Telegraph stamps of Great Britain. Select currency. Default = GBP (1.0) GB £   US $   Can $   Aus $ Euro   Other This site has been expanding. Click here for a site-map.

Back to HOME
General Telegraph	Electric Telegraph	Submarine	British Telegraph	English & Irish	British & Irish	London District	UK Electric	S.E.R.	L.C. & D.R.
Bonelli's	Universal Tel.	National Telephone	Army Telegraphs 1	Army Telegraphs 2	Railway	Post Office	Unusual	Unexpected	Contributions

The South Eastern Railway.

1st September 1860 until 1st February 1870

Steve Hiscocks wrote:
Like most main line railway companies the South Eastern Railway permitted use of its telegraph system by the public but it did not initially issue
stamps. In 1860 the Company opened an office near the big military camp at Aldershot (about 30 miles/50km West-Southwest of London). The military authorities
found small cash payments inconvenient and stamps were therefore issued on 1 September 1860. Although these were valid throughout the
Company's system they might almost be considered the first military telegraphs and the only private military stamps. They were designed
and printed by Charles Whiting of London and were used until the system was taken over by the Postmaster-General on 1 February 1870. Use was
small with only two printings amounting to 25,000 stamps in all The plates and remainders were destroyed in 1870. Imperforate proofs without
controls are known but are very rare. Two or three different perforations are known and these probably correspond to the two printings.
Cancellation was by date and initials in black manuscript.

4 examples sold by, and courtesy of, Grosvenor Auctions for £1650.

The first series were Perf.9 in the values 1s, 1s6d, 2s3d and 2s9d. Most of these are extremely scarce, but the 1s used and 2s3d mint seem relatively common.

The second series (Late 1862 / early 1863) were Perf.12 (actually about 11.9) in the values 9d, 1s, 1s2d and 1s6d.

Lastly, about 1868 according to Langmead & Huggins, they became a higher perforation for just the 1s and 1s6d values.
Langmead & Huggins give this as 12 x 12½, but I agree with Hiscocks that they measure 12½ (actually a bit over).
For the shilling values, this is control numbers over about 53000. Langmead & Huggins say it is for controls around 19000 on the 1s6d, but my measurements of controls 19003, 19006 and 19053 give me Perf. 12.
It has to be said that most of these have poor quality, unevenly spaced perforations that can give different results depending on where you measure.

Peter Langmead is acknowledged in Hiscocks' book for having checked his GB section.

According to Langmead & Huggins these were printed in sheets of 12 or 24 and the
Royal Philatelic Collection has proof sheets of 24 of the 1s in both black and the issued colour (imperf. No controls), together with a sheet of 12 of the 9d in red.

My reconstructions for the 2s3d and 2s9d show that they had rows of 6 stamps and were numbered left to right.
At least some of the 1s2d though were numbered from right to left.

Watermark used (as viewed from back)

RH # Hisc. Description Rarity Mint Used RH1 H1 9d red, Perf.9 Unlisted 900.00 750.00 RH1a H1a 9d red, Perf.12 (controls seen 3082 to 11477) R3 600.00 450.00 RH1b   9d red, Perf.12, without control R4 - - RH2 H2 1s yellow, Perf.9 (controls seen 2374) R4 750.00 550.00 RH2a H2a 1s yellow, Perf.12 (controls up to about 30000) R3 450.00 300.00 RH2b H2b 1s yellow, Perf.12½ (controls ~ 33000 and up) R3 400.00 300.00 RH2c   1s yellow, Imperf., no control.   - - RH3 H3 1s2d black, Perf.12 (controls 1995-2068) R3 450.00 450.00 RH3a   1s2d black, Imperf., no control.   - - RH4 H4 1s6d lilac, Perf.9 (controls 188, 1264 and 7403 seen) R4 700.00 700.00 RH4a H4a 1s6d lilac to grey, Perf.12 (controls up to 16000's) R3 400.00 400.00 *RH4b H4b 1s6d grey-lilac, Perf.12x12½ (controls > 19053) R3 - - RH4c   1s6d lilac, Imperf., no control.   - - RH5 H5 2s3d red-brown, Perf.9 (controls up to 1400-1424) R4 350.00 350.00 RH5a   2s3d red-brown, Imperf., no control.   - - RH6 H6 2s9d green, Perf.9 (controls 600-630) R4 500.00 500.00 RH6a   2s9d green, Imperf., no control.   - - *RH4b - I am not convinced that this exists. According to L & H, controls around 19000 have this perforation, but checking controls 19001, 19003, 19006 and 19053 shows them to be about Perf.11¾, the same as the earlier ones given as Perf.12.

Scans I have collected give an idea of relative scarcity.

Note that 'P' in brackets indicates that they were in lot 1021 of the Phillips auction of the John Lowe collection.
This was 2 November 1990 when lot 1021 consisting of 6 stamps went for £240.
The lot was bought by Andrew Higson and the 1s2d(2001), 2s3d(1411) and 2s9d(620) are now in my collection.

Additionally, the catalogue of the Royal Philatelic Collection lists (without details):
Perf.9 - 1s x 2 used, 1s6d used, 2s6d mint, 2s9d x 2 mint;
Perf.12 - 9d x 2 used, 1s x 2 used, 1s2d mint, 1s6d mint + 1 used;
Perf.12½ - 1s x 2 mint, 1s6d mint.
Additionally there are a number of proofs, notably including sheets without controls : 9d red sheet of 12, 1s black sheet of 24 1s yellow sheet of 24.
These are thought to be all in rows of 6, but it isn't stated.

For what it's worth, here is a breakdown of usage by year for images I have :

For completion, earliest and latest :

Undated   1s6d numbered 188 - courtesy of Mark Gibson	14 / 1 / 1862   1s6d numbered 1264 - courtesy of Steve Lawrie	28 / 6 / 1868   1s numbered 51495 - courtesy of Mark Gibson

Some were undated.

9d

3082 - RH1a - 9d, Perf. 12	3314 - Proof of RH1 - 9d, Perf. about 10.7
Image courtesy of Roger de Lacy-Spencer.	Image courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

9984 dated 6/4/65 - RH1a - 9d, Perf. 12	11477 dated 23/5/66 - RH1a - 9d, Perf. 12 (Charing Cross)
One of mine.	Courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

The stamp marked 'Proof' deserves a note. It looks very suspect on very white, presumably un-watermarked paper
with intermediate perforations and a control number smaller and slightly different in style to stamp 3082.
However the marks above 'No' at top left look like a fresher, though over-inked version of 3082, suggesting
it is an earlier print from the same plate using non-production paper, perforator and (arbitrary) numbering.
I invite you to compare it with the example of the scarce RH1b (proof without control) shown on the Distant Writing website.
I could be wrong of course.
I was informed by Dr Iain Stevenson FRPSL, that the original copper die for these stamps is in the RPSL Museum.

1s

Tall serial No. 2374 dated Jan 14 1862 - RH2 - 1s, Perf. 9	29567 dated 2/4/65 - RH2a - 1s, Perf. 12 (I think)
Image courtesy of Steve Lawrie.	Source: Andrew Higson.

The differences in control numbers (value, not just size) together with the differences in date can give a guide to the rate of use.
In this case, 27193 in 38½ months, or about 700 per month. Some time between January 1862 and December 1864 the control number on the 1/- was reduced in height.
Somewhere between 39810 and 43007 (in 1866), they increased in height again, but not with the original font. It is rather strange, the first change might have been
because the first numbering machine only had four digits, but why the second? Surely a 5-digit machine shouldn't wear out before you get to the end of the count !
The 1/6d also had a change of font, around about the time of the colour change, but why ?

33509 - RH2b - 1s, Perf. 12x12½ showing reversed watermark.	28322 - RH2b - 1s, (showing inverted-reversed watermark)	33505 dated 28/8/65 ?   RH2b - 1s, Perf. 12x12½
Image courtesy of Philangles Ltd.	One of mine.	Courtesy of Mark Gibson.

1s 2d

488 - RH3 - 1s2d, Perf. 12 (only used example seen)	2020 - RH3 - 1s2d, Perf. 12	2067 - RH3 - 1s2d, Perf. 12
Image courtesy of Mark Gibson.	Images courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

1s 6d

1264 dated 14/1/62 - RH4 - 1s6d, Perf. 9	7403 dated 2/4/63 - RH4a - 1s6d, Perf. 12
Images courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

11955 dated 1/6/64 - RH4a - 1s6d, Perf. 12	16795 dated 28/8/65 ? - RH4a - 1s6d, Perf. 12	19006 - RH4b - 1s6d, Perf. 12 x 12½
Image courtesy of Mark Gibson.	Images courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

Between controls 7403 (2/4/63) and 11955 (1/6/64) there appears to be a quite drastic change in shade !
It would be nice to try to narrow down when this happened. The size and font of the control numbers have also changed, that is less explicable.

2s 3d

201 dated 16/1/62 - RH5 - 2s3d, Perf. 9	1066 dated 2/4/65 - RH5 - 2s3d, Perf. 9
Images courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

1402 - RH5 - 2s3d, Perf. 9	1413 - RH5 - 2s3d, Perf. 9	1468 - RH5 - 2s3d, Perf. 9
Images courtesy of Steve Lawrie.		Image courtesy of Mark Gibson.

2s 9d

608 - RH6 - 2s9d, Perf. 9	613 - RH6 - 2s9d, Perf. 9	629 - RH6 - 2s9d, Perf. 9
Images courtesy of Steve Lawrie.		Image courtesy of Mark Gibson.

For the sake of interest :

These two, both used on 15 February 1865, appear to have the date written in the same hand.
However they are initialled by different people. Note that most dates on these would be written like 15/2/65.
Perhaps the desk clerk affixed the stamps and dated them and the telegrapher initialled them after sending.
Alternatively, perhaps they were dated later by an inspector.


   
Here are three images that came as a batch from Mark Gibson. They are all used on 4 April 1865, though the 9d could be misinterpreted.
Note the different handwriting styles. Also the different control numbers on that date gives an idea of comparative usage.

Proofs:

Proofs of all values exist, with the 9d being the odd one out.




I have seen 3 examples of 9d proofs, including the one numbered 3314 above, and they have all been perforated, with the rest being imperforate. All of these are courtesy of Steve Lawrie.
Interestingly, they are all watermarked, except perhaps the 1s 2d that cannot be seen.

Watermark:

The watermark (shown above) is most clearly visible on the 1s stamps.
it can be seen in various orientations.

The normal ones are spread over a wide range of control numbers, but the reversed ones are mostly from the same sheet.
Most of the 1s could be determined from scans on dark backgrounds. Though the other denominations are less easy to see, the proportions are probably similar
These figures though are heavily influenced by the close numbering of the reversed ones.

On the 9d stamp scans, 9984 and 11477 can be seen to be normal, but the other 4 are uncertain.
That makes 4 normals and 2 unknowns (629 and 630).

On the 1s2d, 2001(mine) has a reversed watermark. Mark Gibson tells me that 2006, 2017, 2018 and 2019 are also reversed. These are probably from the same sheet.

On the 1s6d (with enhancement) I can see a normal watermark on 188, 1264, 7403, the lilac ones, but really can't be sure on the (7) later grey-lilacs,
though the last two, 19003 and 19006 look like they may be reversed. Mark Gibson tells me that his 19053 is reversed. Again, probably all the same sheet.

On the 2s9d, 608, 613 and 620(mine) can be seen to be normal. 619 adjoins 620 so must be normal.
That makes 4 normals and 2 unknowns (629 and 630).

Similarly, the 2s3d is helped by 1419 being visibly normal and fitting into a block with 1417, 1418, 1420, 1423 and 1424, so that they must also be normal.
924, 1402 and 1413 can just about be seen (with enhancement) to be normal, making 9 normals and only 3 unknowns (201, 1066 and 1411).

On the 1s2d scans, I cannot make out even a hint of a watermark.
Unusually, pairs 2017/2018 and 2020/2021 only fit together numbered right to left.
2017, 2018 and 2020 are shown on this page, 2021 is illustrated in the Langmead & Huggins book.

Control numbers:

As pointed out in passing on the shilling values, the control numbers did not always stick to the same size and font.
Control numbers were important for accounting purposes and to deter crime. To avoid duplication of numbers, ideally the numbering for each denomination needs to be
done with the same (tamper-proof ?) numbering device. The devices should be reliable enough not to fail before the full count is reached.

The catalogue of John Barefoot first brought my attention to the fact that the size of control numbers on the One Shilling value changed.
I should have noticed it myself, but had not. Anyway, looking into it further, reveals that it changed twice and that the controls on the 1s6d also changed.
These are the two denominations that got to the highest control numbers.

Denomination	Lowest control known	Highest control known	Quantity of types	Examples (to scale)
9d	3082	11477	1
1/-	2374	54759	3
1/2d	488	2068	1
1/6d	188	19053	2
2s3d	201	1468	1
2s9d	604	675	1

For the purposes of this, I have ignored the 9d stamp marked 'Proof' as the control number is of unknown origin.

For the 9d, 1s2d, 2s3d and 2s9d, only one type appears to have been used, but they are not all the same, the '2's and '7's have
fairly ornate tops/bottoms on the 9d and 1s2d, but straight on the 2s3d and 2s9d .

The 1s6d changes size between 7403 (dated 2-4-63) and 11938 (dated 31-5-64).
It may simply be due to the first numbering device only having 4-digits, though the 9d went above that.

The 1s changed to a small size between 2374 (dated 14-6-62) and 28322 (dated 14-12-64). This is a big gap.
It changed again to a different large font between 39810 (dated 20-5-66) and 43007 (dated 8-8-66).

Plate layout:

The above is a digital reconstruction from 4 separate 2s3d stamps. It indicates that there were 6 stamps to a row with left to right numbering. Number 1417 is from Langmead & Huggins' book (colour plate 2), courtesy of the Great Britain Philatelic Society.   Numbers 1418 and 1420 are courtesy of Stanley Gibbons, 1419 is courtesy of Steve Lawrie,   1423 is owned by Mark Gibson and   1424 is courtesy of Grosvenor Auctions.

This pair courtesy of Mark Gibson shows that their horizontal numbering was left to right.

	I expected these two to fit together in the same order : Surprisingly, they fitted together like this:
This is a digital reconstruction from 2 separate 2s9d stamps. It indicates that there were 6 stamps to a row. Number 619 is courtesy of Stanley Gibbons, and 613 is courtesy of Steve Lawrie.	Unusually, this digital reconstruction from 2 separate 1s2d stamps indicates that they were numbered right to left, though it is always possible they were numbered in serpentine fashion. Number 2017 is courtesy of Grosvenor Auctions, and 2018 is courtesy of Mark Gibson.

Here are the 5 scans I have from the row fitted in right to left order (half size, click it for a larger image).
Though the perforations fit together quite well, the stamps are not well aligned vertically, perhaps explaining why well-centred examples are scarce.

2020 is courtesy of Steve Lawrie, 2021 is from Langmead & Huggins' book (colour plate 2), courtesy of the Great Britain Philatelic Society.
2017, 2018 and 2019 are courtesy of Dr. Mark Gibson. Anyone have 2016 or 2022, or perhaps something from above or below?
2068 has selvedge at the top. This helps to determine the number of rows of stamps in the sheet.

.
33505 dated 28/8/65 ?   RH2b - 1s, Perf. 12½	RH2b - 1s, Perf. 12½ (showing watermark)	RH2b - 1s, Perf. 12½ (showing watermark)
Courtesy of Mark Gibson.	Courtesy of Steve Lawrie.	Courtesy of  Roger de Lacy-Spencer.

RH2b - 1s, 53007 from left of sheet. Courtesy of Mark Gibson.

Control number:       Factors: The stamp before this, 53006 will be at the end of a row. If the numbering started at 1 and continued sequentially with all sheets being the same, then 53006 will be the number of rows up to then, multiplied by the number of stamps per row. The calculator just above will give the factors of a control number. The only reasonable value it gives is 17. That sounds very unlikely, suggesting that the sequence of numbers has been disrupted and/or the stamps per row has changed at some point.

1s Pair 54756-7 with selvedge at left.	1s, Perf. 12½
The highest 1s numbers that I know of, all clearly showing the watermark, courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

Looking at the seven above:

Perforations.

1s2d,  2068  Courtesy of Grosvenor Auctions (Ex. I. Stevenson).	1s6d,  19053  Courtesy of Mark Gibson.	2s3d,  1420  Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	2s9d,  675  Courtesy of Mark Gibson.

These four are perforated at the top, though the 1s values shown above are not.
Examples with Selvedge are useful in confirming how many stamps per sheet.

Lastly, "about 1868", they became a higher perforation for just the 1s and 1s6d values.

This is where things become a little unclear.
According to Langmead & Huggins, the 1868 issue were Perf. 12 x 12½ and comprised :

The 1s6d control 19053 is shown just above. It is perforated through the selvedge, measuring Perf.12.
I have scans of 1s6d with controls 19001, 19003, 19006 and 19053. They can best be described as Perf. 11¾.
The 1s stamps 53004 and 53053 are shown higher up. Their selvedge is without perforation, and they measure Perf. 12½.
I also have scans of 1s controls 54756, 54757 and 54759 which also measure Perf. 12½.
In conclusion, I have to totally disagree with them.
Raymond Lister (1961) listed the 1s and 1s6d as existing with Perf.12½ without stating control numbers. It is true for the highest controls of the 1s,
and may be true for the highest controls of the 1s6d, but if so they are higher than the 19053 seen.

Hiscocks says several things about the South Eastern Railway stamps that beg a question.

For the sake of interest

The 1892 South Eastern Railway cancel used for railway letters and telegraphs.
Image courtesy of  Roger de Lacy-Spencer

Stationery.

Delivery Forms.

This is front and back a form number (191 c) dated 25 February 1856. Courtesy of Steve Lawrie. - My Ref. SER-191c-1855-1





The back provides information and states "Telegraph Charges Reduced to a Uniform Shilling Rate. No charge for names and addresses."
It goes on "On and after February 15th, 1855, Telegraph Messages will be transmitted from any one to any other Telegraph Station on
the South Eastern Railway, at the rate of One Shilling for Twenty Words; and half that rate, or Sixpence, for every additional Ten Words,
or fraction of Ten Words. No charge will be made for the Name and Addresses of the Sender or Receiver. An Extra Shilling per Message will be charged for Sunday Messages."
Porterage is 6d per mile if more than half a mile, or 1s per mile if more than 3 miles.

It has the signature of Charles V. Walker, Engineer and Superintendent of Telegraphs.
Below that is "Tunbridge, Oct. 1st. 1855." and the imprint of the McCorquodale & Co., Printers, London—Works, Newton.
Courtesy of Steve Lawrie

This is front and back a form number (191 c) dated 25 June 1856 (4 months later). Courtesy of Mark Gibson. - My Ref. SER-191c-1856-1
The front is the same, but the back is significantly changed.



Back

The rates section on the back has been pasted over with a revision, now reading "On and after January 1st, 1856, Messages not exceeding Twenty Words
will be transmitted by Electric Telegraph between Stations on the South Eastern Railway, at the following Rates :—
Within a circuit of 25 miles ............................1s0d
Beyond 25, and within a circuit of 50 miles .... 1s6d
   Beyond 50 miles .......................................... 2s0d"
Half rates are the same, still no charge for names and addresses and still an extra shilling on Sunday, but an extra bit that reads
"Figures are not transmitted by Telegraph ; therefore all Numbers must be written in length."
Courtesy of Mark Gibson.

A similar form, but this marked form (211a), dated 1 January 1856 on the back, again showing front and back. - My Ref. SER-211a-1856-1
Used 3 March 1858, - courtesy of Brian Callan.
 
The back has now changed to reflect the pasted over notice on the last 191 form.
Courtesy of Brian Callan.

A similar form, but now dated 1 October 1861, again showing front and back - courtesy of Mark Gibson. - My Ref. SER-211a-1856-1



Back

The back has now changed to reflect the pasted over notice on the last Form 191, though no mention of numbers being written at length, and the addition of
"Messages repeated back to the sender, will be charged one-half more than the ordinary charge. Messages, not in the English language, will be charged one-half more than the ordinary charge."

"FRANKS.—The Company are now prepared to supply Telegraph Franks, which will be received at any of their Stations in payment of the charges for Telegrams.
These Franks can be purchased at the Telegraph Office, Arcade, London Bridge."
Courtesy of Mark Gibson.

Front and back of another similar form from London to Rye, dated 11 June? November? 1865, now without a visible form number. - My Ref. SER-211a-1865-1





This has added the rate of 9d for distances of less than 15 miles, introducing the need for a 9d stamp.
Not only that, the additional "one-half more" clauses, when applied to it would cause problems.
Presumably the 9d and 1s2d stamps were introduced together as a result of this. - Image courtesy of Mark Gibson.

Delivery Form listing.

Envelopes.

A couple of delivery envelopes, Ex Andrew Higson, courtesy of Spink & Son.

- My Ref. SER-Env-203-1

11 November 1873 (?) - My Ref. SER-Env-221-1

Not a delivery envelope, just a normal 1855 envelope to J. R. Mowatt (the Secretary of) Great Northern Railway at Kings Cross.
It does though bear an embossed seal of the S. E. R. on the back, as well as a "South E Ry." red backstamp.
   
Images courtesy of Steve Lawrie.

Comments, criticisms, information or suggestions are always welcome.

Please include the word 'Telegraphs' in the subject.

Last updated 9th. November 2023

©Copyright Steve Panting 2012/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23 except where stated.
Permission is hereby granted to copy material for which the copyright is owned by myself, on condition that any data is not altered and this website is given credit.