Questions - and short stories

This page should contain questions dealing with French postal history. In addition, it could be an adequate place to present interesting or strange items to the internet community. If you have something you would like to know more about or if you have something which could be interesting for us, please write me an e-mail. If you can give informations, you can answer directly but it would be nice if you would send your answer also to my hands.

1. Questions

2. Short stories

 

1. Questions

1.1. Registered higher rate letters and their tariffs Great Britain before 1876. Asked by Thomas Berger on February 21, 1999; new information added on July 11, 1999; July 21, 2000; answered by Jeff Bohn on July 21, 2000.

As part of my registered letter collection I sometimes find registered items abroad where I cannot explain the tariff. These are higher rate covers but unfortunately the Joany lists only the first rates for this period. Could you give me some advice?
Cover Paris to London 13.12.1874 charged double rate Yv 3*38

This charged letter without insurance sum was sent from Paris to London in 1874 and had a weight of 12 gr. (double rate; tariff from July 1st, 1870). It shows all the postmarks typical for such a type of letter although I cannot explain the handwritten 6 in red and 4 in blue. Because in my opinion this letter is overfranked. The simple letter rate to Great Britain was 30 c. at that time and the Chargement surtaxe were 30 c. in addition. In my collection I have such a letter with 60 c. postage. I would expect that the tariff for a double rate letter should be twice 30 c. for the letter and the additional 30 c. for the surtaxe, in total 90 c. Or was the rate twice 30 c. for the letter and these 60 c. were doubled to 1.20 f. due to the chargement? Such a doubling of the tariff due to the chargement was used in France between 1849 and 1854 and in my opinion it seems to be unlikely that this handling stayed alive in the tariffs to the United Kingdom up to 1874. Your ideas?
New information: At the Philexfrance I have seen an additionnal lettre chargée to Great Britain. It was of the third weight rate (up to 30gr.) which should have a tariff of 1.20f. (3 * 30c. + 30c. for the chargement). But it was franked with 2.00 f. In this case the principle of doubling would lead to a tariff of 1.80f. (2 * 3 * 30c.). Any ideas?

New information: In the Cérès auction from December 7, 1999 a lettre chargée sans valeur declarée from Lyon to Gloucester was offered (lot no. 5727; unfortunately I have only a very bad photocopy). It bears three copies of the 80c. Cérès (Yvert no. 57) and a timbre déscriptif du chargement showing a weight of 38 gr. (4th weight rate). The tariff of 2.40 f. speaks for a doubling of the letter rate when the letter was registered (2 * 4 * 30 c.).$

Question answered by Jeff Bohn: Under the 1857 Franco-British Postal Convention, the postage on Registered letters exchanged between the United Kingdom and France was established at double the rate of ordinary letters having the same weight. This Convention was in effect from 1 January 1857 to 31 December 1875. Presumably, this was a double weight letter (weighing between 10 and 20 grams), so that the ordinary letter postage was 60 centimes, and a Registered letter of the same weight required a prepayment of 1F20c. Below is a scan showing Article XVII of the 1857 Franco-British Convention, which defines the postage required on Registered letters exchanged between France and the United Kingdom . I am also sending you a scan of an October1870 Registered letter from Blois to London. As you can see, this letter weighed "14g" , so that the total prepayment was twice the ordinary letter postage of 60c (according to Article XVII). This rule held true for Registered letters sent from England to France, as shown in the last scan. This double weight letter (19.30 grams as shown on the French Registration cachet on reverse) originated in London in November 1870, and was sent to Le Havre at the 1 shilling rate. This amount was a combination of the 6 pence ordinary letter rate (twice the 3 pence per 10 gram rate), plus the 6 pence Registry fee, according to Article XVII .
 
Literature:

 

1.3. Uncertain interior tariff of 40c. 1876-1878. Asked by Thomas Berger on July 11, 1999.

I have three covers which bear a 40c. tariff using different combinations of Cérès and Sage stamps from the tariff period January 1st, 1876 to May 1st, 1878. At that time the tariff for a single rate letter was 25c. and for a double rate letter 50c. There are no taxation marks.

 

Cover without content from the British consulate in Le Havre to that one in Honfleur from July 31, 1876 with a 25c. Sage ultramarine type N/U (early use) and a stripe of three 5c. Cérès green. On the reverse Honfleur arrival postmark. The cover was closed.
  Mourning cover with a handritten letter and a printed death notice inside (weight of these three items less than 15gr.). It was sent on April 16, 1877 from Bordeaux to Bayonne and was closed. A 25c. Sage ultramarine N/U, a 10c. N/B, and a 5c. N/U were attached. On the reverse Bayonne arrival postmark.
  Wrapper without content from Aigues-Vives to Paris sent on April 14, 1878 and sealed. A 25c. It was given to a postman on his tour (A in circle). A 25c. Sage blue and a 15c. Sage grey type N/U were used. On the reverse convoyeur ligne and Paris arrival postmark.
One can sometimes find covers which were underfranked and not taxed. But in these cases this seems a to be a special tariff. It could not be the sending of visite cards or printed matters cause these items had a much lower tariff (5c. up to 50gr.) and were sent not closed. The second item has a weight of less than 15gr. now, i.e. it is in the range of the first letter weight rate. Looking in the Joany (p. 63), one can find a tariff from May 15, 1875 which is described the following way: Echantillons - papiers d'affaires - cartes - plans; Le port supplémentaire pour l'addition de notes manuscrites est réduit à une taxe fixe; de bureau à bureau 15c. I understand this note in a way that handwritten items on e. g. a printed carte de visite would increase the tariff from 5c. to 20c. But it seems that there is no relation to these items. Any ideas? Please write me.

Literature:

 

1.4. Lettre chargée et taxée de 1866. Asked by Thomas Berger on July 8, 2000; answered by Alain Trinquier on July 25, 2000.

Lettres chargées have to be paid fully by the sender. Therefore, taxed lettres chargées should not exist. But this one is taxed. Or is it no lettre chargée despite the "CHARGÉ" postmark?

  

The letter was given to a facteur rurale on its tour through the villages nearby Evian-les-Bains (situated at the south side of the Lake of Geneva in the dept. no. 89, Haute-Savoie). The postmark "J" could give the name of the village, if I would have a list. The postman did not realize that a simple lettre chargée up to 10 gr. should be franked by 40 c. (20 c. for the letter and 20 c. for the chargement). To this letter only one 20c. Napoleon dentelé was attached and this was still used (star postmark "1"; handwritten: "Taxer pour timbre poste ayant dejà servi"; To be taxed cause of the stamp which had been used before). The letter received the date postmark "Evian-les-Bains (89), 13 DEC. 66" and the "CHARGÉ" postmark at the main post office but no timbre déscriptif du chargement. There or later anywhere on its way to Paris a taxation postmark (type double trait) "30 (c.)" was applied.

Cette lettre était envoyée par le facteur rurale (cachet "J", je ne sais pas le nom du village presque d'Evian-les-Bains). Le tarif correct voudrait être 40c. pour une lettre chargée jusqu'à 10gr., mais il y a seulement un timbre de 20c. Napoleon dentelé dejà servi (cachet étoile "1"; manus: "Taxer pour timbre poste ayant dejà servi"). Il y a une cachet à date "Evian-les-Bains (89), 13 DEC. 66" , une taxation double trait de 30c., une cachet "CHARGÉ", mais rien timbre déscriptif du chargement au verso.
My main problem is not why a postman accepted this underfranked lettre chargée at all. My problem is the taxation. 30 c. are the taxation fee to be paid for a non-franked letter of the first weight rate. How was this letter handled? Like a normal letter without chargement? Then the taxation would be correct and this would explain why there is no timbre déscriptif du chargement. But why was then the "CHARGÉ" postmark attached or at least not striked out? Any ideas? Please write me.
 
Cette lettre est un enigme pour moi. Il n'y a pas des lettres chargées parce qu'elles devaient donner à la guichet. Une taxation de 30 c. est correcte pour une lettre simple de premièr échelon. Une explication voudrait que la lettre était envoyée comme un lettre simple puis non-chargée. La taxation de 30 c. voudrait être correcte, le manque du timbre déscriptif du chargement est expliqué. Mais pourquoi le timbre "CHARGÉ"? Cet timbre était apposé au bureaux de poste et ne pas par le facteur rurale, n'est pas? Avez vous des idées comment cette lettre é tait envoyée? Ecrivez-moi, s.v.p.

Question answered by Alain Trinquier: This letter was mailed with a stamp which was previously used. It was therefore considered as not stamped and taxed with the 30c. postmark. To be sure that this letter with the accompanying criminal procedure (procès-verbal) would reach the addressee, it was with a procedure called CHARGEE D'OFFICE which explains the postmark "CHARGÉ" (article 394 de l'Instruction Générale des Postes).

Reference: Rochette, A. et Pothion; Marques et oblitérations de Paris; page 157.

Question repondu par Alain Trinquier: Il s'agit d'une lettre affranchie avec un timbre ayant déjà servi. La lettre est donc considérée comme non affranchie et elle est taxée à 30 centimes. Pour être certain qu'elle sera bien remise à son destinataire (avec le procès-verbal qui l'accompagne), elle est expédiée selon la procédure dite CHARGEE D'OFFICE, ce qui explique la griffe CHARGE qui est sur la lettre. Le chargement d'office était appliqué aux correspondances saisies pour affranchissement frauduleux à l'aide d'un timbre contrefait ou ayant déjà servi. Le destinataire devait alors prendre possession de l'envoi au bureau d'arrivée et acquitter la taxe. (article 394 de l'Instruction Générale des Postes).

Références: Rochette, A. et Pothion; Marques et oblitérations de Paris; page 157.

Literature:

 

1.5. Lettre chargée en franchise de l'Empereur Napoleon III pour l'Italie. Asked by Thomas Berger on July 21, 2000; answered by Alain Trinquier on July 25, 2000 and Jean Sénéchal on August 14, 2000.

The French emperor Napoleon III has the right to send letters without paying postage for them (franchise). But this right ended at the French border and stamps had to be added for the part abroad or the letters were taxed at the destination (see Sénéchal, planche 3)

  

This enveloppe seems to be written by the Napoleon III itself (handwritten "l'Empereur" on top right) in his palace at Fontainebleau. There it got the a red date postmark "Bau du Palais de Fontainebleau, 3E | 16 Aout 68", a blue postmark "Cabinet de l'Empereur (2)" and a red "CHARGÉ" postmark. It was adressed to "Son Eminence Le Cardinal Bonaparte Rome". There is a "P.D." (Payé jusqu'à la destination) postmark in blue and red colour and the handwritten registration number ("no 897"). In addition one can find two other handwritten notes ("10.50", "7") on the top left I cannot assess. On the reverse there is a red transit date postmark "11 Paris 11 (60), 16 Aout 68" and a black nearly illegible arrival postmark "Roma, 22 Ago ..". There is no impression in the wax seal. One cannot find a timbre déscriptif du chargement (see Sénéchal, p. 66).

Cette enveloppe était ecru par l' Empereur soi-même dans le palais de Fontainebleau (cachet à date "Bau du Palais de Fontainebleau, 3E | 16 Aout 68"). Il y a en addition des cachets "Cabinet de l'Empereur (2)" et "CHARGÉ". Le cachet "P.D." est apposé en bleu-rouge. L'enveloppe était addressée à "Son Eminence Le Cardinal Bonaparte Rome". On peux voir le no. de chargement ("no. 897") et deux autres numéros ("10.50" et "7") je ne comprend pas (poids, 7 décimes ?). Au verso il y a un cachet à date rouge de transit ("11 Paris 11 (60), 16 Aout 68") et un cachet à date presque illisible ("Roma, 22 Ago .."). Il n'y a pas des timbres-poste, pas des taxations (?), rien impression au cachet de cire et il n'y a pas un timbre déscriptif du chargement.
This is a really nice item. Lettre chargée sent abroad in franchise. But it is not absolutely clear to me how the Italian part of the tariff was paid. Cause there is no Italian taxation stamp this part of the postage seemed to be paid in Fontainebleau (P.D. postmark). What do the two handwritten numbers in the top left corner mean (weight)? Does anybody know who cardinal Bonaparte was? Please write me.
 
Voila, mes questions. Connaissez-vous comment le port pour cette lettre était payée (part italien) ? P.D. est apposé mais il n'y a pas des timbres. Paiement en espèces ? Connaisez-vous la signification des deux nos. manuscrits ? Un lettre chargée pour l'Italie en premièr échelon coutait 90c. (40c. pour la lettre et 50c. pour le chargement). 90c. moins le franchise imperiale (20c. pour un lettre simple) sont 70 c. Est-ce que ces sont les 7 décimes ? Je n'ai pas trouvé un membre de la famille Bonaparte qui é tait cardinal. Connaissez-vous des informations en relation de cet person ? Ecrivez-moi, s.v.p.

Question repondu par Jean Sénéchal: Il s'agit d'une lettre de Fontainebleau pour Rome, expediée en franchise (pour le parcours en France), sous le contreseing manuscrit " L'empereur " (à priori autographe, ainsi que la siscription sur l'enveloppe), et de la griffe " cabinet/ de l'Empereur (2) ", et dont le port à partir de la frontiere jusqu'à Rome a été acquitté au départ en numéraire: griffe PD encadrée = payé jusqu'à destination. (...) Le chiffre 7 représente les 70 centimes du port, soit 7 décimes (90c. pour la lettre chargée en prèmier échelon pour l'Italie moins les 20c. pour le franchise).

Le destinataire était Lucien-Louis-Joseph-Napoléon Bonaparte, 3ème enfant de Charles-Lucien Bonaparte, lui-même fils de Lucien, frère de Napoléon I. Né à Rome le 15. novembre 1828, a été baptisé par le cardinal Fesch et tenu sur les fonts baptismaux par le prince Louis-Napoléon, futur Napoléon III. Ordonné prêtre en 1853, il devient camérier secret du pape, fut élévé au cardinalat en 1868 (...). Il mourut en 1895.

Ref.: Dictionnaire des Contemporains par Vapereau, 4ème édition, Paris 1870

Question repondu partiellement par Alain Trinquier: Il y a bien eu un cardinal Bonaparte (Lucien Bonaparte né en 1828, mort en 1895); chef de la branche ainée de la famille Bonaparte, c'était le fils de Charles Lucien et de sa cousine Zénaïde; c'était donc le petit-fils à la fois de Lucien Bonaparte (président du Conseil des Cinq Cents) et de Joseph Bonaparte (roi de Naples, puis roi d'Espagne).

Réf.: Dictionnaire Larousse de 1907; QUID 1990

Literature:

 

2. Short stories

2.1. If you want to forge a postal history item you should at least know a little bit about postal history ;-) Presented by Thomas Berger on February 21st, 1999.

In a bunch of covers I have bought this and a resembling cover which should look like to two items with the 40 c. of the first Cérès issue from 1849 / 1850. But this forger had really no idea about the postal history of that time.
Cover Lyon 3.3.1846 with forged Yv.5

The front of the cover shows beside the blue company postmark a nearly illegible date postmark type 15 (Lyon March 3rd, 1846) and the handwritten taxation note "4" (i.e. four décimes or 40 c.). In addition a stamp which should resemble a 40 c. Cérès (issued February 3, 1850) and cancelled with a postmark resembling a Gros chiffre "978" (which was used in Chaumont-en-Bassigny since 1863) is affixed.

The letter interior shows as date the March 3rd, 1846.

The letter was sent to Seurre (Dept. Côte d'Or) where it arrived on March 4, 1846 (type 13 postmark on the back).
Forged Yv.5

Stamp on the cover

Yvert no. 5

Yvert no. 38 (Siège)

Yvert no. 48 (Bordeaux)
The stamp on the cover does not resemble one of the three issued 40 c. Cérès stamps in France. Unfortunately I don't possess the 40 c. bright-orange which was issued in 1871 for the French colonies. The intention of the forger was to make it look like a Cérès from 1850 (shade at the neck in points), but the colours are that deep that all graphical details are nearly completely covered (e.g. the fleurons in the corners and the text).

Thus the forger used a genuine cover from 1846, three years prior to the issue of the first French stamp. In spite of the fact that the addressee has paid 40 c. for the transportation (taxation mark) he affixed a forged 40 c. on it which was issued four years after the use of this letter. Then he used as cancellation postmark which was issued 17 years after the letter and about 11 years after the last use of this stamp. That he did not reproduce the Gros chiffre from Lyon is only a detail. Only the form of the Gros chiffre seems to be correct. I would hope that all forgeries are that easy to detect. An example of a "well done" forgery of an unused 25 c. ultramarine type Sage you can "admire" on the webpage of David Mills.

Literature:

Back to the top
1