Late Use of Ukraine Tridents (continued)

Latest known use of any stamp is problematic. Even if a stamp is officially invalidated, an individual who has a copy in a pocket book may use it – and get away with it. No one notices; no one imposes Postage Due. This is really of no great interest.

More interestingly, there are cases where a stamp is invalidated – and then, out of necessity, officially brought back into temporary, provisional use. For example, Imperial Russia’s 1913 Romanov stamps were invalidated in the RSFSR at the same time as kopeck value Imperial stamps were revalued x 100, in March 1920. However, some later uses of 20 / 14 kopeck Romanovs on official formular cards (Money Transfers, Parcel Cards) are known and these look like uses which some postal district or at least some local postmaster has authorised because of local stamp shortages (which were common in revolutionary Russia). See my Blog about this dated 10 February 2011

Similarly, with Ukraine Tridents it seems that they were invalidated sometime in 1921 (I still need an exact date). However, 1922 uses can be found in south Ukraine. This is an area which Alexander Epstein and Thomas Berger have identified as an area of stamp shortages at that time, leading to the use of technically invalidated stamps and to the local revaluation of stamps to useful denominations (rather than revaluation to officially designated values). Alexander Epstein has two article on these topics in Ukrainian Philatelist # 102 (2009); Thomas Berger and Alexander Epstein have an article in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Russland Philatelie # 101 ( 2014)

So we find items like these:

Click on Images to Magnify

The above item was in the Robert Taylor collection and the images have been provided by Thomas Berger.

This is a Registered letter which does not look philatelic sent from ODESSA 12 5 22 to Berlin, with a Berlin receiver on the reverse. The forty Odessa type 2 Trident overprinted 1 kopeck stamps have been revalued, following the RSFSR scheme to 1 rouble each to yield a 40 rouble franking. It's possible that the sender supplied the stamps, but for a Registered letter they at least had to be accepted by a post office clerk - the clerk who cancelled them at the counter. And because these are one kopeck yellow stamps, there is no missing the Trident overprint.

Thomas Berger provides an earlier example:

Click on Images to Magnify

This is also a Registered letter from Odessa to Berlin and again looks non-philatelic. The stamps are cancelled ODESSA 8 8 21. But this time the Tridents are examples of Poltava type 1 - but they are rare stamps, Bulat # 987 catalogued $140 each. 

It's true that Poltava tridents were at some time in post offices in Podilia and can be found on official formular cards, so it's possible they were also in  Odessa post office. However, the use of rare stamps out of their district of origin does (to my mind) make it less likely that these stamps were being used up by Odessa post office. But the 1921 date on this letter makes it possible (likely, even) that they were used before any official invalidation of tridents.

Here is another example of 1922 use, sent to me by Alexander Epstein:

Click on Images to Magnify

This is an ordinary letter sent from Molochansk, a Mennonite community in Taurida, to Czecholsovakia routed through Moscow. The stamps are cancelled 6 or 7 9 22. Revalued x 100, they yield a correct 45 rouble franking. But note ... the three 10 kopeck stamps are overprinted with Kyiv type 2 Tridents, clearly not so visible as on one kopeck stamps and which could have been missed by a clerk. Nonetheless, the letter looks non-philatelic and is the latest recorded date for any use of Trident stamps on a travelled letter. It is a bit problematic that these are Kyiv tridents: those Tridents did find their way into Podilia stamp stocks and maybe into Kherson and Katerynoslav stocks.But you would expect Molochansk to have stocked Odessa or Katerynoslav tridents.

What we really need is examples of Tridents used in late 1921 and into 1922 on official formular cards. In my previous Blog on this topic, I could not find any such official use later than May 1921. (See  my Blog for 23 September 2011)

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

RSFSR: Two Interesting Covers from 1922

Click on Image to Magnify

Click on Image to Magnify

We think of the Bolsheviks as specialist in propaganda, extensively using methods old and new, before and especially after the revolution. Everyone has heard of Agitprop and knows about the posters, the films and even the Agit trains.

But as far as the postal system was concerned, the Bolsheviks took several years to even begin to use postage stamps, postal cancellations and postal stationery illustrations for purposes of propaganda. For all practical purposes, post - 1917 Revolution mail looks just like Imperial mail, except dirtier. Aside from the Kerensky Chainbreakers and stationery cards used by the Bolsheviks - and some censorship marks - there is nothing to signal the change of regime until the Arts and Industry stamps appeared in the Autumn of 1921 - and even then not in sufficient quantities for the change to be sustained.

Take a look at these covers from 1922. At the top, an ordinary letter to Finland sent from the Nicholas Station in Petrograd on 14 October 1922 - still with that name and still using the oval Imperial cancellation. On the front, only the Soviet Three Triangle censor mark marks this as a distinctively Bolshevik item.

The effects of the censorship can be seen on the back, at the right side of the cover. The recipient opened it with scissors, slightly reducing it. But the censors had already been inside, through the triangular flap, damaging the stamps and the tissue paper lining of the envelope. The two Petrograd 1st Exspeditsia cancellations dated 16 10 22 are transit marks applied after the censor's work had been done, though it looks a bit as if they were applied on the right side to cover up the mess left by the censor.

The cover is franked as an ordinary foreign letter, correctly, at 75 roubles. This is interesting in relation to the date it was sent: 14 October is the first day of the new Tariff schedule - or rather, of a Tariff schedule for which Alexander Epstein notes two possible dates of introduction (14 and 18 October): see his article on Foreign Mail tariffs in Zeitschrift für Klassische Russland-Philatelie 2 (1998)

Last but not least, the stamps are scarce ones. They are perforated 12.5 not the regular 13.5. These stamps are from a post - 1917 printing: Michel dates the printing to 1918 and catalogues the stamp at 30 €uro in used condition (Michel 80 C x b II - I think that is what you call a really Unhelpful Numbering System).

___________

Now the second cover. This is addressed to Czecholovakia and also starts out from the Nicholas Station in Petrograd but a few months later on  6 10 22 - oval cancellation on the top. The Three Triangle Bolshevik censor mark is at the bottom of the cover dated 9 10 22. But this is a Registered cover, and to indicate that the clerk ahs reached back to pre-1914 times and come up with an R-label inscribed "S. - PETERSBOURG. / gare Nicolas." This use in 1922 of a reminder of the Imperial past is known from other covers - it is hard to find but not impossible. It shows the Bolsheviks as enthusiasts for recycling.

On the back we again have a block of 10 of the 7 rouble stamps, but this time with the regular perforation 13. 5. There are transits of the both the 1st and 6th Exspeditsia post offices in Petrograd. I think the censor got in to the envelope at the base, using the flaps on either side of the 5 kopeck stamps. These have been revalued x 100 to make 5 rouble stamps (Revaluation of March 1920) and the total franking of 90 roubles is correct for a Foreign Registered letter according to the Tariff of 17 6 1922. 

It looks as if the letter was received and opened normally, but there are no receiver cancellations. The only unexplained mark is what looks like a pencilled "6" right in the middle of the front of the envelope.

Russia - Germany 1917 Armistice Mail

When the Bolsheviks seized power on 25 October (7 November New Style) 1917 they had three strategic objectives: Bread, Peace and Land. They moved rapidly to exit from World War One, and ceasefires and local armistices soon emerged. On 2 December (15 December), Russia signed a short Armistice agreement with the Central Powers at Brest - Litovsk. This Armistice held until 17 / 4 February 1918 when Germany gave 7 days notice of its intention to resume hostilities - which it did on 24 / 11 February when the successful Operation Faustschlag was launched with the aim of forcing Russia into signing the full Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

An English version of the Armistice agreement can be accessed via the Wikipedia article "Armistice between Russia and the Central Powers". It  provides, among other things, for the exchange of unsealed mail at the front("between sunrise and sunset") and sets up a commission in Petrograd to work out the details.

This provisional measure is very different from a full resumption of postal relations, with mail heading by train to Petrograd from Berlin and vice versa. It basically expresses an intention to give civilians access to the military field post at front-line exchange points.

The collection of Harry von Hofmann sold recently at Heinrich Koehler in Wiesbaden included some examples of such Armistice mail from the German side. Some of it is puzzling and in the absence of the text of the arrangements agreed by the Petrograd commission, it's necessary to guess what is happening, though Alexander Epstein published some information in Yamchik  (June 2005).

Here are three cards which belong to this category of Armistice mail:

Click on Image to Magnify

The first card, written in German and giving family news, starts in RIGA on 2 January 1918 using a 7 1/2 Pfg card (originally attached to a Reply paid card),. It transits through a Russian Field Post Office (POLEVAYAR POCHT KONT but Number not legible) on 29 12 17 (Old Style) and arrives in VLADIVOSTOK on what looks like 23 January 1918. [Alexander Epstein thinks the Field Post Office will be Nr 42, attached to the 15th Army Corps and located at the time near lake Naroch in what is now Belarus']

The second card, also in German and asking for material help, starts in LIBAU 31 1 18 with a 15 Pfg franking and is addressed in both German and Russian to a company office in Petrograd, where it could not be delivered. There is a cachet of the Address Bureau at bottom left and a central vertical line of glue which probably indicates that a SPRAVKA label has been attached during the attempts at delivery. The card has then been marked with French language (International) cachets for Return with addressee Unknown. Libau was occupied by Germany in 1915 and this would have been one of the first civilian items of mail to travel to Petrograd since the beginning of the Occupation.

The third card, in Russian, starts in RIGA 30 1 18 with 10 Pf in franking on both the outgoing and Reply half. It's addressed to Dvinsk (Daugavpils, Dünaburg) and gets there on 28 1 18 (Old Style) where a mute receiver cancel without town name has been applied (this cancel I have seen before). From the fact that the address on this card begins with "Russland" in German, one can infer that Dvinsk at this point was on the Russian side of the armistice line.

Since each of these three cards is differently franked, it cannot be inferred what the Tariff was supposed to be!

Now to two strange envelopes:

Click on Image to Magnify

Both envelopes started out from RIGA 23 1 18 one addressed in Cyrillic but with "Russland" in German, and the other in Latvian - both franked 20 Pf (so we might be tempted to infer the Tariff!). The handwriting is different, but the stamps may have come from the same sheet.

They are both addressed to the Riga - Valk Highway, Libek Station [ Sastawa Libek - which in German would be tranliterated or translated as Lübeck - just as the German city of Lübeck is rendered LIBEK in Russian ], Peace Section No.  2,  Iskolostrel [mis-spelt on the Latvian letter]. From Alexander Epstein's article in Yamchik, I learn that"Iskolostrel" is the acronym for the Executive Committee of the Latvian Rifle Regiment, a pro-Bolshevik unit.

One possibility ( and Alexander Epstein also thinks this possible) is that these envelopes contained cards for onward transmission to Russia, the senders making use of the German civilian Ob Ost post to get the cards to an exchange point. Why they did this is a mystery, given that the other cards appear to have travelled without use of envelopes. The top cover is unsealed and the bottom cover looks like it has been sealed later (the rear flap is partly detached). Of course, these envelopes could have contained enquiry letters to Iskolostrel itself, for example, asking about the whereabouts or fate of members of the Regiment.

None of these five items bears any censor marks

And just to complicate matters:

Here is an ordinary letter, correctly franked, sent from MOSKVA 14 2 18, the first day of the new calendar and just a few days before the Germans withdrew from the Armistice agreement. It's correctly franked at the internal letter rate, probably sent unsealed but sealed by the Petrograd censor. It's also addressed to Station Libek but with no mention of Iskolostrel. The handwriting is almost identical to the first envelope above sent from Riga, but there are small differences. It is marked in German "Züruck" on the grounds that the address needs to be in the Roman alphabet.

BUT ... this letter is addressed to a destination on the Russian side of the Armistice line. There is no reason for it to be addressed in Roman script. There are two possibilities: either this letter fell into the hands of the German troops or administration, advancing as part of the Faustschlag offensive and sent back as non-compliant with later regulations (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk mail) or there was a letter or card inside this envelope when it was sent from Moscow, addressed to German-occupied territory but (incorrectly) addressed in Cyrillic. The envelope and contents may have been passed across the exchange line as part of the distribution process and then the whole thing returned back. But still very much a puzzle ...

Click on Image to Magnify

Ukraine Local Trident Overprints

Like RSFSR Postmaster Provisional revaluation of 1920, locally produced Ukraine Trident overprints - which are also Postmaster Provisionals - are difficult to collect. But less difficult than is sometimes imagined.

First of all, think about the situation which generated legitimate local tridents. Official Trident overprints came into use late in August 1918. In September, the use of unoverprinted stamps was tolerated - and mixed frankings are quite common. Only from the beginning of October were unoverprinted stamps invalid.

So Postmasters had a problem only if they found themselves without (enough) Trident stamps at the beginning of October. They could put in requests for supplies and, eventually no doubt, they would get them.  Meanwhile, they might decide to improvise their own local Tridents.

In other words, there is no reason to expect to find a local Trident used before October 1918 and probably not much reason to expect to see them in use after say January 1919.

Producing the Tridents would have been extra work for a local post office, so it is likely that most local tridents were produced in small batches. When their use came to an end, it is unlikely that there were many mint remainders which could be called in by regional or central authorities. Of course, they could ask for a new batch to be produced ( for onward transmission to philatelic agencies) or they could ask for the handstamp and then produce their own Reprints. Likewise, if philatelists turned up quickly enough at some out-of-the-way post office they might be able to get a supply of mint stamps - this clearly happened in some cases.

Either way, when starting a collection of local Tridents it makes sense to avoid mint stamps since they will include Reprints, other philatelic productions and - of course - forgeries.

When Dr Seichter was working on Local Trident overprints he had four problems to deal with.  First, forgeries  produced by Captain Schramschenko (really Scamschenko) whose handstamps had not yet been discovered and prints taken from them published. Second, forgeries produced in the Soviet Union and authenticated with a large Soviet guarantee mark which Alexander Epstein has since shown to be a forgery. Dr Seichter seems not to have known this. Third, the lack of accurate drawings and illustrations of the Tridents. Fourth, the general lack of material.

The first two problems no longer exist. We can identify these forgeries quite easily. The third problem does remain. The catalogues in general use are not very helpful. We really need to see colour images with enlargements.

As for the fourth problem, the solution is to make a start with the commoner local Tridents. I exclude Chernihiv (Tchernigov) and Zhitomir since these were productions of regional post and telegraph administrations (as Alexander Epstein has shown).

Back in 1926, C Svenson in his Ukraina-Handbuch, II Teil  picked out the tridents of Ovruch and Sarny as both clearly legitimate and reasonably common issues (page 33). This remains true. Svenson even gives two prices for Ovruch 50 kopeck stamps: used (10 Marks) and used on complete postal Formular (15 Marks). Well, those Formulars are no longer that common in relation to the stamps but the stamps can be found. The illustration to this Blog shows my complete holding for Ovruch. The stamps are all Bulat 2465, catalogued at $55 used and unpriced for mint. Cancellations are dated October and November 1918. The Parcel Card fragment has the same style of punch hole as the complete Formular so probably was also sent to Kharkiv. A stamp has been harvested from the fragment to provide a copy of a used stamp - presumably an Ovruch Trident. This is characteristic of the way the Formulars were treated when first released in the 1920s and 1930s. All five loose stamps are signed (3 Dr Seichter, 2 UPV)

With Ovruch one is really only dealing with one stamp and one cancellation and nothing in the holding I am illustrating here is doubtful. In contrast, Sarny stamps were used at other offices and there are more values to collect. There are also mint Reprints and lots of forgeries, mint and used.

By the way, it is a good habit to try to find the cancellations used by local Trident post offices but on more common stamps, like General Issue (Shagiv) stamps. This is a good way of double checking authenticity.

The more difficult local trident issues are, of course, more difficult and I will write about this in my next Blog.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Beware This Mark on Ukraine Tridents!

Back in 2001, one of our most knowledgeable and careful living philatelists, Alexander Epstein, published an article in Ukrainian Philatelist (v 49, n 1) which alerted collectors to a forgery of a Soviet export mark appearing on the back of loose Trident stamps. This mark is illustrated above; a genuine mark of this character exists and was used in the 1920s but only on items of postal history; a significantly smaller mark was used on stamps. The forgery of the large mark appeared in the 1950s and was applied to the back of stamps with forged Trident overprints. Of course, it's possible that it was also applied to stamps with genuine overprints. Dr Seichter has signed the above stamp as genuine, though it isn't.

Dr Seichter seems to have taken the mark to be genuine and thus was puzzled by stamps with what appeared to be doubtful overprints. He concluded that, in general, the stamps were Reprints. He wrote about the problem in a little pamphlet, "Ukraine: Falschung oder unbekannte Typen? Kritische Betrachtungen uber Lokalausgaben 1918/20" (1960).

The mint stamp above which Seichter signed is a 35 kopeck with Trident, supposedly, of Konstantynohrad. [There is a possibility that the Seichter signature is forged but there is nothing about it which alerts my suspicions]

I also illustrate a picture of the the mint stamp alongside the used copy which appears on the one known MTF with Konstantynohrad Trident. Look at the right wing on both stamps and you can see that on the mint forgery, the wing inclines at a greater angle to the vertical spike of the Trident than does the wing on the genuine stamp. The illustration in Bulat's catalog (page 127) correctly captures the angle of inclination of the right wing.

On my next Blog, I will illustrate a batch of stamps with the large export mark and forged tridents which are much easier to see are forgeries than this Konstantynohrad example.

I leave the last word to Alexander Epstein, " one may assert that finding a large size mark on a loose trident stamp is the best "guarantee" that the overprint is forged" (article cited, page 48)

CORRECTION POSTED 9 nov 2011: the mint 35 kopeck mint stamp is not trying to be a Konstantynohrad Trident; it is either a genuine Hanebne Trident or, much more likely, a forgery of it - Bulat does not list Hanebne on the 35 kopeck value

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html