Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Rich
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Rich as you will no doubt know "132" was the Alma Terrace, Brighton cancellation.
So it went from there to Hove (as addressed) presumably the recipient was then found to have moved or be in London.
The mail was then returned to Brighton where it was stamped as FB which could stand for Foreign Branch. ie. not local.
The IB possibly stands for Inland Branch, but which was stamped first I'm not sure, maybe you can tell from closer examination of the ink.
That's my guess anyway.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Just found this site which confirms my thoughts.
http://www.philatelicweb.com/pmks/gbabbreviations.html
Login to Like
this post
Hi Great! that gives me a place to start I went to SG postmarks page by page and could not find any reference unless I have missed the right detail thank you again
Rich
Login to Like
this post
The Brighton "H" appears to be March 24 - First departure from Brighton?
The IB appears to be March 25 - Arrival at Brighton?
The Brighton "E"? appears to be March 25 - Second departure from Brighton?
The London appears to be March 25 - Finally received in London?
The FB appears to be March 26 - Departure for overseas?
Just guessing, from apparent dates and sheepshanks' post.
Login to Like
this post
The cover was sent from Brighton to Hove and then forwarded to London.
I guess it was opened at the first address and resealed resulting in the 1d charge mark.
I guess also when it got to London head office it bounced around for a little while acquiring the IB and FB marks.
I see no reason for an FB mark so I assume this was struck in error. Perhaps a clerk first thought this was being sent overseas?
If so, maybe the apparent FB date (if it is the 26th) reflects a handstamp already updated for the next day?
The addressee appears to be a Mr Maurice Grant who had an address at 39a Threadneedle Street, London.
Login to Like
this post
Firstly, I must say that your cover is in my book very desirable; having a fine array of clear postmarks.
What adds interest is the combination of Inland Branch and Foreign Branch markings. I haven't seen these particular dated types before (but don't read anything into that; for I am not a GB collector). But I do find it odd that these two markings have been used on the same cover.
I don't see why the Foreign Branch (situated in Mount Pleasant, in London) got involved with this mailing.
I have often seen letters and postcards that have arrived from abroad un-cancelled, or deficient in postage. This is usually when one encounters FB type markings (including postage dues).
This letter appears to have been mailed in Brighton for local delivery; and then redirected to London. In other words it was an 'inland' mailing.
I find it a little odd though that it attracted a 1d surcharge (postage due) for a redirection; unless there was an additional charge if the letter was opened, re-sealed and then redirected.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Ningpo,
We seem to see this cover in much the same way.
However, this cover predates the Mount Pleasant office.
I've never seen a detailed description of the IB/IS and FB/FS functions and marks but what I have seen has referred to them as being London Head Office marks.
At this time I would guess this would be either St Martin's le Grand or Lombard Street.
I'd be very interested if anyone could clarify this point. 
Login to Like
this post
I know nothing about British postmarks, but I love a good mystery. I'll tune in for the next chapter.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
dollhaus, next chapter, the 1d surcharge (in black)(edit) indicated that the surcharge was due on delivery. If in red on payment of postage.
IB within a circle was used on letters for London District missent to Inland Office.
This link is to a pdf download that will help.
It also clarifies an earlier post of PD in red which is a mark for newspapers wholly prepaid to Belgium or possibly France.
For some reason the link keeps coming back to Stamporama.
My Google search was british postmarks and the link was item 5 "The history of the postmarks of the British Isles from 1840 to 1876 ..
Maybe someone else can correctly put up the link?
Login to Like
this post
Login to Like
this post
Sheepshanks,
I've just looked through that document and I just find the information somewhat sparse. There are no examples of the markings shown on Rich's cover to start with. But I have just noticed that the dates of coverage end in 1876. The cover is 1879.
I note your reference to the PD marking which in that document is shown beside a PP marking. This apparently means 'part payment'. It would be nice if this could be clarified, as we have two definitions: Porte Paye and Part Payment.
Or did any of the definitions change as far as their intended purpose was concerned after 1876?
Just an aside from the nitty gritty: The letter was posted March 24th; presumably delivered the same day; put back in the post March 25th; and delivered to London the same day (seemingly to two different offices; IB and FB). Hard to believe sometimes that this was the norm in 1879.
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo, I would presume that the applied stampings would not have changed between 1870 and 1879 but possible.
Have been unable at present to find any further clarification, maybe the SG book of British Postmarks or the British Postal History Society could give more detail. The first I do not own and am not a member of the society, maybe someone else is or has the book.
Have not checked any other forums for information.
Login to Like
this post
From, The Standard, Friday March 28th. 1879.
Login to Like
this post
As the image is rather hard to read, here is a translation. The original was translated by OCR, which is pretty lousy a lot of the time.
MR. ALBERT GRANT. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD. Sir, — As solicitors for Mr. Albert Grant and Mr. Maurice Grant, the members of the late firm of Grant Brothers and Company, we desire to inform you that at the meeting of their joint creditors held this day a resolution was passed that their affairs should be liquidated by arrangement and not in Bankruptcy, and the immediate discharge of the debtors was granted. Mr. James Waddell, accountant, was appointed trustee, also a committee of inspection. We enclose a copy of the statement of affairs presented to the meeting. We are, Sir, your obedient servants, MICHAEL ABRAHAMS and ROFFEY. March 27. " In the matter of proceedings for liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors, instituted by Albert Grant, of No. 103, Cannon street, in the City of London, and of No. 91, Victoria-street, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex ; and of Aldwick-place, Pagham, in the county of Sussex, Esquire, late Managing Director of a Public Company ; and Maurice Grant, of No. 39a, Threadneedle street, in the City of London, and of No. 1, Princes-square, Bayswater, in the county of Middlesex, Financial Agent, joint debtors, and lately trading together as co-partners, under the style or firm of " Grant Brothers and Company," and then carrying on business at No. 24, Lombard- street, in the City of London, as bankers, money dealers, and financial agents.
"Statement of the Affairs of the above Albert Grant and Maurice GRANT ON THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 1879 :— Unsecured creditors £4,700 11 4 Creditors fully secured ?? £11,800 0 0 Less estimated value of securities 13,162 0 0 Surplus to contra ?? £1,362 0 0 Creditors partly secured ...£300,195 9 4 Estimated value of securities 223,337 15 8 76,857 13 8 Other liabilities 0 0 0 Creditors for rent, rates, taxes, and wages... 1,320 0 0 Liabilities on bills discounted £3,373 9 4 of which it is expected will rank against the estate for dividend 0 0 0 Total debts £82,878 5 0 Stock in trade £0 0 0 Book debts 8402/. os. 4d., estimated to produce 600 0 0 Ca-h in hand 0 0 0 Bills of exchange or other similar securities 0 0 0 Furniture, fixtures, and fittings 0 0 0 Property 14,097 10 0 Surplus from securities in the hands of creditors fully secured, see contra 1,362 0 0 Total assets £16,059 10 0
Login to Like
this post
That's a nice find Sheepshanks, which just helps build the story even more. It does perhaps explain the OHMS nature of the letter too. Looking at those figures, there was a substantial amount of money involved at that time.
Just to give a sense of reality, here is a current image of 6 Palmeira Square, Brighton (It's actually Hove); the original address on the envelope. Apart from the cars, very little would appear to have changed in 138 years:
Login to Like
this post
Like the image Ningpo, would have been pricey back in the 1870's and probably a fortune today.
Amazing what the net can turn up sometimes.
Vic
Edit, ps 39a seems to have become the Bank of India in the 1880's.
Login to Like
this post
This is truly incredible and exciting, Vic what made you seek out that great newspaper item and make the connection to this cover? I am still somewhat baffled by the FB and IB and the letters AA above the FB
Login to Like
this post
I was a bit intrigued by the address of 39a Threadneedle Street, having worked close by in the 1960's and with the knowledge that it was a banking/commerce area of London. So Googled the address which lead me to the Bank of India in the 1880's.
From there I searched the address on the British Newspaper Archive and the result is what you see. There were more entries but this one seemed relevant.
Vic
Login to Like
this post
It appears that Maurice died in 1907 and left a few bob.
His probate entry reads:-
Probate of Maurice Grant of 60 Lancaster Gate, Hyde Park, London died 9th. June 1907. Probate, London 23rd July to Paul Cremieu Javal esq. Frances Grant widow and Montagu Arthur Nicholas esq. effects £61082. 0s. 4d
Should you want a copy it can be bought at the following for £10.https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=grant&yearOfDeath=1907&page=3#calendar
Fun innit!
Login to Like
this post
And if you really want information overload, he married Frances Aspden in 1866 in Chorlton district, Lancashire. She possibly died 1924 aged 82.
Vic
Login to Like
this post
By the time of her death, on 1st June 1924, she had spent a few pounds, she left £31,803. 10. 11d
Probate to Maurice Harold Grant retired Colonel H M Army and John Curgenven esq.
Coincidence but my birthday is 1st. June.
Login to Like
this post
Vic Happy belated birthday wishes,this is better than an Agatha Christie story!
Some thing tells me this might be a very worthwhile piece with such clear cancellations.
Login to Like
this post
Rich I think the AA and AS (8) are counter stamp identifiers. They would have been recorded in a ledger as to the person to whom issued and signed for and signed back at end of shift. This allowed for checking if a problem arose.
Login to Like
this post
01:54:14pm
Another challenge for the experts I can not find info on the large and small circle with FB and IB placed in a smaller circle. The other postmarks are straight forward,1 Penny Red is plate 202. dated 1879 on piece.
Rich
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: British Postmarks QV.
Rich as you will no doubt know "132" was the Alma Terrace, Brighton cancellation.
So it went from there to Hove (as addressed) presumably the recipient was then found to have moved or be in London.
The mail was then returned to Brighton where it was stamped as FB which could stand for Foreign Branch. ie. not local.
The IB possibly stands for Inland Branch, but which was stamped first I'm not sure, maybe you can tell from closer examination of the ink.
That's my guess anyway.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: British Postmarks QV.
Just found this site which confirms my thoughts.
http://www.philatelicweb.com/pmks/gbabbreviations.html
Login to Like
this post
02:58:26pm
re: British Postmarks QV.
Hi Great! that gives me a place to start I went to SG postmarks page by page and could not find any reference unless I have missed the right detail thank you again
Rich
Login to Like
this post
04:17:37pm
re: British Postmarks QV.
The Brighton "H" appears to be March 24 - First departure from Brighton?
The IB appears to be March 25 - Arrival at Brighton?
The Brighton "E"? appears to be March 25 - Second departure from Brighton?
The London appears to be March 25 - Finally received in London?
The FB appears to be March 26 - Departure for overseas?
Just guessing, from apparent dates and sheepshanks' post.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
The cover was sent from Brighton to Hove and then forwarded to London.
I guess it was opened at the first address and resealed resulting in the 1d charge mark.
I guess also when it got to London head office it bounced around for a little while acquiring the IB and FB marks.
I see no reason for an FB mark so I assume this was struck in error. Perhaps a clerk first thought this was being sent overseas?
If so, maybe the apparent FB date (if it is the 26th) reflects a handstamp already updated for the next day?
The addressee appears to be a Mr Maurice Grant who had an address at 39a Threadneedle Street, London.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
Firstly, I must say that your cover is in my book very desirable; having a fine array of clear postmarks.
What adds interest is the combination of Inland Branch and Foreign Branch markings. I haven't seen these particular dated types before (but don't read anything into that; for I am not a GB collector). But I do find it odd that these two markings have been used on the same cover.
I don't see why the Foreign Branch (situated in Mount Pleasant, in London) got involved with this mailing.
I have often seen letters and postcards that have arrived from abroad un-cancelled, or deficient in postage. This is usually when one encounters FB type markings (including postage dues).
This letter appears to have been mailed in Brighton for local delivery; and then redirected to London. In other words it was an 'inland' mailing.
I find it a little odd though that it attracted a 1d surcharge (postage due) for a redirection; unless there was an additional charge if the letter was opened, re-sealed and then redirected.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
Hi Ningpo,
We seem to see this cover in much the same way.
However, this cover predates the Mount Pleasant office.
I've never seen a detailed description of the IB/IS and FB/FS functions and marks but what I have seen has referred to them as being London Head Office marks.
At this time I would guess this would be either St Martin's le Grand or Lombard Street.
I'd be very interested if anyone could clarify this point.
Login to Like
this post
07:23:14pm
re: British Postmarks QV.
I know nothing about British postmarks, but I love a good mystery. I'll tune in for the next chapter.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: British Postmarks QV.
dollhaus, next chapter, the 1d surcharge (in black)(edit) indicated that the surcharge was due on delivery. If in red on payment of postage.
IB within a circle was used on letters for London District missent to Inland Office.
This link is to a pdf download that will help.
It also clarifies an earlier post of PD in red which is a mark for newspapers wholly prepaid to Belgium or possibly France.
For some reason the link keeps coming back to Stamporama.
My Google search was british postmarks and the link was item 5 "The history of the postmarks of the British Isles from 1840 to 1876 ..
Maybe someone else can correctly put up the link?
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
Sheepshanks,
I've just looked through that document and I just find the information somewhat sparse. There are no examples of the markings shown on Rich's cover to start with. But I have just noticed that the dates of coverage end in 1876. The cover is 1879.
I note your reference to the PD marking which in that document is shown beside a PP marking. This apparently means 'part payment'. It would be nice if this could be clarified, as we have two definitions: Porte Paye and Part Payment.
Or did any of the definitions change as far as their intended purpose was concerned after 1876?
Just an aside from the nitty gritty: The letter was posted March 24th; presumably delivered the same day; put back in the post March 25th; and delivered to London the same day (seemingly to two different offices; IB and FB). Hard to believe sometimes that this was the norm in 1879.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
Ningpo, I would presume that the applied stampings would not have changed between 1870 and 1879 but possible.
Have been unable at present to find any further clarification, maybe the SG book of British Postmarks or the British Postal History Society could give more detail. The first I do not own and am not a member of the society, maybe someone else is or has the book.
Have not checked any other forums for information.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
From, The Standard, Friday March 28th. 1879.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
As the image is rather hard to read, here is a translation. The original was translated by OCR, which is pretty lousy a lot of the time.
MR. ALBERT GRANT. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD. Sir, — As solicitors for Mr. Albert Grant and Mr. Maurice Grant, the members of the late firm of Grant Brothers and Company, we desire to inform you that at the meeting of their joint creditors held this day a resolution was passed that their affairs should be liquidated by arrangement and not in Bankruptcy, and the immediate discharge of the debtors was granted. Mr. James Waddell, accountant, was appointed trustee, also a committee of inspection. We enclose a copy of the statement of affairs presented to the meeting. We are, Sir, your obedient servants, MICHAEL ABRAHAMS and ROFFEY. March 27. " In the matter of proceedings for liquidation by arrangement or composition with creditors, instituted by Albert Grant, of No. 103, Cannon street, in the City of London, and of No. 91, Victoria-street, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex ; and of Aldwick-place, Pagham, in the county of Sussex, Esquire, late Managing Director of a Public Company ; and Maurice Grant, of No. 39a, Threadneedle street, in the City of London, and of No. 1, Princes-square, Bayswater, in the county of Middlesex, Financial Agent, joint debtors, and lately trading together as co-partners, under the style or firm of " Grant Brothers and Company," and then carrying on business at No. 24, Lombard- street, in the City of London, as bankers, money dealers, and financial agents.
"Statement of the Affairs of the above Albert Grant and Maurice GRANT ON THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 1879 :— Unsecured creditors £4,700 11 4 Creditors fully secured ?? £11,800 0 0 Less estimated value of securities 13,162 0 0 Surplus to contra ?? £1,362 0 0 Creditors partly secured ...£300,195 9 4 Estimated value of securities 223,337 15 8 76,857 13 8 Other liabilities 0 0 0 Creditors for rent, rates, taxes, and wages... 1,320 0 0 Liabilities on bills discounted £3,373 9 4 of which it is expected will rank against the estate for dividend 0 0 0 Total debts £82,878 5 0 Stock in trade £0 0 0 Book debts 8402/. os. 4d., estimated to produce 600 0 0 Ca-h in hand 0 0 0 Bills of exchange or other similar securities 0 0 0 Furniture, fixtures, and fittings 0 0 0 Property 14,097 10 0 Surplus from securities in the hands of creditors fully secured, see contra 1,362 0 0 Total assets £16,059 10 0
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
That's a nice find Sheepshanks, which just helps build the story even more. It does perhaps explain the OHMS nature of the letter too. Looking at those figures, there was a substantial amount of money involved at that time.
Just to give a sense of reality, here is a current image of 6 Palmeira Square, Brighton (It's actually Hove); the original address on the envelope. Apart from the cars, very little would appear to have changed in 138 years:
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
Like the image Ningpo, would have been pricey back in the 1870's and probably a fortune today.
Amazing what the net can turn up sometimes.
Vic
Edit, ps 39a seems to have become the Bank of India in the 1880's.
Login to Like
this post
11:06:29am
re: British Postmarks QV.
This is truly incredible and exciting, Vic what made you seek out that great newspaper item and make the connection to this cover? I am still somewhat baffled by the FB and IB and the letters AA above the FB
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
I was a bit intrigued by the address of 39a Threadneedle Street, having worked close by in the 1960's and with the knowledge that it was a banking/commerce area of London. So Googled the address which lead me to the Bank of India in the 1880's.
From there I searched the address on the British Newspaper Archive and the result is what you see. There were more entries but this one seemed relevant.
Vic
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
It appears that Maurice died in 1907 and left a few bob.
His probate entry reads:-
Probate of Maurice Grant of 60 Lancaster Gate, Hyde Park, London died 9th. June 1907. Probate, London 23rd July to Paul Cremieu Javal esq. Frances Grant widow and Montagu Arthur Nicholas esq. effects £61082. 0s. 4d
Should you want a copy it can be bought at the following for £10.https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=grant&yearOfDeath=1907&page=3#calendar
Fun innit!
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
And if you really want information overload, he married Frances Aspden in 1866 in Chorlton district, Lancashire. She possibly died 1924 aged 82.
Vic
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
By the time of her death, on 1st June 1924, she had spent a few pounds, she left £31,803. 10. 11d
Probate to Maurice Harold Grant retired Colonel H M Army and John Curgenven esq.
Coincidence but my birthday is 1st. June.
Login to Like
this post
01:16:17pm
re: British Postmarks QV.
Vic Happy belated birthday wishes,this is better than an Agatha Christie story!
Some thing tells me this might be a very worthwhile piece with such clear cancellations.
Login to Like
this post
re: British Postmarks QV.
Rich I think the AA and AS (8) are counter stamp identifiers. They would have been recorded in a ledger as to the person to whom issued and signed for and signed back at end of shift. This allowed for checking if a problem arose.
Login to Like
this post