To the best of my knowledge 'most' covers sent from this ship during the Korean conflict have it (?)
A great forum and keep up the good work.
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post
Bob
I don't know about Canadian Navy, but Royal Navy Ships were, I think semi-outside the UK military post,and Field Post Office postmarks were reserved for the Army ( and possibly RAF but I am not sure). The Navy postal mail was ( and I am talking second-hand, and I may not have got hold of the whole story) I think initially handled by the post office while Army mail was handled by a military postal unit all the way. Certainly in WW2 mail to the Navy was addressed to "BFPO ships" rather than to a BFPO ( British Forces Post Office ) number or to an individual ship - I guess by the time of Korea the security issues were less pressing.Inbound mail from naval ships in WW2 usually had a dumb cancel,showing no clue as to its origin.
I would guess ( and it is a guess!) that RCN mail in the Korean theatre would be handled via the US Navy or Royal Navy depending on the Task Force that the individual ship was attached to at the time.The Royal Navy in particular has always been conscious of NOT being the army or air force, as much as being navy.
It is a fact that people in the UK are less conscious of Korea than almost any conflict before or since - and doubtless ( thanks in part to John Wayne !) believe that it was purely a U.S operation. Despite the fact that I was alive at the time of Korea, the Suez debacle - militarily if not politically a minor skirmish, loomed far more in my awareness.Commonwealth involvement in Korea was quite extensive ( and at times quite bloody) and led to the only occasion ( as far as I know ) that a British formation received a US presidential Unit Citation.
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
Malcolm197 said,
"Certainly in WW2 mail to the Navy was addressed to "BFPO ships" rather than to a BFPO (British Forces Post Office)"
I am no authority on military mail systems generally, much less those of any one country. However, I do have a few naval covers from the Second World War and post-war periods. Perhaps they will shed a little light on this question:
• One is from a sailor on HMT (His Majesty's Armed Trawler) Northern Isles; its return address includes "G.P.O. London".
(Another cover from the same correspondence, posted from the trawler, does not include a return address.)
• A cover posted to a sailor on the aircraft carrier H.M.S. Fencer is also addressed "c/o GPO London".
• A cover from a sailor on H.M.C. Motor Torpedo Boat 726 has "GPO London" in its address.
• A post-war cover posted by a crewman on the aircraft carrier H.M.S. Premier carries the return address "F.M.O. Rosyth".
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Bob
Yes I was wrong - it is today that mail is addressed to BFPO Ships. At least your information confirms my statement that mail to the navy was handled by the Post office and not by the military mail system.
Malcolm
PS I think F.M.O. indicates "Fleet Mail Office". Until recently the Royal Navy manning was seperated into sections - seamen were based at one of the major bases , and usually served only on ships whose "home port" was the same. The main bases were Portsmouth, Devonport(Plymouth), and Chatham, but the last has closed. I don't know where Rosyth fits in with this, but I think that along with most other naval bases, all ships based there were either "Portsmouth" or "Devonport" ships.
Login to Like
this post
Once upon a time I mistakenly thought that covers, excepting FDCs, were always unique artifacts. Wrong!
In another thread, Bujutsu recently posted an image of a 1953 cover from the Canadian destroyer, H.M.C.S. Crusader. “Hmmm,†I hummed to myself, “that looks familiar!â€
Turns out I was right. I have a Crusader cover in my small Korean War collection. Except for the postmarked date, it’s virtually identical, as you can see:
Are both covers philatelic, and created by the hundred or thousand? I’m thinking not: Since the postmarks differ by more than a month (Bujutsu’s is dated November 19, mine December 21), and are addressed to the same woman, I’m thinking that she was probably a relative or friend. In addition, my cover was opened somewhat careless, tearing the flap; a collector desiring a cover for a collection probably wouldn’t have opened it, and certainly not opened it carelessly! (A minor problem: I can’t explain why the dates of the postmarks and those of the Royal Canadian Naval Mail handstamps differ. Nor can I explain why there is no field post inscription on either cover; I have one cover from a Canadian soldier in Korea, writing in 1951, which has an “On Active Service†inscription indicating its postage-free status.
Bujutsu’s cover was postmarked just a day before Crusader entered its Korean area of operations. It operated in Korean waters until August 15, 1954. (Source: For Posterity’s Sake.)
Crusader was a C Class destroyer, similar in appearance to the wartime Tribal Class destroyers like the one shown on the “Dollar Destroyer†of Canada’s “War Issue†stamp.
The differences between the Tribal Class and C Class destroyers were relatively minor, and seem mainly to be reflected in different engines and improved armament for the C Class. Their sizes and speeds are essentially identical.
Bujutsu’s cover and mine were both postmarked during Crusader’s second tour in Korea, following the the ceasefire; in Crusader’s first Korean tour, it was used as in a “train busting†role, firing on North Korean coastal trains with its 4.5†QF 4.5-inch Mk IV naval guns. I’ve seen (and heard!) 5†naval guns in use, and I would hate to be on the receiving end!
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
they're kinda not unique because the dates are different. i guess it depends on what you consider to be the significant features.
but may i ask a (stupid?) question ... how come there's no stamp on the envelope? why would it be delivered without proof of postage paid?
Login to Like
this post
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
Geroge asked what he said was a "stupid question," but there really aren't any stupid questions:
"...how come there's no stamp on the envelope?"
I dunno! As I said in my post, "Nor can I explain why there is no field post inscription on either cover; I have one cover from a Canadian soldier in Korea, writing in 1951, which has an “On Active Service†inscription indicating its postage-free status."
I dunno. Maybe "the fog of war"? Most soldiers in modern times have not had to pay postage for letters travelling overland or by sea, but their envelopes are almost always marked "Free" or "On Active Duty" or (in the case of French soldiers) "F.M." or France Militaire. German soldiers in both the First and Second World Wars wrote Feldpost where a stamp would be stuck. Letters from Canadian soldiers in the First World War were stamped with a Military Post Office postmark, and while they didn't have to pay postage, it was not free: when the letters arrived in Canada, civilian organizations bought stamps and applied them.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
George,
Bob, being both a postal historian and sailor serving in harm's way, would be able to answer this, but I'll jump in. Many countries, including the US and Commonwealth, allow their service members on active duty to post first class mail for free. The free franking is generally reserved only for first class; those wanting air mail, registration, etc., need to pay. This is sometimes extended to those serving on domestic bases training for war during war and for occupation service.
this will give you more background on US free franking in war-time; it's not exhaustive, but it is a start: http://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=20&id=6475
David
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
darn, Bob beat me, posting while I was typing
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 300 categories
11 Jan 2015
11:34:09pm
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
"Nor can I explain why there is no field post inscription on either cover; I have one cover from a Canadian soldier in Korea, writing in 1951, which has an “On Active Service†inscription indicating its postage-free status."
Ummm... isn't that what the rubber stamp in the upper left corner says?
Looks to me like you guys have two covers from the same Active Service correspondence.
"(A minor problem: I can’t explain why the dates of the postmarks and those of the Royal Canadian Naval Mail handstamps differ."
The blue one was likely applied aboard ship, while the Canadian Base PO postmark was likely applied at the first Canadian Base where the mail was accumulated for sending on, possibly in Korea, but also possibly in a Canadian base in Vancouver.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
Thanks Bob for that great follow-up. Actually, I have two covers from this ship, and, again addressed to the same lady. This one is dated December 2, 1953. The reason I keep this cover in my collection as well is simply because the back of the cover has the ship's logo, whereas, the first one in my original posting does not.
What I am not sure about is whether or not this was a private rubber hand-stamp used for the cachet? This particular cachet has been published in different journals and papers as well. To the best of my knowledge 'most' covers sent from this ship during the Korean conflict have it (?)
A great forum and keep up the good work.
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post
02:32:02pm
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
Bob
I don't know about Canadian Navy, but Royal Navy Ships were, I think semi-outside the UK military post,and Field Post Office postmarks were reserved for the Army ( and possibly RAF but I am not sure). The Navy postal mail was ( and I am talking second-hand, and I may not have got hold of the whole story) I think initially handled by the post office while Army mail was handled by a military postal unit all the way. Certainly in WW2 mail to the Navy was addressed to "BFPO ships" rather than to a BFPO ( British Forces Post Office ) number or to an individual ship - I guess by the time of Korea the security issues were less pressing.Inbound mail from naval ships in WW2 usually had a dumb cancel,showing no clue as to its origin.
I would guess ( and it is a guess!) that RCN mail in the Korean theatre would be handled via the US Navy or Royal Navy depending on the Task Force that the individual ship was attached to at the time.The Royal Navy in particular has always been conscious of NOT being the army or air force, as much as being navy.
It is a fact that people in the UK are less conscious of Korea than almost any conflict before or since - and doubtless ( thanks in part to John Wayne !) believe that it was purely a U.S operation. Despite the fact that I was alive at the time of Korea, the Suez debacle - militarily if not politically a minor skirmish, loomed far more in my awareness.Commonwealth involvement in Korea was quite extensive ( and at times quite bloody) and led to the only occasion ( as far as I know ) that a British formation received a US presidential Unit Citation.
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
Malcolm197 said,
"Certainly in WW2 mail to the Navy was addressed to "BFPO ships" rather than to a BFPO (British Forces Post Office)"
I am no authority on military mail systems generally, much less those of any one country. However, I do have a few naval covers from the Second World War and post-war periods. Perhaps they will shed a little light on this question:
• One is from a sailor on HMT (His Majesty's Armed Trawler) Northern Isles; its return address includes "G.P.O. London".
(Another cover from the same correspondence, posted from the trawler, does not include a return address.)
• A cover posted to a sailor on the aircraft carrier H.M.S. Fencer is also addressed "c/o GPO London".
• A cover from a sailor on H.M.C. Motor Torpedo Boat 726 has "GPO London" in its address.
• A post-war cover posted by a crewman on the aircraft carrier H.M.S. Premier carries the return address "F.M.O. Rosyth".
Bob
Login to Like
this post
10:35:19am
re: Note to self: Covers aren't necessarily unique!
Bob
Yes I was wrong - it is today that mail is addressed to BFPO Ships. At least your information confirms my statement that mail to the navy was handled by the Post office and not by the military mail system.
Malcolm
PS I think F.M.O. indicates "Fleet Mail Office". Until recently the Royal Navy manning was seperated into sections - seamen were based at one of the major bases , and usually served only on ships whose "home port" was the same. The main bases were Portsmouth, Devonport(Plymouth), and Chatham, but the last has closed. I don't know where Rosyth fits in with this, but I think that along with most other naval bases, all ships based there were either "Portsmouth" or "Devonport" ships.
Login to Like
this post