Click for a larger scan
The postmark on the above cover appears to be missing the time slug. While it is possible that the time slug
missed being inked, the indications are that it was actually missing when this cover was postmarked. A careful
examination of the area under the 9 with a magnifying glass shows not even the slightest sign of ink, while the
rest of the date is very well inked. The postmark appears to have slipped slightly during the process causing a
slight double postmark, again with no ink in the time slug position. Is this an extemely rare (maybe even unique)
postmark variation? It is certainly the only one I've seen.
Tom Steiner has now reported a second copy of this postmark. I therefore believe this is a valid variation and worthy of note.
This page © Dr Ross J Smith
This page is maintained by the Webmaster
Last modified on 10 August 2010