Page 1 of 1

1951 Colour Change Cover Pre Cancel

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:15 pm
by Mike Hooper
Hi all
Although I've been collecting for a while, I'm new to GBPS.
As an introduction I thought I'd post this 1951 colour change definitive cover. The formal date of this issue is 3rd May 1951. However, the cover is cancelled 3rd April 1951. I have little doubt that it is deliberate rather than accidental - especially as its issue is probably a couple of weeks prior to the stamps being issued to the post offices.
I want to do a write up about it in my collection and i was wondering if anyone can shed any more light on this cover, or has a similar cover - all comments welcome

Re: 1951 Colour Change Cover Pre Cancel

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:17 pm
by earsathome
Hello Mike,

Maybe not deliberate, could the clerk have changed all the 'bits' of the cancel but either got interrupted or forgot to change the month?

Just a thought.

Regards
Ron

Re: 1951 Colour Change Cover Pre Cancel

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:11 am
by Mike Hooper
Ron - thank you for your reply.

This is a possible reason.
3rd May 1951 was a Thursday, thus the counter stamp would have been changed to 'May' for the previous two days of use. As the item in my post is the '3rd' (albeit April) the Clerk may have inadvertently changed the 'month' back to April when altering the 'date'. Then used the counter stamp without noticing - only to rectify the mistake later once the error was spotted. However, for those already being stamped and maybe even dispatched from the office, no correction was undertaken.

If this be the case then this item, and presumably a small handful of others which possibly exist, were technically cancelled on the correct day of issue. I would be interested to know if there are any more out there and if so do the derive from the same office.

If this be the case then those which do exist are rare anomalies.

Do such anomalies deserve a mention in SG4K?

Re: 1951 Colour Change Cover Pre Cancel

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:05 am
by Winston W
Do such anomalies deserve a mention in SG4K?
I'd say no for datestamp errors, but if you find this is a constant anomaly for that office, you could always suggest that to the editor(s).

My two suggestions/comments for QV Vol 1 [Part 1] were acted upon.