अनुवाद Übersetzen sie WORKING Traduisez ترجم перевести Traduca Traduzca 翻译

Telegraph stamps of the World Click here for a site-map.

Select currency. Default = GBP (1.0) GB £   US $   Can $   Aus $ Euro   Other

Up a level							Not my site, but a good reference:
GB	Ceylon	Hong Kong	India	Jamaica	Natal	OFS	Australia and states
Up a level							by Dave Elsmore.
Other Africa	Sarawak	Sudan	Transvaal	Uganda	New South Wales	Western Australia	Other Australia

 

I have brought these prices up to date and added currency selection. Until recently, I have not needed to make any additions to Hiscocks' listing, probably a testimony to his main source, C. S. F. Crofton.   Now though, I need to make an addition and I will use my 'RH' (Revised Hiscocks)   numbering system as I have had to for many other countries. Currently there   are few additions, RH61b and RH168A-C, so it does not seem to be worth going   through all the others adding an extra column, the 'RH' number would be the same   as the 'H' numbers that I use. I simply wanted to avoid any confusion that might arise   if I added it simply with an 'H' number, and to be consistent with what I have done on other pages. CheckList         Setup I have been told that the RPSL president Peter Cockburn, a big collector of Ceylon telegraphs, has exhibited and given a lecture on the subject, at the RPSL on 13th January 2022: "Ceylon Foreign Bills, Revenues and Telegraph Stamps" by Peter Cockburn FRPSL". Worth watching.

Contributors: Socrates Antypas - storypost Peter Arnett - bygonesofbridlington Keith Attwood - attwood12010 Mike Bender - ibredguy.co.uk Gerard Bissett     cg.stamps RL - Rolf Lamprecht Harry Patsalos Martin Robinson - Mareval2 David Wood - Phoenix Auctions Peter Singer - psinger869 Wimal Suaris CeylonStamps.org Chandima L. Fonseka Nicholas Turner - capital-collectables Wendy - wendiwoo-2008 ye_olde_world John Barefoot - jbarefoot.co.uk Mark Bloxham - philatelic.co.uk Grosvenor Auctions Stanley Gibbons

 

Shortcuts to different sections
Stamps of India used in Ceylon	'CEYLON' overprint	Cancels	QV double-headed	1882-94 provisionals	1892-1903 provisionals	KEVII double-headed	1910 provisionals	Telegraphic use of Postage stamps	Stationery	Afterwards

 

Ceylon

Steve Hiscocks wrote:

The telegraph stamps of Ceylon form one of the most extensive and complex groups, and in attempting to produce a logical and orderly listing, I have leaned heavily on the superb scholarship of C. S. F. Crofton whose notes were posthumously published in the Philatelic Journal of India in 1910. The early status of the Ceylon Telegraph Department is not clear. It seems to have been effectively separate from that of India, but under the same superintendent as that of the Madras Presidency. In 1868 an international convention agreed a reduction on international tariffs which made the Ceylon system, which was largely dependent on international business, unviable. It therefore became part of the Indian system from late 1868 to 1880 when Ceylon resumed control of its own system. Throughout this period the normal Indian telegraph stamps were used (all of the earlier watermark) and in theory the Electric Telegraph stamps could also have been used although there is no evidence that they were. In 1880 Ceylon overprinted sufficient Indian stamps 'CEYLON' to tide them through until their own stamps, of similar type, arrived from England. The Queen Victoria double head issue continued with only a brief paper variation until 1894, when the watermark was changed and then until 1903 when a completely different King Edward VII set was introduced. This was produced on paper of a different watermark the following year, and this last set continued until separate telegraph stamps were abandoned on 1 August 1910. The overall picture however, is very much more complicated than the above. A new tariff introduced on 1 January 1882 caused a sudden demand for 20, 40, 60 and 80 cent values, and these were overprinted on other values. This state of affairs continued for 10 years with new settings of overprints for the same values being introduced once or twice each year until the Ceylon Government put its foot down, and a locally produced set of these values (each including its date of printing and with various sizes of control number) was introduced. Three further values were added to this provisional set to take care of a further tariff change, and order was finally restored with the introduction of the first King Edward VII set in 1903. There was a final set of provisionals introduced shortly before telegraph stamps were discontinued in 1910, but apparently never used. Cancellation of the earlier issues is almost always by roller stamps in black. Circular date stamps began to creep in about 1889 and are very common on the second King Edward VII issue. One special cancellation deserves mention and that is that of the Pearl Fishing grounds off northwest Ceylon. These are in manuscript and those I have seen (five) have been in the same hand, in red ink, on first and second issues (Ceylon on India and first Ceylon proper) and read "Pearl Fishing [date] 1881", where the date is in April or May. On piece they command a considerable premium. For a week or so in July 1898 there was a shortage of certain values in Colombo and the use of postage stamps was apparently authorized. These were bisected in use as were telegraph stamps and, used on piece with Telegraph stamps and properly tied, are very rare. The postage stamps I have seen thus used appear to be the 2c dull green (SG 147) and the 3c terracotta (and blue green, although that part is removed) (SG 245).

---

My notes:
I can now show examples of these, in the Cancels section.

Examples of these really needs illustration. A scan would be much appreciated.

The first cable from India to Ceylon was laid in 1858, with another following in 1867.

---

 

Stamps of India used in Ceylon

India H2   from lot 1 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

The oval cancel reads "CEYLON TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT/PRIVATE". According to Stanley Gibbons "no example known used in India. The three recorded are all used in Ceylon".


Part of a receipt used at Jaffna (with Jaffra in error) on 1 March 1873, showing a clearer image of this hand-stamp, courtesy of jbarefoot.co.uk.

 

Lot 124 of the Indica Collection Auction (28 September 2021), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. This shows a pair of H7c (imperf) used in Colombo 11.11.1878.

Lot 2 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. "A single imperforate sheet was issued at Colombo in about October 1878"

 

---

 

1869-1880 Telegraph stamps of India used in Ceylon. Watermark W1 of India. Perf. 14
(Numbers in brackets refer to the Indian reference numbers.)

Hisc. Description Mint Used H1 1A yellow-green (H4) - 8.00 H2 2A maroon (H5) - 2.00 H3 4A pale blue (H6) - 1.50 H4 8A brown (H7) - 1.50 H4a         imperf (Oct. 1878, Colombo, H7c)   - 150.00 H5 1R grey (H8, Die I) - 20.00 H6 1R grey (H9, Die II) - 1.50 H7 2R 8A orange-yellow (H10, Die I) - 2.00 H8 2R 8A orange (H11, Die II) - 8.00 H9 5R orange-brown (H12) - 3.00 H10 10R green (H13, Die I) - 3.00 H11 10R green (H14, Die II) - 20.00 H12 14R 4A lilac (H15) - 20.00 H13 25R violet (H16, Die I) - 6.00 H14 25R violet (H17, Die II) - 20.00 H15 28R 8A yellow-green (H18) - 30.00 H16 50R rose (H19, Die I) - 20.00 H17 50R rose-carmine (H20, Die II) - 4.00 Hiscocks added the following 3 notes: Note 1. Only used stamps can be identified as "used in Ceylon", mint stamps are therefore not priced in this                   section. The complete list of cancellations which should be found is as follows:- ANURADHAPURA GAMPOLA MATALLE BADULLA JAFFNA / JAFFRA (error) NAWALAPITYA BATTICALOA KALUTARA NEWARAELLYA COLOMBO KANDY PANADURE GALLE MANAAR TRINCOMALLEE                 These cancellations were at that time normally in block capitals, along with the date, such that                 three or, at the most, four letters fell on each stamp. Care is therefore needed in                 identification since some groups of letters occur in both Ceylonese and Indian                 cancellations.. The most common pitfall is "OMB" which may be COLOMBO, but is                 much more often BOMBAY. Pairs of stamps or stamps on piece with complete                 cancellations command a premium.                 While looking out for cancels, also look for 'GOA', this comes under the                 heading of Portuguese India. Note 2. The 1A (No. 1) was only used in Ceylon for about 18 months. Note 3. It was intended that the use of Indian telegraph stamps in Ceylon should begin on                   1 February 1869 but, due to administrative confusion, use did not apparently begin until                 around 1 July 1869. See also Note 7 of New South Wales.

The map shows the initial 15 Telegraph Stations, which as usual, mostly lay along the railway lines. Newara Ellya seems to have been a little way away. I have additionally also marked a place in Magenta, because I would have expected there to be an early Telegraph Station there, but it is not on the list. Kurunagala was once the capital of Ceylon and is surrounded by coconut plantations and rubber estates. I'm sure there must have been a reason for the omission, but to me it seems strange.

A selection of Indian stamps used in Ceylon, courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost) on ebay.

 

'CEYLON' overprint

1880 (1 July) 'CEYLON' overprint on Indian Telegraph stamps as above. Watermark W1 of India. Perf. 14
India Nos. and quantity in brackets.

2 As.   H18	4 As.   H19	8 As.   H20	1 Rp.   H21

2 Rps.8As.   H22	5 Rps.   H23	10 Rps.   H24

25 Rps.   H25	50 Rps.   H26 Courtesy of Wimal Suaris	2 Rps.8As.   H22 bottom half - Lot 42 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Lot 36, 4As. Mint   H19	Lot 41, 2Rp 8As. Used   H22	Lot 43, 5Rp.   Used H23	Lot 44, 10Rp.   Used H24	Lot 45, 25Rp.   Used H25
Images from listings of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

This strip shows the typical cancel used, with location followed by date.

Image courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost) on ebay.

Lot 142 of the Indica Collection Auction (28 September 2021), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.
This shows 6 different values, used in Colombo.

 

Hisc.	Description	Mint	Used
H18	2A maroon (H5, 2000)	-	30.00
H19	4A blue (H6, 2450)	-	24.00
H20	8A brown (H7, 20000)	-	12.00
H21	1R grey (H9, Die II, 35000)	-	10.00
H22	2R 8A orange (H11, Die II, 6000)	-	20.00
H23	5R brown-orange (H12, 2000)	-	30.00
H24	10R green (H14, Die II, 3250)	-	20.00
H25	25R violet (H17, Die II, 2450)	-	35.00
H26	50R rose-carmine (H20, Die II, 100)	-	200.00

Hiscocks added the following 3 notes:

Note 1. These stamps are virtually unknown mint, although copies of the 4A and 25R (Nos. 19 & 25),                   are in the Royal Collection. A few lower halves (also overprinted) are known (Price x 4) and                   a 2½R (No. 22) is known used whole.

Note 2. Beware of forgeries — especially of No 26.

Note 3. Those on piece command a premium.

Forgeries

Note 2 looks like good advice
But how exactly do you do that?
The first thing is that These should not have a cancel of India. Also it should not be on Die I.
If it is cancelled in Bombay, it is not a stamp of Ceylon !
However, it does point to the overprint being forged, and it becomes possible to recognise some of the forgeries.
Wimal Suaris, who was in contact with Steve Hiscocks, has spent time on this. He has identified 5 types of counterfeit overprints.
In his own words, with his own illustrations:

Forgery No.1 This is easy to spot as the period is missing after “CEYLON.” Most of the examples I have seen also have forged cancellations with wrong dates and fonts. Additional note: The top serif on the 'C' also is sloping rather than vertical. Note also the genuine date part of the cancel in combination with a fake 'OMBO'. Forgery No.2 The two top strokes in “Y” are unsymmetrical and there is a larger space between the serifs at the top as compared to the genuine. My note: This is a Bombay cancel Forgery No.3 The lower part of “N” is narrower than at the top whereas it has the same width in the genuine. The bottom serif of ‘E” is also angled more than in the genuine where it is almost vertical. Forgery No.4 The top serif of “C” is angled more than in the genuine. My note: this is on Die I instead of Die II. The serif on the foot of the 'L' is also much bigger. Forgery No.5 The vertical stroke in “Y” is smaller than in the original. My note: This is die I instead of Die II.

A whole mint H21 courtesy of Wimal Suaris. John Barefoot also illustrates a whole 4As stamp, H19.

There are likely to be others. If you have a stamp with this overprint that was not used in Ceylon,
and the overprint does not match any of these, then please send me a scan so that the characteristics of other forgeries can be added to the list.

 

 

Cancels

Shortcuts to different town cancels

Anuradhapura

Badulla

Batticaloa

Colombo

Galle

Gampola

Jaffna

Kalutara

Kandy

Manaar

Matalle

Nawalapitya

Newaraellya

Panadure

Trincomalee

Pearl Fishery

Up to this point, a knowledge of the cancels used is quite important since it is important to know if the stamps were used in Ceylon and that the cancel is genuine.

 

Colombo

Boxed version dated 16 January 1871, courtesy of Mark Bloxham.


Unboxed version dated 3 April 1872, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Large, thin, widely-spaced lettering dated 30 September 1873 courtesy of Wimal Suaris.


Similar to last, but letters more closely spaced. Date unknown. Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.
Colombo will figure prominently. The normal stamps of India were used in Ceylon from 1869 to 1880 and should be dated accordingly.
Most towns appear to have two types, a narrow-thick type and wide thin type. Colombo had two different heights of the thin type.

The ones with the 'CEYLON' overprint were only used from 1 July 1880 until the 1881 issue was available, on or shortly after 14 February.

Fake H19 from RL	Fake H21, one of mine
Both of these have part of a genuine cancel, with an additional fake 'MBO' cancel. They also both have 'CEYLON' forgery type 1. This is a common combination. These may never have even been to Ceylon.

Later cancels are very different.

This strip has control numbers that indicate the position in the pane with the last 2 digits. This has an 1899 cancel. image courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

Apart from Colombo, 14 other towns were initially issued with Telegraph stamps.

 

Anuradhapura

Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Badulla

Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Batticaloa

Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Galle

Lot 20 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. "the 14r4a displaying the 'narrow stamp' variety from the fist column of the sheet."		Lot 22 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, Type II, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. The givaway is the 4mm displacement of the perforations, only one other known.

Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.


It may be worth mentioning here a note that Hiscocks added under New South Wales:

Note 7. An interesting correspondence in the records of the India Office in London implies that up to 1869 or                 1870 telegrams from New South Wales to Europe were transported by ship to Ceylon and sent                 from there (Galle) by the land route through India. In February 1869, 500 Rupees worth of Indian                 telegraph stamps were sent to Sidney so that such telegrams could be pre-paid before shipment.                 It is not known whether they were cancelled in Sidney before shipment or only in Galle on dispatch.                 Whether the receipts were returned to Sidney as evidence of dispatch is also not known.                 It is interesting to note that the stamps in question were the first Indian double headed issue which                 were due to be issued in Ceylon on 1 February 1869.                 Due to administrative confusion these were not in fact issued in Ceylon until around 1 July 1869 so                 they may have been used in New South Wales and have reached Galle in Ceylon before being                 issued in Ceylon itself.                 Any Galle cancelled Indian telegraph stamps dated before July 1869 would probably have been                 used in New South Wales but none has been reported.

 

Gampola

Lot 25 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Jaffna

Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Jaffra - in error for Jaffna

Images courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

 

Kalutara

Lot 28 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Kandy

Lot 29 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of SStanley Gibbons.

Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Manaar

   
Narrow-thick type on a die I and wide-thin type on die II. This neatly illustrates the chronological order of them.
Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Matalle / Matalli

Lot 32 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.
"The proving piece for this unrecorded spelling"

 

Nawalapitya

Lot 33 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. " It might seem ambitious to identify the office confidently from a mere three letters, but the base of the 'L' is unusually long and matches that found in later examples of the cancel."

Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

More images are needed for this if anyone can help.

 

Newaraellya

From lot 34 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.


Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Panadure

Images are needed for this if anyone can help.

 

Trincomalee

 
Scarce Type 1 from lot 35, and the later Type 2 from lot 78 of the listings of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.


Complete Type 2 from lot 86, of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. This is shown at 80% scale.

 

 

Other

Steve Hiscocks made a point of mentioning the Pearl Fishing grounds off northwest Ceylon. This was in the Gulf of Manaar.
According to Stanley Gibbons, this was used at the temporary office of Silavaturaiis and is recorded between 30th March and 3rd May 1881 only.

Lot 399 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), (earliest known date). Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons	Here are two examples of the H21, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

I guess you can see what happens if you soak any of these !

Here is a strip of 3 x H21 showing the complete cancel, courtesy of Huzi, a member of the Ceylon Study Circle.

These are mostly known dated in April of 1881.
In Marichchukaddi, a cds of "PEARL FISHERY" was used. I have seen these dated 25 February 1881 to 18 March 1905.

Lot 401 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons	3 x 25c used in 1904, courtesy of Mark Bloxham.	2 separate 1R that I put together, used in 1906, courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

Some punched examples from Lot 401 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), which also included the strip of 25c above. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons

The October 2020 edition of Gibbons Stamp Monthly also published a Special Feature on the Pearl Fishery cancellations.(PDF)

 

 

Queen Victoria 'double-headed'

1881 (14 February) Surface printed by de la Rue on white wove paper. Watermark CA / Crown (W1). Perf. 14

12c.   Pair showing shades (H27/H39).	25c.   (H28)	50c used   (H29/H41)
Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost).	Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

50c.   Pair showing shades (H29/H41).	1R.   (H30)	2R.50c   (H31/H43)
Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

5R   Pair showing shades (H32/H44).	10R   (H33) - courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	25R   (H34/H46)	50R   (H35/H47)
Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Lot 28 of the Taprobana Collection Auction	Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Hisc. Description Mint Used H27 12c yellow-bistre (shades) 15.00 0.65 H27a         olive bistre 20.00 0.80 H27b         bistre 20.00 0.80 H27c         ochre 25.00 1.00 H27d         on 'semi-laid' paper (1883) 30.00 1.50 H27e         watermark inverted (yellow bistre)   50.00 4.00 H28 25c blue-green 175.00 15.00 H28a         green-blue 175.00 15.00 H29 50c blue 15.00 0.65 H29a         on 'semi-laid' paper (1883) 25.00 1.00 H29b         watermark inverted 50.00 4.00 H30 1R red-brown 75.00 4.00 H30a         imperf. 250.00 60.00 H31 2R 50c slate-grey 30.00 0.70 H31a         blue-grey 30.00 0.70 H31b         on 'semi-laid' paper (1883) 45.00 1.00 H31c         watermark inverted 60.00 4.00 H32 5R orange 45.00 1.00 H32a         brownish orange 50.00 1.20 H32b         on 'semi-laid' paper (1883) 68.00 1.20 H32c         watermark inverted 90.00 4.00 H33 10R reddish lilac 200.00 6.00 H33a         imperf. 500.00 100.00 H34 25R bright rose 500.00 1.50 H34a         carmine 500.00 1.20 H34b         on 'semi-laid' paper (1883) 750.00 3.00 H34c         watermark inverted 1000.00 6.00 H35 50R brown-rose 750.00 4.00 H35a         brown-lilac 750.00 4.00 H35b         on 'semi-laid' paper (1883) 1000.00 8.00

Complete used examples are not particularly common. Lot 344 of Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

Hiscocks added the following note:

Note. The printing on 'semi-laid' paper, which shows periodic vertical lines in the watermark, was a                   temporary expedient which affected only one year's supply.

 

1882 (March) New designs — other details as above.
The original 25c, 1R and 10R just had the value in the centre. The new designs had the value at the top and bottom.

25c.   (H36/H40)	1R.   Pair showing shades (H37/H42).	10R.   (H38/H45)	10R.   H38 / H45 used
Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.			Courtesy of ibredguy.co.uk

 

Hisc.	Description	Mint	Used
H36	25c green (shades)	10.00	0.80
H36a	on 'semi-laid' paper (1883)	15.00	1.00
H37	1R red-brown	15.00	1.00
H37a	on 'semi-laid' paper (1883)	25.00	2.00
H37b	watermark inverted	50.00	10.00
H38	10R rose-lilac	80.00	2.00
H38a	claret (shades)	80.00	2.00
H38b	reddish-purple (shades)	80.00	2.00
H38c	on 'semi-laid' paper (1883)	120.00	6.00

Hiscocks added the following note:

Note. The original designs of the 25c, 1R and 10R were such that the actual value was                   often lost on half stamps. This made checking difficult and was quickly rectified                   by the introduction of the new designs.

 

1894 As above but watermark CA / Crown (W2).

Hisc.	Description	Mint	Used
H39	12c olive bistre	20.00	0.80
H39a	bistre	20.00	0.80
H40	25c green	20.00	0.60
H40a	bluish green	20.00	0.60
H41	50c blue	20.00	0.80
H41a	dark blue	20.00	0.80
H42	1R red-brown (shades)	20.00	0.60
H43	2½R pale slate grey	24.00	0.80
H43a	slate grey	24.00	0.80
H44	5R brown orange	32.00	1.00
H44a	yellow orange	32.00	1.00
H45	10R purple (shades)	96.00	1.50
H45a	claret	96.00	1.50
H45b	dull magenta	96.00	1.50
H46	25R carmine (shades)	360.00	1.50
H47	50R lake (shades)	720.00	10.00

Hiscocks added the following note:

Note. Both the 1881 and 1894 issues are found overprinted 'specimen' or 'cancelled' by hand.                   Prices roughly as mint.

 

1882-1894 Provisionals

1882 — 94 Provisionals. Surcharged by the Ceylon Government printer on Nos. 27 to 38 (i.e. watermark W1 except where stated to be W2)
in black except where red (R) or vermilion (V) is stated.

Shortcuts to different provisional years
1882	1883	1884	1885	1886	1887	1888	1889	1890	1891	1892	1894

 

1882 issues.

	Lot 86, of the Taprobana Collection Auction.
40c on 50c.   H48, Type 14, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	40c on 50c.   H48a Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	60c on 1R.   H49, Type (15), courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 1R.   H50, Type 15, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	40c on 2½R.   H51, Type (16), courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

50c on 2½R.   H52, Type 17, from RL	60c on 1R.   H53, Type 16, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 1R.   H55, Type 19.	40c on 2½R.   H56, Type 20.

60c on 1R.   H57, Type (21). The 'SIXTY' is further left than on the stamp to the right. From RL.	60c on 1R.   H57, Type (21) top, and bottom half of H57a, the overprint, with the bottom being inverted So they are both on top halves of stamps. The H57 has a missing serif on the 'N'. Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.		80c on 1R.   H58, Type 21, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	60c on 1R.   H59, Type 22, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

These type numbers can also have different values of the same style (which is then quoted in brackets).

Type 18 (H54), from RL.	Type 18 (H54), courtesy of Peter Arnett of (bygonesofbridlington) on eBay.		Hisc. Type 1881-2 Description Mint Used H48 14 40c on 50c (No. 29) 23.12.81 (800) 150.00 45.00 H48a           surcharge double 450.00 90.00 H49 (15) 60c on 1R (No. 30) 23.12.81 (6000) 75.00 9.00 H50 15 80c on 1R (No. 30) 10.1.82 (8400) 75.00 7.50 H51 (16) 40c on 2½R (No. 31) 18.1.82 (1200) - 24.00 H52 17 50c on 2½R (No. 31) 16.2.82 (400) - 60.00 H53 16 60c on 2½R (No. 31) 16.2.82 (400) - 60.00 H54 18 25c TELEGRAPH Stamp Duty pair, lilac 7.2.82 (540 pairs)   - 600.00 H55 19 40c on 50c (No. 29) 10.1.82 (4000) 90.00 12.00 H56 20 40c on 50c (No. 29) 6.3.82 & 18.10.82 (4800) 90.00 12.00 H57 (21) 60c on 1R (No. 37) 6.3.82 (3600) 90.00 12.00 H57a           overprint inverted - - H58 21 80c on 1R (No. 37) 6.3.82 (2400) 90.00 15.00 H59 22 60c on 1R (No. 37) 18.10.82 (2400) 90.00 15.00 H60 23 80c on 1R (No. 37) 18.10.82 (2400) 90.00 15.00 Hiscocks added the following 4 notes: Note 1. No. 48(a) is a true double printing, of equal intensity, and separated by about 3.6mm. Note 2. No 54 has TELE reading upwards on the lower of the vertical pair and GRAPH on the upper.                 In fact no mint pair or lower half is known to exist. Perf. 14 and watermark narrow CA                 (similar to that in W1) and crown. Note 3. The dates given above and subsequently are those of printing. Nos. 48 & 49 were issued 1.1.82                   and the others were normally issued within days of printing. Note 4. The price quoted for No 54 is roughly the market price but it will be noted below that other                   provisionals are priced at much less although even less were printed. Presumably this is because                   No 54 is distinctive and well known to be scarce while the others have not previously been                   recognised as such.	60c on 1R.   H60, Type 23,
It is assumed that the stamps below were overprinted "TELE" reading upwards, but none are known to exist.

 

80c on 1R.   H60, Type 23.	40c on 50c.   H61 (Hiscocks noted that there are two different spacings) On the left there is about 15.75mm between the top bar and "40". On the right it is about 16.5mm. For reference purposes, I will designate less than 16mm as Type I and greater than 16mm as Type II.		60c on 50R.   H62	80c on 25R.   H63
Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Courtesy of (ye_olde_world)	Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

40c on 50c.   H67 (avoid confusion with H61 above)	60c on 2R 50c.   H68 (overprints 29 and 31 are easily confused)	60c on 1R.   H83
Courtesy of Wimal Suaris.		Image courtesy of ibredguy.co.uk

 

1883 issues.

40c on 50c.   H61, Type 24. (1 bar), courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 40c on 50c.   *RH61b, Type 24. (1 bar). This is a mockup of John Barefoots' description. 60c on 50R.   H62, Type 25. Courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 80c on 25R.   H63, Type 23 from RL. lot 199 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. 40c on 50c.   H64, Type 26, This is a mockup, it's like H71 but with a black overprint. 60c on 50R.   H65, Type (26). Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. 60c on 1R.   H66, Type 27. This is just a mockup based on the description. 40c on 50c.   H67, Type 28. (2 bars). See also H74.

80c on 25R.   H63, "CANCELLED" in red. lot 250 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

60c on 2½R.   H68, Type 29. Wide "SIXTY CENTS". See H72/75 for narrow.	80c on 25R.   H69, Type (30) Note: 2 bars over old value. From RL.	80c on 50R.   H70, Type 30, from RL.

H68 is courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

RH #	Hisc.	Type	1883 Description	Mint	Used
RH61	H61	24	40c on 50c (No. 29) (V) 5.2.83 (4000) see note.	45.00	9.00
RH61a	H61a		on 'semi-laid' paper	45.00	9.00
*RH61b	-	24	overprint in black	-	-
RH62	H62	25	60c on 50R (No. 35) 5.2.83 (3600)	45.00	9.00
RH62a	H62a		on 'semi-laid' paper	45.00	9.00
RH63	H63	23	80c on 25R (No. 34) 5.2.83 (2400)	60.00	15.00
RH63a	H63a		on 'semi-laid' paper	60.00	9.00
RH64	H64	26	40c on 50c (No. 29) (see Note 1 below)	-	60.00
RH64a	H64a		on 'semi-laid' paper	-	60.00
RH65	H65	(26)	60c on 50R (No. 35) (see Note 1 below)	-	60.00
RH65a	H65a		on 'semi-laid' paper	-	60.00
RH66	H66	27	60c on 1R (No. 37) (see Note 1 below)	-	60.00
RH66a	H66a		on 'semi-laid' paper	-	60.00
RH67	H67	28	40c on 50c (No. 29) (V) 20.7.83 (6000) see note.	45.00	6.00
RH67a	H67a		on 'semi-laid' paper	45.00	6.00
RH68	H68	29	60c on 2½R (No. 31) (V) 20.7.83 (6000)	45.00	6.00
RH68a	H68a		on 'semi-laid' paper	45.00	6.00
RH69	H69	(30)	80c on 25R (No. 34) 20.7.83 (2000)	90.00	15.00
RH69a	H69a		on 'semi-laid' paper	90.00	15.00
RH70	H70	30	80c on 50R (No. 35) 20.7.83 (2500)	90.00	13.50
RH70a	H70a		on 'semi-laid' paper	90.00	13.50

*RH61b has been added to accommodate John Barefoots' type 58 which was not listed by Hiscocks.

Hiscocks added the following 2 notes:

Note 1. Nos. 64, 65 and 66 are unaccounted for in the records and neither the date of printing or the                 numbers surcharged are known. They seem to be related and No. 65 is known dated June 1883                   which is why they are placed here. All are scarce.

Note 2. I have copies of No. 61 on two shades of blue with the spacing between the single upper line, and                   the top of the word 'cents' being nearly 1mm more on the darker. The significance of this is not                   clear at present and further information is needed.

 

1884 issues.

40c on 50c.   H71, Type 26, from RL.	60c on 2½R.   H72/75 (see Note 2), Type 31. Narrow "SIXTY CENTS". See H68 for wide. The bottom "cents" has different spacing between these. Perhaps they are the different types, but dated examples are needed to know which is which. Images from RL.	80c on 25R.   H73, Type (15), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	40c on 50c.   H74/67 (see Note 2), Type 28.

H75a - badly shifted overprint. According to Stanley Gibbons, only two are known, with the other being in the Royal Collection. Can anyone make that three ? Stanley Gibbons give this as being a variety of their T82. (Lot 197 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

80c on 5R.   H76, Type 32B, courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 80c on 10R.   H77, Type 32, courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 80c on 50R.   H78, Type 32A, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons

 

Hisc.	Type	1884 Description	Mint	Used
H71	26	40c on 50c (No. 29) (R) 23.4.84 (4000)	-	12.00
H71a		on 'semi-laid' paper	-	12.00
H72	31	60c on 2½R (No. 31) (R) 23.4.84 (5000) see note 2.	60.00	9.00
H72a		on 'semi-laid' paper	60.00	9.00
H73	(15)	80c on 25R (No. 34) 23.4.84 (2000)	90.00	15.00
H73a		on 'semi-laid' paper	90.00	15.00
H74	28	40c on 50c (No. 29) (R) 3.9.84 (5040) see note 2.	45.00	6.00
H74a		on 'semi-laid' paper	45.00	6.00
H75	31	60c on 2½R (No. 31) (R) 3.9.84 (4000) see note 2.	60.00	9.00
H75a		Surcharge misplaced — see Note 1	150.00	120.00
H75b		on 'semi-laid' paper	60.00	12.00
H76	32B	80c on 5R (No. 32) 3.9.84 (1040)	-	30.00
H76a		on 'semi-laid' paper	-	30.00
H77	32	80c on 10R (No. 38) 3.9.84 (560)	-	45.00
H77a		on 'semi-laid' paper	-	45.00
H78	32A	80c on 50R (No. 35) 3.9.84 (400)	-	60.00
H78a		on 'semi-laid' paper	-	60.00

Hiscocks added the following 2 notes:

Note 1. This surcharge is placed so low that on some copies an additional upper bar has been added in ink                 to delete the original value. This would presumably have been necessary only for the top row and                 lower rows should have a double surcharge at the top but these have not been reported.

Note 2. No. 74 and No. 75 have been listed separately but appear to be reprints of No. 67 and No. 72                   respectively. Perhaps someone with dated copies can discover distinguishing features — the shades                   of Nos. 74 and 67 may be different perhaps. There do seem to be two types of Type 31 — one                   which the distance between the numerals and the top letters is 12mm and where it is 11½mm.                   The alignment between the two parts of the overprint also differ by about 1mm.                 None of the eight or so copies I have been able to examine has been clearly dated and the sample                   is too small for relative rarities to help.

 

1885 issues.

40c on 50c.   H79, Type 33 from RL.	40c on 50c.   **H80, Types 33 & 37, This is just a mockup based on the description.	60c on 1R.   H81, Type (33), courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 2½R.   H82, Type 34, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

60c on 1R.   H83, Type 35. There is some variability of the overprint. On the left, the 'N' of 'CENTS' has small serifs. In the centre, the 'X' of 'SIXTY' is slightly raised. On the right, the 'X' is raised further. Left and right from RL. Centre courtesy of Wimal Suaris.			60c on 1R.   H83, bottom half. Part of lot 178 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

80c on 1R.   H84, Type (35), from RL.	H84a, lot 178 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	H84, bottom half. Part of lot 206 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Hisc.	Type	1885 Description	Mint	Used
H79	33	40c on 50c (No. 29) (R) 2.3.85 (10000)	-	6.00
H80	33 + 37	40c on 50c (No. 29) as No 79(R) + as No 86 in black (see note)   **	-	135.00
H81	(33)	60c on 1R (No. 37) 2.3.85 (1600)	-	18.00
H82	34	80c on 2½R (No. 31) 2.3.85 (3600)	-	12.00
H83	35	60c on 1R (No. 37) 6.7.85 (8000)	75.00	7.50
H84	(35)	80c on 1R (No. 37) 6.7.85 (8000)	75.00	7.50
H84a		surcharge double (one faint)	150.00	75.00

** Hiscocks lists this as on 50R (No.29) which I think is a typo for 50c. Presumably this was produced in 1886.

Hiscocks added the following note:

Note. The black surcharge on No. 80 is not exactly like that of No. 86 below but similar to it (smaller type).                   It has not in fact been observed on its own.

My comment on this:   Hiscocks description could have been clearer,
I have used the '+' symbol in place of the original to make it clear that
there are two overprints, one red and the other black.
Also Hiscocks originally describes this as "40c on 50R (No 29)",
No 29 is 50c which is what I think he means.
To me, the fact that the black surcharge is not known on anything else,
strongly suggests that it is a forgery.
Can anyone supply an image of H80 ?

 

1886 issues.

Lots 125 and 123 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. This shows H85 and H85a

20c on 25c.   H85, Type 36 40c on 50c.   H86, Type 37. 60c on 1R.   H87, Type 38, from RL. 80c on 2½R.   H88, Type (38).   Lots from the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. Lot 178 - I suspect this is H87a. and that the description got mis-translated. Lot 220 - H88a used in Jaffna, with a faint extra overprint above the clear one. note the perforations under the stamp, that is where it should have been torn across. Lot 221 - H88a previous day ? With a faint extra overprint below the clear one.

 

RH #	Hisc.	Type	1886 Description	Mint	Used
RH85	H85	36	20c on 25c (No. 36) 9.7.86 (7000)	45.00	7.50
RH85a	H85a		surcharge at marked angle to horizontal	150.00	90.00
RH86	H86	37	40c on 50c (No. 29) 9.7.86 (20000)	30.00	4.50
RH86a	H86a		surcharge double (very slight displacement)	90.00	60.00
RH87	H87	38	60c on 1R (No. 37) 9.7.86 (5000)	60.00	10.50
RH87a	H87a		surcharge double (one faint and inverted)	120.00	90.00
RH88	H88	(36)	80c on 2½R (No. 31) 9.7.86 (8000)	60.00	9.00
RH88a	-		surcharge double (one faint)	120.00	80.00

 

1887 issues.

			Lot 133 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.
60c on 2½R.   H89, Type 39 courtesy of Keith Attwood on eBay.	20c on 25c.   H90, Type (40), from RL.	20c on 50c.   H91, Type 41.	20c on 50c.   H91a, Type 41.	20c on 50c.   H91, bottom part, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

60c on 1R.   H92, Type 42 80c on 5R.   H93, Type (42), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons, sale 5921. 80c on 10R.   H94, Type (42), courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 80c on 50R.   H95, Type (42). This is just a mockup based on the description.

H94, Lot 239 of the Taprobana Collection Auction courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

Hisc. Type 1887a Description Mint Used H89 39 60c on 2½R (No. 31) 25.2.87 (6000)   60.00 7.50 H90 (40) 20c on 25c (No. 36) 7.4.87 (6000) 90.00 7.50 H91 41 20c on 50c (No. 29) 7.4.87 (6480) 90.00 7.50 H91a           surcharge double - 75.00 H92 42 60c on 1R (No. 37) 7.4.87 (4000) 90.00 9.00 H93 (42) 80c on 5R (No. 32) 7.4.87 (3760) 90.00 9.00 H94 (42) 80c on 10R (No. 38) 7.4.87 (3600) 90.00 9.00 H95 (42) 80c on 50R (No. 35) 7.4.87 (400) 450.00 105.00

 

 

12c on 25c.   H96, Type 40, from RL.	12c on 50c.   H97, Type 43.

60c on 1R.   H98, Type 44, from RL.	60c on 2½R.   H99, Type 45, from RL.	80c on 5R.   H100, Type 46, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

Hisc.	Type	1887b Description	Mint	Used
H96	40	12c on 25c (No. 36) 20.4.87 (800)	180.00	75.00
H97	43	12c on 50c (No. 29) 20.4.87 (8000)	90.00	7.50
H98	44	60c on 1R (No. 37) 10.8.87 (2000)	-	12.00
H99	45	60c on 2½R (No. 31) 10.8.87 (1040)	-	24.00
H100	46	80c on 5R (No. 32) 10.8.87 (1600)	-	18.00

 

 

80c on 10R.   H101, Type 47, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 25R.   H102, Type (44), courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 10R.   H103, Type 48. This is just a mockup based on the description.	40c on 50c.   H104, Type 49.	40c on 50c.   H104, used bottom half, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

60c on 1R.   H105, Type 50. The one on the right has a broken bar through the value. Both images from RL. 80c on 5R.   H106, Type 51, courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 80c on 10R.   H107, Type 51, courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 80c on 25R.   H108, Type 51, from RL 80c on 50R.   H109, Type 52, from RL

Lot 133 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, Mint H102 courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

Mint H104. Broken bar through top value.

Lot 241 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, Mint H107 courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Hisc.	Type	1887c Description	Mint	Used
H101	47	80c on 10R (No. 38) 10.8.87 (1600)	-	18.00
H102	(44)	80c on 25R (No. 33) 10.8.87 (1600)	-	18.00
H103	48	80c on 10R (No. 38) date? (400?)	-	150.00
H104	49	40c on 50c (No. 29) 14.11.87 (30000)	36.00	3.00
H105	50	60c on 1R (No. 37) 21.12.87 (8000)	-	7.50
H106	51	80c on 5R (No. 32) 21.12.87 (1600)	-	18.00
H107	51	80c on 10R (No. 38) 21.12.87 (2400)	-	12.00
H108	51	80c on 25R (No. 34) 21.12.87 (2400)	-	12.00
H109	52	80c on 50R (No. 35) 21.12.87 (1600)	-	18.00

Hiscocks added the following 2 notes:

Note 1. While it is reported that the December issues are all unknown unused, lower halves are known; price x 5.

Note 2. No 103 is reported in only one case and its type would suggest an 1887 printing. It does not appear                 in the records however (several others are also missing from the records so this is not in itself cause                 for suspicion) and no other details are known. A printing of 400 is suggested as the usual minimum.

 

 

1888 issues.

20c on 25c.   H110	80c on 1R.   H112	12c on 50c.   H113
Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

60c on 1R.   H111, Type 54, from RL	60c on 1R.   H111, bottom half, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 2½R.   H114, Type 56, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	60c on 2½R.   H115, Type 57, from RL.

H110, H112 and H113 are shown just above as complete mint.

Hisc.	Type	1888 Description	Mint	Used
H110	53	20c on 25c (No. 36) 13.4.88 (4000)	60.00	9.00
H111	54	60c on 1R (No. 37) 13.4.88 (4000)	60.00	9.00
H112	(54)	80c on 1R (No. 37) 13.4.88 (4000)	60.00	15.00
H112a		surcharge at marked angle to horizontal	450.00	120.00
H113	55	12c on 50c (No. 29) 7.5.88 (4000)	45.00	7.50
H114	56	80c on 2½R (No. 31) 26.9.88 (4000)	90.00	9.00
H114a		word at top above figure (100?)	450.00	240.00
H115	57	60c on 2½R (No. 31) 29.10.88 (3200)	60.00	12.00

Hiscocks added the following note:

Note. The guess at 100 copies of No 114(a) originally printed is based on the supposition that there was                   one such error in each sheet of 40.

 

1889 issues.

12c on 25c.   H116, Type 58	60c on 1R.   H122, Type 63	80c on 1R.   H123, Type (63)	80c on 2R50c.   H125, Type (65), Lot223 of the Taprobana Collection Auction	40c on 50c.   H126, Type (66)	60c on 1R.   H129, Type 69
Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.			Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Image courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

My Note: I do not know if the broken digit on H123 is constant, but if it is, we know it is in the first column of the sheet because of the beginning of the bars.
Though the lettering was laid down a stamp at a time, the bars were ruled across a row of stamps at a time. Because of this, slight inaccuracies
can lead to variations of line thickness and the distance between lines and lettering, particularly between stamps on different rows. Damnaged lettering is also common.

12c on 25c.   H116, Type 58	12c on 25c.   H117, Type 59, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	12c on 50c.   H118, Type 60, from RL.	12c on 50c.   H119, Type 61, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

20c on 50c.   H120, Type 62.	40c on 50c.   H121, Type (62). courtesy of Harry Patsalos.	60c on 1R.   H122, Type 63. The "60" at the top is a poor font which can look like "00" with a little over-inking. See comparison. The stamp on the right is an example, with the "N" also partially filled in. Images from RL.

80c on 1R.   H123, Type (63), from RL.	80c on 1R.   H124, Type 64. Used in Hatton (on Colombo-Badulla railway line)	80c on 2½R.   H125, Type 65. From RL.	40c on 50c.   H126, Type (66), dated in 1889 H134 is very similar, see note 3

20c on 50c.   H127, Type 67, from RL.	80c on 1R.   H128, Type 68.	80c on 1R.   RH128a, (inverted "s"). Part lot 214 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	60c on 1R.   H129, Type 69, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

A closeup of the in inverted "s" of RH128a.

RH #	Hisc.	Type	1889 Description	Mint	Used
RH116	H116	58	12c on 25c (No. 36) 16.1.89 (1800?)	60.00	12.00
RH117	H117	59	12c on 25c (No. 36) 16.1.89 (600?)	120.00	36.00
RH118	H118	60	12c on 50c (No. 29) 16.1.89 (1200?)	75.00	18.00
RH119	H119	61	12c on 50c (No. 29) 16.1.89 (400?)	150.00	60.00
RH120	H120	62	20c on 50c (No. 31) 16.1.89 (8000)	54.00	6.00
RH121	H121	(62)	40c on 50c (No. 31) 16.1.89 (20000)	45.00	3.00
RH122	H122	63	60c on 1R (No. 37) 16.1.89 (13600)	45.00	4.50
RH123	H123	(63)	80c on 1R (No. 37) 16.1.89 (8000)	54.00	7.50
RH124	H124	64	80c on 1R (No. 37) 16.1.89 (2400)	75.00	12.00
RH124a	H124a		19mm gap between letters and upper line	75.00	12.00
RH125	H125	65	80c on 2½R (No. 31) 16.1.89 (4000)	75.00	9.00
RH126	H126	(66)	40c on 50c (No. 29) 23.7.89 (16000) see note 3	45.00	4.50
RH127	H127	67	20c on 50c (No. 29) 2.8.89 (8000)	60.00	7.50
RH128	H128	68	80c on 1R (No. 37) 2.8.89 (4000)	90.00	12.00
RH128a	-		inverted "s" in "Cents"	-	-
RH129	H129	69	60c on 1R (No. 37) 12.12.89 (14400)	45.00	6.00

Hiscocks added the following 5 notes:

Note 1. It seems likely that Nos. 116 & 117 and Nos. 118 & 119 represent cases where two types were                 printed on the same sheet with the straight based '2' occurring in one row and the curly based '2'                 in the other three rows in each case. The printings of each type are therefore queried although the                 total printings, 2400 and 1600, are known.

Note 2. No. 124 seems to exist in two forms. In one the space between the upper line and the letters is 19mm                   and in the other it is 18mm. The latter spacing is the same as that between letters and upper line                 in No. 125.

Note 3. No. 126 is very similar in its upper half to No. 134 of 1890. No. 126 is on a lighter blue 50c base                 stamp than 134, and this is the only distinguishing mark on half stamps unless the cancellation date                 can be read. Whole stamps are easily distinguishable in that No. 134 has words on the lower half                 while No. 126 has only a number '40'.

Note 4. No. 128 shows a slight variation in the letter to line distance — 25¾mm and 25¼mm.

Note 5. No. 129 was printed with a very greasy ink which tended to smudge somewhat giving in some cases                 the (erroneous) impression of a double printing. There is again a slight variation in the distance                 between the two lines — 25¾mm and 25¼mm.

 

1890 issues.

		The distance between "EIGHTY CENTS" at the top, and "80" is 18mm on H145 and 19mm on H132.
20c on 50c.   H142 (not H130)  type 70. For differences, see note 3 below H145	80c on 1R.   H145  type 71. For difference between this and H132, see note 3 below H145	80c on 1R.   H132 type 71.
Images courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost) on eBay.		One of mine.

40c on 50c.   H126   type (66). Part of lot 133 of the Taprobana Collection Auction	80c on 2R.50c.   H133   type 72.	40c on 50c.   H134   type (66). H126 is similar, but without the words.	20c on 50c.   H136   type (66).	H136   variant - Lot 133 of the Taprobana Collection Auction, The extra bars may have been added due to the high overprint.	60c on 1R.   H138
Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	Courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost).	Courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost).	Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	Courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

20c on 50c.   H130, Type 70. (Dated July 1890) See also the note below H142.	40c on 50c.   H131, Type (70), 18mm gap. See also H143 and note below it for 14.6mm gap.	80c on 1R.   H132, Type 71. A comparison with H145 is shown above.	80c on 2½R.   H133, Type 72, from RL.	40c on 50c.   H134/H126, Type (66), from RL. see note 3 above. and H134 below.

80c on 2R.50c.   H135   type 73. Courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	20c on 50c.   H136, Type 66.	40c on 1R.   H137, Type (66).	60c on 1R.   H138, Type (66). From RL.

80c on 5R.   H139, Type (66). 23.114 mm gap. Courtesy of Mark Bloxham.	80c on 5R.   H139a, Lot 235 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	80c on 10R.   H140, Type (66), 22.987 mm gap, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 10R.   H140a, Lot 248 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	80c on 25R.   H141, Type 74, Courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

 

Beware of " 00 " forgeries.

		21.802 mm gap (to centre of tops) with a strangely thin wobbly bar. Image from RL who suspects that it may be a forgery.
80c on 5R.   H139, Type (66). 21.717 mm gap, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	80c on 5R.   H139a, from RL. 21.675 mm gap (to centre of tops).		80c on 10R.   H140a, from RL. 21.759 mm gap (to centre of tops).

These four "00" examples are very similar, including the large gap between the zeroes and all being sloping.
The zeroes are very different to those of the "80"s.

Lots from the Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. Mint H139 from Lot 232 Mint H140 from Lot 244 Mint H140 showing flaw on "0" from Lot 243 H139a-140a comparison Lot 243 shows this and 2 used examples of the flaw on the "0" of the 10 Rupee, but I have not seen any on the 5 Rupee. (Ref. Lot 231). Let me know if you have one. Why should that be?

Hisc. Type 1890 Description Mint Used H130 70 20c on 50c (No. 29) 18.1.90 (6400) 60.00 9.00 H131 (70) 40c on 50c (No. 29) 18.1.90 (19200)   36.00 4.50 H132 71 80c on 1R (No. 37) 18.1.90 (8000) 54.00 9.00 H133 72 80c on 2½R (No. 31) 18.1.90 (5600) 60.00 12.00 H134 (66) 40c on 50c (No. 29) 26.8.90 (24000) 30.00 3.00 H135 73 80c on 2½R (No. 31) 16.9.90 (8000) 54.00 9.00 H136 66 20c on 50c (No. 29) 26.9.90 (16000) 36.00 6.00 H137 (66) 40c on 1R (No. 37) 26.9.90 (20000) 30.00 4.50 H138 (66) 60c on 1R (No. 37) 26.9.90 (12000) 45.00 6.00 H139 (66) 80c on 5R (No. 32) 26.9.90 (4000) 75.00 12.00 H139a           '00' in place of '80' (100?) 450.00 150.00 H140 (66) 80c on 10R (No. 38) 26.9.90 (4000) 75.00 12.00 H140a          '00' in place of '80' (100?) 450.00 150.00 H141 74 80c on 25R (No. 34) 26.9.90 (4000) 75.00 12.00 Houston, we still have a problem ! The auction descriptions of lots 248 and 235 indicate that Stanley Gibbons think that the "00" error was on just one position on the plate. While the bar might be in slightly different positions on each stamp on the plate, if they were all from the same position then the bar to "00" gap should always be the same. With the coincidence of the "00" flaw being on both the 5 Rp and 10Rp, it is natural to assume that the same plate was used to overprint both of them. The error shown on the "0" of "80" to the left, only appears to be on the 10Rp. Perhaps the 5Rp was overprinted first, then the plate was damaged before overprinting the 10Rp. What about the bar to "00" gap? I show a comparison, there is a significant difference. The only reason that I can think of is that it is because the top values have different heights and it was felt necessary to relocate the bars for the 10Rp printing. Perhaps that is why the top of that "0" got damaged. A lot of guesswork here! I would welcome new information and/or images that may help.

Hiscocks added the following 3 notes:

Note 1. No. 134 is very similar in its upper half to No. 126 — see Note 3 for 1889 issues.

Note 2. The spacing between bar and numeral on No. 136 varies by about ½ mm.

Note 3. The numbers of '00' errors of Nos. 139 and 140 are estimated on the basis of one per sheet.                 A mint strip of these — two No.139 with No.139(a) between them — was exhibited in June 1901.

Note 2 also applies to H137 with variation from about 22mm to about 23mm.
This is not unusual. The bar was across a whole row of stamps, but the numerals were individually typeset.
I measured the distance from the bottom of the bar to the top of "20" on the four images of H136 I had available.
They were actually amazingly consistent, ranging from 20.405 to 20.658 mm. A difference of about ¼ mm.
On the other hand, Rolf Lamprecht had drawn my attention to H133. Looking at his two (the first 2), and mine :

H133 examples.

RL1, undated	RL2, broken bar, dated Sept. 1890	SP, broken "80", dated Aug. 1892

I decided to compare a couple of measurements (in pixels at 600dpi and converted to mm) between these three.
A: from the bottom of the top bar to the top of 'C' in "CENTS".
B: from the bottom of 'C' in "CENTS" to the bottom of "80".

	RL1	RL2	SP	Max. Diff.
A	118px = 5.00 mm	113px = 4.78 mm	119px = 5.04 mm	6px = 0.254 mm
B	354px = 14.99 mm	378px = 16.00mm	353px = 14.94 mm	25px = 1.06 mm

Again about ¼ mm bar to numeral range, but 1mm difference in the size of the rest.

 

1891 issues.

	20c on 50c.   H142, Type 70. (See notes below) 40c on 50c.   H143, Type (71) - (14.6mm gap) See note 2 below - From RL 80c on 1R.   H145, Type 71. (18mm gap) Similar to H132 (19mm gap, see above) Hisc. Type 1891 Description Mint Used H142 70 20c on 50c (No. 29) 24.6.91 & 23.12.91 (11200)   45.00 6.00 H143 (71) 40c on 50c (No. 29) 24.6.91 & 23.12.91 (22400) 36.00 4.50 H144 (71) 60c on 1R (No. 37) 24.6.91 & 23.12.91 (12800) 45.00 6.00 H145 71 80c on 1R (No. 37) 24.6.91 & 23.12.91 (12400) 45.00 6.00 Hiscocks added the following 3 notes: Note 1. For all four values the same setting was used for both printings which are therefore indistinguishable. Note 2. No. 143 is similar to No. 131, but in the latter case the separation between the words at the top and                 the large 40 is 18mm and in the former 14½mm. Note 3. Nos. 142 & 145 are similarly almost the same as Nos. 130 & 132. In this case the printings may be                 distinguished by the separation between the top words and the large number which is about 1mm                 less in 142 & 145 (both 18mm) than in 130 & 132 (both 19mm) respectively.                 The blue of No. 142 is also consistently darker than in No 130. The spacing between the two words                   at the top is also about 1mm wider in No 145 than in No 132, but there is some confusion in                 Crofton over which is properly allocated to which date — perhaps some reader has one clearly                 dated before 24.6.91.
40c on 50c.  H143, Type 71 (14.6mm) See notes below - Courtesy of Wimal Suaris.		60c on 1R.   H144, Type (71). Courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

In My Notes: This appears to have got confused and some is just plain wrong.
I will try to sort it out below by showing comparisons:
In Note 2, says the larger separation should be on H131, but the dated example shown has it on H143.
In Note 3, the distances of 18mm and 19mm only apply to the H132/H145 pair.

I have 3 examples of 130/142. One of which is actually a lighter colour than the other two and dated July 1890 making it H130 (shown above).
The distance from the bottom of the lettering, to the top of the digit '0' measures about 14.75mm.

   
In this comparison of the three examples (scanned together at 600dpi), the lighter, dated example of H130 is in the centre and they are aligned by the bottom of 'C'
and the centre of '0'. The 'C' on the centre example is closer to the 'Y' by 0.45mm.
The example on the left has the 'C' further to the left of '0' than the other two. Apart from the shade difference, by Hiscocks criteria these are all slight variations
of H130, however the overall width of the 'TWENTY CENTS' is about 0.9mm less on the centre example than the other two, being 21.4mm against 22.3mm.
This suggests that the other two are the commoner H142, but the description of the difference given by Hiscocks has been confused, perhaps with H150/H160.

This compares the horizontal positioning between parts of H130(top) and H142(bottom). This is at 1200dpi, aligned by the back of the 'C'(red line).
Magenta is on the tip of the 'T', green on the right edge of the stem of 'Y', and blue on the extreme edge of the 'S'.



Table of results, sizes in mm rounded to nearest 0.01mm.

	'TWENTY' (mm)	gap (mm)	'CENTS' (mm)	Total (mm)
H130	11.49	1.44	8.49	21.42
H142	11.54	1.88	8.85	22.27

 

However it isn't quite that simple. Here are two examples of H130 side by side, aligned by the top 'TWENTY CENTS'. The bottom 'TWENTY CENTS' do not line up. The gap in the top 'TWENTY CENTS' make it clear that they are both H130. The space between the bottom of '20' and the top of the 'T' of 'TWENTY' at the bottom, is about 23.8mm on the left against 22.8mm on the right, a difference of just over 1 mm. Images courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

---

I have 7 examples of the H132/H145 pair. I initially separated them visually on the basis of the gap between 'EIGHTY' and 'CENTS' (Note 3)
Then I noticed that there was indeed also a difference in spacing between the lettering and the large numerals as in Note 2.
It turned out that the seven examples comprised 3 x H132 and 4 x H145, including one dated August 1891.
Wimal Suaris adds a couple of examples, with an 1891 example agreeing with my 1891 example.

Undated example courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	These are mine, one dated August 1891.		Dated September 1891, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.
These have the following characteristics: Distance from bottom of 'EIGHTY CENTS' to top of '80' approximately 19mm Size of gap between stem of 'Y' in 'EIGHTY' and 'C' in 'CENTS' approximately 1.3mm Undated		These have the following characteristics: Distance from bottom of 'EIGHTY CENTS' to top of '80' approximately 18mm Size of gap between stem of 'Y' in 'EIGHTY' and 'C' in 'CENTS' approximately 2mm Dated August and September 1891

It seems reasonable to assume that the ones on the right dated in 1891 are H145 and the undated ones are H132.
However, it is possible that the dated ones are late usage H132, with the undated ones actually being H145, though it would be unlikely.
What is needed are examples clearly dated before 24/6/91 when the H145 was printed. Anyone have any?

 

 

1892 issues.

25c on 50c.   H146, Type 75, from RL. 25c on 1R.   H147, Type 75, from RL. 80c on 2½R.   H148, Type (76), from RL. 25c on 50R.   H149, Type (77), from RL. 20c on 1R.   H150, Type (75). See also the note below H160. 40c on 1R.   H151, Type (75), from RL. See also the note below H159. 60c on 1R.   H152, Type (75), courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 80c on 1R.   H153, Type (75), from RL.

25c on 50R.   H149, Type (77) Lots 142 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

80c on 25R.   H154, Type (77), from RL. 80c on 50R.   H155, Type 77, courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 20c on 25c.   H156, Type 76, From RL. 40c on 50c.   H157, Type (75), courtesy of Wimal Suaris. 5R on 25R.   H158, Type 78, from RL. 5R on 25R.   H158a - small "S", Type 78, from RL.

20c on 25c.   H156, Type (76), Mint courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

 

Hisc.	Type	1892 Description	Mint	Used
H146	75	25c on 50c (No. 29) 20.1.92 (1200)	-	24.00
H147	75	25c on 1R (No. 37) 3.2.92 (800)	-	60.00
H148	(76)	80c on 2½R (No. 31) 3.2.92 (3000)	-	15.00
H149	(77)	25c on 50R (No. 35) 26.2.92 (800)	-	60.00
*H150	(75)	20c on 1R (No. 37) Feb & March 1892 (5200)	-	9.00
*H151	(75)	40c on 1R (No. 37) Feb & March 1892 (14000)	-	6.00
H152	(75)	60c on 1R (No. 37) Feb & March 1892 (7200)	-	7.50
H153	(75)	80c on 1R (No. 37) March 1892 (3600)	-	15.00
H154	(77)	80c on 25R (No. 34) March 1892 (1000)	-	30.00
H155	77	80c on 50R (No. 35) March 1892 (1000)	-	45.00
H156	76	20c on 25c (No. 36) 1.4.92 (2400)	-	12.00
H157	(75)	40c on 50c (No. 29) 1.4.92 (2400)	-	12.00
H158	78	5R on 25R (No. 34) 1.4.92 (5200)	30.00	9.00
H158a		lower case 's' in 'RUPEEs' (130?)	50.00	60.00

* H150 and H151 are very similar to H160 and H159 respectively of the 1894 issue,
the difference being in the distance between the words at the top and the large digits, 18mm in 1892 and 19mm in 1894.
See Note 2 below H163.


Hiscocks added the following 2 notes:

Note 1. The number guessed at for No 158(a) is again assuming one in each sheet of 40.

Note 2. I have specimens of No 157 with both 20mm and 21mm between centre number and bar.

 

1894 issues.

40c on 1R.   H159, Type (75), from RL.	40c on 1R.   H159(probably), bottom half. See note 2 below. Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	20c on 1R.   H160, Type (75), this is a mockup, like H150 but with a 19mm gap rather than 18mm.

5R on 50R.   H161/162, Type 79. top and bottom used halves courtesy of Wimal Suaris.		5R on 50R.   RH161/2a, Type 79. " 5 " misplaced right. Image courtesy of Mark Bloxham.	5R on 25R.   H163, Type 80. top and bottom used halves courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

There is a bit more complication to H161/2, the letters 'e' in 'Rupees' can have short tails (possibly italic). RH151b/2b, first 'e' RH151c/2c, second 'e' Images and information courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

RH # Hisc. Type 1894 Description Mint Used RH159 *H159 (75) 40c on 1R (No. 37) 12.1.94 (4000) 54.00 10.50 RH160 *H160 (75) 20c on 1R (No. 37) 20.3.94 (2400) 60.00 12.00 RH161 H161 79 5R on 50R (No. 35) 13.8.94 120.00 36.00 RH161a - "5" over to right - - RH161b - first "e" with short tail - - RH161c - second "e" with short tail - - RH162 H162 79 5R on 50R (No. 47) 13.8.94 75.00 24.00 RH162a - 79 "5" over to right - - RH162b - first "e" with short tail - - RH162c - second "e" with short tail - - RH163 H163 80 5R on 25R (No. 46) 26.11.94 (1200) 105.00 30.00 * H160 and H159 are very similar to H150 and H151 respectively of the 1892 issue, the difference being in the distance between the words at the top and the large digits, 18mm in 1892 and 19mm in 1894. - See Hiscocks Note 2 below. Hiscocks added the following 3 notes: Note 1. Lower halves of all 1894 issues are fairly common since there was considerable leakage from the                 checking office around that time. Note 2. The upper words to large figure separation for Nos. 159 & 160 was 19mm, while those for                   Nos. 150 and 151 (otherwise very similar) was 18mm. Note 3. Nos. 162 & 163 are on stamps of Watermark W2. The split of the 2500 Nos. 161 & 162 between                 the two watermarks is not known but in my experience No. 162 (wide CA) is the more common                 and I have priced accordingly.

20c on 1R.   H150, Type (75)	40c on 1R.   H159, Type (75)	5R on 50R.   H161/2, Type 79. from 2 halves	5R on 25R.   H163, Type 80.
Images of full stamps, each made from 2 halves) from RL		Lot 264 of Taprobana Collection Auction. Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	from 2 halves courtesy Mark Bloxham

On the 40c stamp, the top of the '40' can just be seen on the top half at a gap of 19.26mm making it H159.
On the 20c, the gap on the top half is 18mm making it H150.

I do not know the criteria for distinguishing between the 1892 and 1894 bottom halves.
The three I have seen are in the range of 18.12mm to 18.42mm.
Hiscocks says that 1894 bottom halves are quite common, so it is likely the these 3 are all from that issue.

I have not been able to obtain images of all the provisional overprints. Some are quite scarce.
For some (H64, H65, H66, H80, H95, H103 and H160) I have created mockups based on their descriptions, these are marked as such.
Can anyone provide scans of any of those ?

Before moving on, here are some bogus items from RL :



They are bogus because no such overprints were ever used. The overprints always covered the old value. Another rule was they never overprinting stamps of a lower denomination.
Interestingly that rule was broken for the 1910 overprints below that were never issued. There was probably a good reason for that.

 

 

1892-1903 Provisionals

Shortcuts to different provisional years
1892	1893	1894	1895	1896	1897	1898	1899	1900	1901	1902	1903

1892-1903 Type-set provisionals. White wove paper. No watermark. Line-Perf. 14
Dates and Controls in black. Going by the flaws, these were in panes of 50, presumaply 5 rows of 10.

 

A series of proofs, courtesy of Wimal Suaris. - The broken frame at top-left of the 80c was never corrected ! What were these proofs for again ?

This appears to be trials of different fonts to be used in the top and bottom panels of the 40c. The numerals were printed in brown.  The second and third appear to have been used for April 1892, with just the second subsequently. Lot 275 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Sheet Layout.

I had always rather taken this for granted, but a few thhings have made me question it. The images in this box all come from lots of the Taprobana Collection Auction), with images courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. Most of the images here are reduced (about half) from my usual scale because of the size of them and readability. . Lot 273 - Two rows of five 20c stamps labelled "Aquamarine", the intended colour. Lot 276 - Two rows of five 40c stamps labelled "Chinese Blue", the intended colour. These suggest that denominations and colours had been decided and panes of five stamps were intended. Lot 289 - 80c labelled "Olive Green", numbered 41 to 45. Lot 290 - 80c, numbered 46 to 50. These two lots have been digitally re-associated. They look like they were from the bottom of the same sheet, but it is uncertain if there was a gutter between them. Lot 288 - 80c numbered 4 to 6 and 14 to 16. It looks like the 80c started out at least with 50 stamps per sheet, in 5 rows of 10 stamps with no gutters. So what of this item 5 years later (at normal scale) ? Lot 327 - Aparently a Gutter-pair of November 1897 20c stamps, and between columns 4 and 5 ! So were there now 8 stamps per row? Or perhaps 12 ? How many stamps per sheet I wonder, and why? Can someone enlighten me ? Or at least show me some more gutter pair examples. This is two rows of 3 stamps from what looks like the same sheet as the last item. If there was a gutter, then it would be between columns 5 and 6.

 

Known standard flaws.

The last 2 digits of the serial number indicate the position within a pane of 50 stamps.

20c
18 / 68	31 / 81	36 / 86
Position 18 has a flaw in the frame to the right of "GOVERNMENT". I have seen it in positions 18 and 68 from 1894 to 1897. Images courtesy of Mark Bloxham.	Position 31 has a flaw in the top frame on the left. I have seen it in positions 31 and 81 from 1895 to 1901. - Images courtesy of Mark Bloxham.	In November 1895, position 86 printed reasonably well, apart from something going on in the top frame, marked in red. By November 1897 it had been damaged to the right of the crown. December 1900 shows the same damage at 736 and 186, indicating 50 stamps per plate. December 1901 showed it again at 786. - Images courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

 

80c
11 / 61	44 / 94
In red is a standard flaw on all of the 80c. The blue flaw is on controls ending in 11 or 61. I have seen it on stamps from 1895 to 1901. Images courtesy of Mark Bloxham.	The dot on the "N" is on stamps with controls ending with 44 and a few ending with 94. I have seen it on stamps from 1893 to 1903. Images courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

 

 

1 April 1892

April 1892 Specimens from Lot 282 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), with images courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

H164 Mint courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

20c.   Large control, H164 20c.   Small control, H164a 40c.   Large control, H165 40c.   Small control, H165a These images are from RL. One of mine. 60c.   Large control, H166 60c.   Small control, H166a 80c.   Large control, H167 80c.   Small control, H167b These images are from RL.

Hisc.	Type	April 1892 Description	Mint	Used
H164	81	20c (10500) (large control figures) cyan	30.00	3.00
H164a		small control figures	30.00	3.00
H164b		as 164(a) but upper bar extends only over '1/4' (see note)	-	20.00
H165	82	40c (24000) (large control figures) blue	24.00	2.00
H165a		small control figures	24.00	2.00
H166	83	60c (10000) (large control figures) dark brown	30.00	3.00
H166a		small control figures	30.00	3.00
H167	84	80c (12000) (large control figures) olive	30.00	3.00
H167a		imperf.	80.00	40.00
H167b		small control figures	30.00	3.00

from Wikimedia Commons

Note. This issue alone had its date figures separated by oblique lines thus 1/4/92.                   Later dates (except the rare 1.5.92) are hyphenated thus 1-9-92.

 

1 May 1892

RH168B, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	RH168B, from Wikimedia Commons.	RH168B, from RL.	Lot 286 of the Taprobana Collection Auction. Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	H168, courtesy of Grosvenor Auctions. (Sale 113, lot 311)

These are the only examples that I have seen dated 1 May 1892. Only one matches Hiscocks' description of 80c, the rest are all 40c stamps.
For this date, Hiscocks only listed H168 as being an 80c stamp. It does exist, but the 40c appears to be more common.
If anyone has any other May 1892 examples, I would like to hear from you.

In response to that, I was shown these:

These were listed (lot 1528) in the Phoenix Auction 88 of 26 August 2021. Vendor stated all are ex Ferrari.
Lot 1528 is not listed in the prices realised, but is also marked as no longer available.

RH #	Hisc.	Type	May 1892 Description	Mint	Used
†RH168A	-	81	20c cyan, imperf. (may not exist)	-	-
*RH168B	-	84	40c blue, imperf. (not issued)	80.00	-
†RH168C	-	81	60c dark brown, imperf. (may not exist)	-	-
RH168	H168	84	80c olive, imperf. (not issued)	100.00	-

* This has been added due to the examples shown.
† If the 40c and 80c were prepared for issue, it is  
highly likely that all values were.
I have therefore added these,
although they may not exist.

 

1 September 1892. As above. Small control and small date.

20c.   H169	40c.   H170	60c.   H171	80c.   H172
Image courtesy of (Socrates Antypas).	Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Image courtesy of (Socrates Antypas).	Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

20c.   H169	40c.   H170	60c.   H171	80c.   H172
These images are from RL.

Hisc.	Type	September 1892 Description	Mint	Used
H169	81	20c (14300) cyan	30.00	3.00
H170	82	40c (24000) blue	24.00	2.00
H171	83	60c (12800) dark brown	30.00	3.00
H172	84	80c (12800) olive	30.00	3.00

 

9 January 1893. As above. Small control and small date.

20c.   H173 - from RL 40c.   H174 60c.   H175 - from RL 80c.   H176 - from RL	80c. (Lot 336 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.
Hisc. Type January 1893 Description Mint Used H173 81 20c (28000) cyan 24.00 2.00 H174 82 40c (94000) blue 16.00 1.50 H175 83 60c (22000) dark brown   24.00 2.00 H176 84 80c (13000) olive 24.00 2.00

 

1 May 1894. As above. Mixed large and small controls and small date.

20c.   H177	40c.   H178	60c.   H179	80c.   H180
These images are from RL.

Hisc.	Type	May 1894 Description	Mint	Used
H177	81	20c (27000) cyan	24.00	2.00
H178	82	40c (57000) blue	20.00	1.50
H179	83	60c (5950) dark brown	50.00	5.00
H180	84	80c (18000) olive	24.00	2.00

 

1 November 1894. As above.

20c.   H181	40c.   H182	60c.   H183
These images are courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

40c.   H182 - from RL	60c.   H183	80c.   H184 - from RL

Hisc.	Type	November 1894 Description	Mint	Used
H181	81	20c (33000) cyan	20.00	2.00
H182	82	40c (104000) blue	16.00	1.00
H183	83	60c (14000) dark brown	24.00	2.00
H184	84	80c (21000) olive	20.00	2.00

 

1 November 1895. As above.

60c.   H187	80c.   H188

Hisc.	Type	1895 Description	Mint	Used
H185	81	20c (16000) cyan	24.00	2.00
H186	82	40c (69000) blue	16.00	1.50
H187	83	60c (13000) dark brown	24.00	2.00
H188	84	80c (25000) olive	20.00	2.00

Hiscocks added the following note:

Note. Numbers printed from 1892 to 1895 are from official records.                 Those from 1896 to 1901 inclusive are estimated from highest control numbers                   observed and may therefore be on the low side. Information on higher control                 numbers would be welcome.

 

1 September 1896. As above.

20c, 40c, 60c and 80c. (Lot 326 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

20c.   H189 - from RL	40c.   H190	60c.   H191 - from RL	80c.   H192 - from RL

Hisc.	Type	1896 Description	Mint	Used
H189	81	20c (31000) cyan	20.00	2.00
H190	82	40c (150000) blue	12.00	1.00
H191	83	60c (30000) dark brown	20.00	2.00
H192	84	80c (45000) olive	20.00	2.00

 

1 April 1897. As above but new values.

5c Die I then II followed by 10c Die II. (Lot 293 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

5c die II   -   (Type 86)   H193a 10c die I   -   (Type 86)   H194 From RL. Image courtesy of ibredguy.co.uk   Hisc. Type April 1897 Description Mint Used H193 85 5c Die I } (49000) lilac-rose 24.00 2.00 H193a      5c Die II 24.00 2.00 H193b      se-tenant pair 70.00 8.00 H194 86 10c Die I } (36000) yellow 24.00 2.00 H194a      10c Die II 24.00 2.00 H194b      se-tenant pair 70.00 8.00

Hiscocks added the following 2 notes that I have added illustrations to:

Note 1. The basic set was extended to include the two new values above to meet a                 new inland tariff which also necessitated the provisional                 25c (No. 198) listed below.

Note 2. Both the 5c and 10c exhibit the use of two dies within each sheet in roughly                 equal quantities. The points to note are:- 5 Cents Die I Die II 1. Separation of upper 'cents' and 'Department' is ¾mm. 1. Separation 1¼mm. 2. Row of diamonds under upper value meets flower above centre at right. 2. Meets flower below centre.   3. Upper-right petals of 6th & 11th flowers of right border missing. 3. Not so. 10 Cents Die I Die II 1. Top but one 'leaf' in right border filled in. 1. Not so. 2. Line of ornaments below lower date ends opposite two pearls at left. 2. Ends opposite one pearl. 3. Space above bottom right ornament. 3. No such space.

 

1 November 1897.

5c. Die II   H195a	5c. Die II   H213a
Courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost).	5c Die I, followed by 10c and 20c. (Lot 294 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

A receipt of 31 August 1898 from Dickoy to Bogawantalawa with 35c payment (H40 + H196). - From RL.
Most likely it was about tea.

5c die I, H195 - from RL.	5c die II, H195a - from RL.	10c die I, H196 - from RL.	20c H197 - courtesy of cg.stamps

Hisc. Type November 1897 Description Mint Used H195 85 5c Die I } (58000) lilac-rose 20.00 2.00 H195a      5c Die II 20.00 2.00 H195b      se-tenant pair 60.00 8.00 H196 86 10c Die I } (50000) yellow 20.00 2.00 H196a      10c Die II 20.00 2.00 H196b      se-tenant pair 60.00 8.00 H197 81 20c (58000) cyan 20.00 2.00   1 December 1897 No control number (date figures in blue) Type 87 strip of four courtesy of Mark Bloxham. On the face of it, they all look the same, but the last is different. Again there are two types. They are roughly the same scarcity but not arranged alternately.

Lot 329 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

25 Cents - Type 87
Die I		Die II
1. Large gap to right of 'cents' (about 0.5 mm)			1. Smaller gap to right of 'cents' (about 0.2 mm)
2. Gap between Crown and "GOVERNMENT" of about 1.15 mm.			2. Smaller gap between Crown and "GOVERNMENT" of about 0.9 mm.
3. The point of the diamond to the right of the Crown aligns with the top of the ornament below.			3. The point of the diamond to the right of the Crown aligns with the bottom of the ornament above.

Images courtesy of Mark Bloxham.

RH #	Hisc.	Type	December 1897 Description		Mint	Used
RH198	H198	87	25c Die I	} (46700), deep olive	50.00	3.00
RH198a	-		25c Die II		50.00	3.00
RH198b	-		se-tenant pair		150.00	12.00

 

1 July 1898.

5c. Die II, 60c and 80c.

Lot 296 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

5c die II, H199a - from RL.	60c, H200 - from RL.	80c, H201 - from RL.

Hisc.	Type	July 1898 Description		Mint	Used
H199	85	5c Die I	} (16000) lilac-rose	30.00	4.00
H199a		5c Die II		30.00	4.00
H199b		se-tenant pair		80.00	10.00
H200	83	60c (58000) dark brown		20.00	2.00
H201	84	80c (16000) olive		24.00	2.00

 

1 December 1898.

Lot 297 . Consecutively numbered 5c. Die II examples. Lot 328. 20c. Los of the Taprobana Collection Auction), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

5c die I, H202 - from RL. 5c die II   H202a, Type (85), courtesy of cg.stamps 10c die II, H203a - from RL. 20c, H204 - from RL. 60c, H205 - from RL. 80c, H206 - from RL.

Hisc.	Type	December 1898 Description		Mint	Used
H202	85	5c Die I	} (40000) lilac-rose	20.00	2.00
H202a		5c Die II		20.00	2.00
H202b		se-tenant pair		60.00	8.00
H203	86	10c Die I	} (47000) yellow	20.00	2.00
H203a		10c Die II		20.00	2.00
H203b		se-tenant pair		60.00	8.00
H204	81	20c (38000) cyan		20.00	2.00
H205	83	60c (10000) dark brown		36.00	6.00
H206	84	80c (2900) olive		40.00	8.00

 

1 December 1899.

Lot 295 - Two 5c. Die II, followed by a Die I. It would be nice to know the pattern of dies on the sheet.	Part of lot 298 - 20c.
Lots of the Taprobana Collection Auction), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

5c die I   H207, Type (85), courtesy of cg.stamps	5c die II, H207a - from RL.	10c die II, H208a - from RL.

20c, H209 - from RL.	40c, H210 - from RL.	60c, H211 - from RL.	80c, H212 - from RL.

Hisc.	Type	1899 Description		Mint	Used
H207	85	5c Die I	} (60000) lilac-rose	16.00	1.50
H207a		5c Die II		16.00	1.50
H207b		se-tenant pair		40.00	5.00
H208	86	10c Die I	} (57000) yellow	16.00	1.50
H208a		10c Die II		16.00	1.50
H208b		se-tenant pair		40.00	5.00
H209	81	20c (29000) cyan		20.00	2.00
H210	82	40c (10100) blue		30.00	4.00
H211	83	60c (9500) dark brown		30.00	4.00
H212	84	80c (10100) olive		30.00	4.00

 

1 December 1900 (new colour for 5c).

5c. Die II   H213a	40c   from the Taprobana Collection Auction.
Courtesy of Socrates Antypas (storypost).	Courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

5c die I, H213 - from RL.	5c die II, H213a - from RL.	20c, H215 - from RL.

40c, H216 - from RL.	60c, H217 - from RL.	80c, H218 - from RL.

Hisc.	Type	1900 Description		Mint	Used
H213	85	5c Die I	} (58100) deep purple	8.00	1.50
H213a		5c Die II		8.00	1.50
H213b		se-tenant pair		20.00	5.00
H214	86	10c Die I	} (5000) yellow	20.00	6.00
H214a		10c Die II		20.00	6.00
H214b		se-tenant pair		50.00	20.00
H215	81	20c (10000) cyan		18.00	3.00
H216	82	40c (18000) blue		15.00	3.00
H217	83	60c (14500) dark brown		18.00	3.00
H218	84	80c (13000) olive		15.00	3.00

 

1 December 1901.

5c. Die I Die I and Die II, 10c. Die I Die I and Die II.

Lot 308 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

520c, 40c, 60c and 80c.

Part of lot 305 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

5c deep purple from 1900, H219 (Die I), courtesy of cg.stamps	10c, H220a (Die II) courtesy of cg.stamps	20c, H221

40c, H222 - from RL.	60c, H223	80c, H224 - from RL.

Hisc.	Type	1901 Description		Mint	Used
H219	85	5c Die I	} (60000) deep purple	20.00	2.00
H219a		5c Die II		20.00	2.00
H219b		se-tenant pair		60.00	8.00
H220	86	10c Die I	} (51000) yellow	16.00	2.00
H220a		10c Die II		16.00	2.00
H220b		se-tenant pair		40.00	8.00
H221	81	20c (33000) cyan		24.00	3.00
H222	82	40c (16000) blue		30.00	4.00
H223	83	60c (16000) dark brown		30.00	4.00
H224	84	80c (16500) olive		30.00	4.00

 

1 December 1902.

5c, Die I, H225	80c.   H227 complete used.
Courtesy of Rolf Lamprecht.	Courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

Hisc.	Type	1902 Description		Mint	Used
H225	85	5c Die I	} (29000) deep purple	20.00	2.00
H225a		5c Die II		20.00	2.00
H225b		se-tenant pair		60.00	8.00
H226	83	60c (9000) dark brown		36.00	4.00
H227	84	80c (10000) olive		30.00	4.00

Hiscocks added the following note:

Note. This printing was on very thin paper.

 

18 May 1903. Printed on bluish paper.

5c, Die I, H228 - from RL.	20c, H230 - from RL.	80c olive H233, courtesy of ibredguy.co.uk

Hisc.	Type	1903 Description		Mint	Used
H228	85	5c Die I	} (5450) deep purple	40.00	6.00
H228a		5c Die II		40.00	6.00
H228b		se-tenant pair		100.00	20.00
H229	86	10c Die I	} (5100) yellow	40.00	6.00
H229a		10c Die II		40.00	6.00
H229b		se-tenant pair		100.00	20.00
H230	81	20c (5400) cyan		40.00	6.00
H231	82	40c (5800) blue		40.00	6.00
H232	83	60c (5100) dark brown		40.00	6.00
H233	84	80c (5200) olive		40.00	6.00

 

 

King Edward VII 'double-headed'

1903. New design. King Edward VII. Watermark W2. Perf. 14
Main colour given first, tablet colour second.

5c.   H234 / H249   -   Type 88	10c.   H235 / H250   -   Type 88	12c.   H236 / H251   -   Type 88	20c.   H237 / H252   -   Type 88	25c.   H238 / H253   -   Type 88

 

40c.   H239 / H254   -   Type 88	50c.   H240 / H255   -   Type 88	60c.   H241 / H256   -   Type 88	75c.   H242 / H257   -   Type 88, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	1R.   H243 / H258   -   Type 88, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.

 

2R.50c.   H244 / H259   -   Type 88, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	5R.   H245 / H260   -   Type 88, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Lot 374 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), 10R.   H263 - courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.	25R.   H247 / H262   -   Type 88, courtesy of Wimal Suaris.	Lot 374 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), 50R.   H263 - courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

Complete used examples.

2R50c.   H259   -   Type 88	5R.   H260   -   Type 88	10R.   H261   -   Type 88 from RL.	Lot 329 of the Taprobana Collection Auction), 25R.   H262 - courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Hisc.	Type	Description	Mint	Used
H234	88	5c brown & green (1903) (122720)	25.00	4.00
H235	88	10c bluish green & ochre (1903) (80480)	30.00	4.00
H236	88	12c olive-bistre & green (1904) (12160)	100.00	12.00
H237	88	20c drab & purple (1903) (122720)	75.00	6.00
H238	89	25c green (1904) (329120)	40.00	3.00
H239	88	40c purple & brown (1903) (40400)	75.00	6.00
H240	88	50c blue & purple (1904) (48000)	75.00	6.00
H241	88	60c olive & ochre (1903) (32160)	90.00	6.00
H242	88	75c pale blue & blue (1903) (39040)	90.00	6.00
H243	88	1R red-brown (1904) (73120)	60.00	5.00
H244	88	2½R slate & ochre (1904) (24320)	90.00	6.00
H245	88	5R orange & carmine (1904) (20160)	90.00	6.00
H246	88	10R reddish purple & green (1904) (16000)	200.00	12.00
H247	88	25R carmine & scarlet (1904) (3200)	900.00	32.00
H248	88	50R claret & blue (1904) (1200)	1200.00	60.00

Hiscocks added the following 3 notes:

Note 1. There were two main dies — 25c and the rest. In all cases above the second colour given is that of                 the value tablet.

Note 2. Those given as 1903 were received in Ceylon in June of that year and presumably released soon after.                 Those given as 1904 were received in December 1903 but it has been assumed that the usual                 practice was followed and that these were therefore issued early in 1904.

Note 3. The direct sale of mint telegraph stamps to the public was not allowed at this time, which accounts for                   their rarity. It is not known when this rule came into effect but it was apparently allowed to lapse                   before the termination of the next and last issue in 1910. There was however some leakage of bottom                   halves, cancelled by the punching of two or three holes, from the checking office — price 2-3 times                 used. The occasional whole used stamp is met with — usually a case of late use: price as for mint.

 

1905. As above but watermark Multiple CA and Crown (W3).

Hisc. Type Description Mint Whole Used Half Used H249 88 5c brown & green 15.00 5.00 1.25 H250 88 10c bluish green & ochre 15.00 5.00 1.25 H251 88 12c olive-bistre & green 20.00 7.50 1.50 H252 88 20c drab & purple 25.00 12.50 2.50 H253 89 25c green 15.00 5.00 1.25 H254 88 40c purple & brown 20.00 12.50 2.00 H255 88 50c blue & purple 25.00 10.00 2.00 H256 88 60c olive & ochre 20.00 7.50 1.50 H257 88 75c pale blue & blue 25.00 10.00 2.50 H258 88 1R red-brown 20.00 7.50 1.25 H259 88 2½R slate & ochre 30.00 12.50 2.50 H260 88 5R orange & carmine 40.00 15.00 3.00 H261 88 10R reddish purple & green   50.00 25.00 3.75 H262 88 25R carmine & scarlet 200.00 75.00 10.00 H263 88 50R claret & blue 350.00 125.00 30.00

Hiscocks added the following 2 notes:

Note 1. In their later years these stamps were quite commonly used whole and the centre column of prices                 above refers to them so used.

Note 2. No printings are available for the 1905 issue but from the large numbers I have examined it seems likely                   that printings of Nos. 262 and 263 were, as usual, much lower than for lower values.

 

1910 Provisionals

1910. Provisional issue. Surcharges on Nos. 251, 253 and 258.
No genuine used examples are known, so probably never issued.

A set of Specimens.

This is the set of Specimens that Steve Hiscocks referred to in notes in his book.
From lot 385 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

A Non-Specimen Set.



Non- Specimens from lots 388 (top) and 386 (bottom) of the Taprobana Collection Auction).
Images courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

A strip of three from lot 387 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). This shows that the strings of diamonds stretch across the sheet in the same way as the bars. Images courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

Hisc. Type Description Mint Used H264 90 'CENTS TWENTY' on 12c (No. 251) (4000) May 1910   150.00 - H265 91 'CENTS TWENTY' on 25c (No. 253) (4000) July 1910 150.00 - H266 90 'CENTS FORTY' on 12c (No. 251) (9600) May 1910 150.00 - H267 90 'CENTS FORTY' on 1R (No. 258) (3000) July 1910 150.00 - H268 90 'CENTS SIXTY' on 12c (No. 251) (3200) May 1910 150.00 - H269 90 'RUPEES FIVE' on 12c (No. 251) (3600) May 1910 600.00 - H270 90 'RUPEES FIVE' on 1R (No. 258) (2000) July 1910 600.00 - H271 90 'RUPEES TEN' on 12c (No. 251) (3000) May 1910 600.00 - Hiscocks added the following 3 notes: Note 1. 'Specimens' sell at mint prices or a little less. Note 2. It is not clear why these were prepared but it is known that the date on which use of Telegraph stamps                 would cease (1.8.10) was announced well in advance so it seems likely that this issue represents an                 attempt to convert values for which stocks were large to values which might be expected to run out                 before that date. I know of no proof of their actual use so perhaps normal stocks did in fact hold out.                   It seems probable that all outstanding stock, both of provisionals and normals, was destroyed after                 1 August 1910: there was certainly no flood of remainders on the market. Note 3. Forgeries of these stamps have not been reported but a recently acquired accumulation of Ceylon                 telegraph stamps, which has every appearance of not having been added to since formed by a dealer                 in Ceylon in the 1900-25 period, contains some interesting examples of this type:- (a)            Apparently genuine mint copies of the lower values (Nos. 264 - 268) which compare well with a                 'SPECIMEN' set (certainly genuine) in my possession. (b)            Very similar high values (Nos. 269 and 271) but showing slight differences — less well formed                 letters, more tendency to partial inking, less sharply defined 'diamonds' across old values with a                 slightly greater space between them and measuring 10mm across four (centre to centre) as distinct                 from 9.75mm in the genuine. (c)            Copies of No. 265 both mint and apparently used whole with surcharges analogous to those under                 (b) above.                 The only readable date is 2 May 1910 some two months before their reported appearance. (d)            Copies of Nos. 266 - 271 apparently used whole in Colombo in February or March 1909.                 The printing is rough and the 'diamonds' over the values measure 3½mm vertically (compared with                 3mm on genuine) and about 10½mm across four of them (centre to centre).                 While second opinions are required on type (b) we would certainly seem to have one,                 and possibly two, types of early forgeries.

My Note: Throughout the extensive provisionals of the Victorian era, the overprinted value was never higher than the base stamp being overprinted.
To do so would be an invitation to forgers seeking to defraud the Post and Telegraph department.
All but two of this set would have invited contemporary forgers, let alone later ones that only defrauded collectors.
I suspect that was part of the reason for them not being issued. India had stopped using Telegraph stamps in 1908, that is probably the rest of the reason.

Here are examples of the forgeries mentioned in Hiscocks notes above.

Note 3(c) Courtesy of Nicholas Turner , (capital-collectables) on eBay

Note 3(d) Courtesy of Gerard Bissett.

Here is a comparison with a (stated to be) genuine overprint second from the top.

The forged H269 (5R on 12c) is shown above and a different forgery I have of H267 (40c on 1R) is shown below.
The one below has very rounded 'C' of 'CENTS and 'O' of 'FORTY'. Diamond sizes: 3mm x 10mm (Note.3b ?).
I have added an example of the H265 forgery (Note 3c) at the bottom.

 

 

Stationery

Much of the early stationery used in Ceylon was that of India and will be found under India Stationery.
This section is for specifically stationery of Ceylon.

I know little about these, so this is a list of images shown here
My Ref.	Form No.	PO imprint	Date used	Comment
Cey_B5	Traffic Code Form B.	"Post Office B.—5."	17 June 1893	with 5c Postage stamp, for Foreign Telegrams - from London
Cey_B5R4	-	"Post Office — B 5 / (R 4*)"	11 January 1905	for Foreign Telegrams
Cey_B6	Traffic Code Form B.	"Post Office B.—6."	27 December 1894	for Foreign Telegrams  - from London
Cey_B7M6	?	"Post Office B 7 (M6*) ."	April 1894	for Inland or Indo-Ceylon Messages
Cey_B7L4	-	"Post Office B 7 (L4*) . "	4 March 1899	for Inland or Indo-Ceylon Messages
Cey_B7L4_unused	-	"Post Office B 7 (L4*) . "	-	for Inland or Indo-Ceylon Messages - UNUSED
Cey_B127-57	A	"Post Office B 127 (44-21*) 8/57 "	-	for Inland or Indian Telegrams - UNUSED
Cey_B3X8	-	"Post Office B 3 (X 8)."	30 June 1899	"Post Office Telegraphs"
Cey_B3X8_1905	-	"Post Office B 3 (X 8) / [June, 1905.] "	11 July 1907	"Post Office Telegraphs"

Sending Forms / Receipts.

Ceylon Government Telegraph form with a 5c postage stamp.      MyRef: Cey_B5

This "Traffic Code Form B." was used in Galle on 17 June 1893. It has a boxed "Post Office B.—5." at top-right.
Image courtesy of Wimal Suaris.
In India, Rule 44 said "Messages will be delivered free of charge at any place within five miles of a Telegraph Station. Beyond this distance, messages will be sent by Post or by such other means as the Sender may arrange and pay for."
This would create a need to pay sums not covered by Telegraph stamp denominations. Something similar probably applied in Ceylon.

This is said to be the earliest telegraphic use of postage stamps in Ceylon, also in Galle, but 1880.

Lot 37 of the listing of the Taprobana Collection Auction, courtesy of Stanley Gibbons, who say of this :
"1872-80 4ct grey watermark Crown CC, perf 14, horizontal pair each with three small punched holes of the Telegraph Check Office cancelled '(GA)LLE 12-' ; together with
perf 14 x 12½ block of eight (4 x 2), each with larger Check Office punched holes and with two complete 'GALLE 25-3-80' cancels. Very rare usage. SG 122, 134.
This rare block represents the earliest known use of Ceylon postage stamps for telegraphic purposes, at a time when Indian telegraph stamps (denominated in annas and rupees) were current."

 
Two with telegraph cancels courtesy of Chandima L. Fonseka.
Both 2c, with the brown issued in 1883 followed by the green in 1884, this being used in 1885.
I would be really interested to hear about other telegraphic use of postage stamps.

 

Ceylon Government Telegraph - for Foreign.      MyRef: Cey_B5R4

This was used in Colombo in January 1905. It has "Post Office — B 5 / (R 4*)" at top-right, but nothing at top-left.
This is a wide form and it looks like the perforations were not trusted when a lot of stamps were on there.
From lot 384 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Ceylon Government Telegraph.      MyRef: Cey_B6

This "Traffic Code Form B." was used in Colombo in December 1894. It has a boxed "Post Office B.—6." at top-right.
From lot 104 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons. Lot 394 included another dated November 1887.

 

     MyRef: Cey_B7M6

This was used in April 1894 and has a "PAID" mark of the C.M.Bank, so probably Colombo. It has "Post Office B 7 (M6*) . " at top-right.
From lot 394 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Ceylon Telegraph - for Inland.      MyRef: Cey_B7L4

This was used in Passara, a tea-growing area, in March 1899. It has "Post Office B 7 (L4*) . " at top-right, but nothing at top-left.
From lot 83 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Unused Ceylon Telegraph - for Inland. Date unknown.      MyRef: Cey_B7L4_unused

An unused form similar to the last. It has "Post Office B 7 (L4*) . " at top-right, nothing at top-left, and space for 21 words.
From lot 390 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Unused, Ceylon Telegraph - for Inland or India. Emblem implies 1954 or later, imprint suggests August 1957.      MyRef: Cey_B127-57

The bottom-left says "GOVT. PRESS, CEYLON.". There is an imprint at top-right that suggests a printing of August 1957.

Image courtesy of mr.mouse2022 on eBay (click image for listing).

 

Delivery Forms.

Ceylon Post Office Telegraph.      MyRef: Cey_B3X8

This form was used in Colombo 30 June 1899. It has "Post Office B 3 (X 8)" at top-right.
From lot 392 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

Ceylon Post Office Telegraphs.      MyRef: Cey_B3X8_1905

Similar to the last, but now with space for a date-stamp. It was used in Jaffna on 11 July 1907. It has "Post Office B 3 (X 8) / [June, 1905.] " at top-right.
From lot 391 of the Taprobana Collection Auction). Image courtesy of Stanley Gibbons.

 

 

Envelopes.

Department of Posts & Telecommunications Envelope.
This is presumably quite modern, but date unknown.

Image courtesy of Rolf Lamprecht.

 

 

Afterwards

The use of telegraph stamps was abandoned on 1 August 1910. After that, normal postage stamps were used and can only be identified by cancel if not on piece.   Here are a couple of KGVI, 50c examples, on the left from RL, and on the right from Chandima L. Fonseka. A punched KGVI 1 Rupee from RL which has nothing to do with telegraphs. Though many countries routinely punched telegraph stamps, Ceylon was not one of them. Chandima L. Fonseka tells me that the script "එච්. වී. මා...." on it says "H. V. Maa...", the beginning of a signature. This was fiscally used, perhaps for a deed.

An example from Chandima L. Fonseka dated 25 October 1949. This was used in Nugegoda, about 10km from Colombo.

Here is a selection of later stamps from 1957 to 1971 with various telegraph cancels:

1957 to 1968 examples of mine.

1964 and 1968 example courtesy of Chandima L. Fonseka.

1971 example of mine.

As Ceylon progressed towards becoming Sri Lanka, so English text on the cancels was also replaced. Chandima tells me that "විදුළි පණිවුඩ" means "TELEGRAPH". Thanks Chandima.

1970 to 1987 examples courtesy of Chandima L. Fonseka.


1979 examples courtesy of Chandima L. Fonseka.

 

It should be noted though, that telegraph and post offices were often combined and telegraph cancels could be applied to non-telegraphic mail.

This registered envelope of 1951 has a Telegraph cancel of Kegalla and was mailed to an Insurance Company in Colombo. It might be thought that Kegalla received a telegram for Colombo and mailed it on, but Colombo had the telegraph for many decades by then. Additionally, the enhanced cachet on the front shows it was mailed by a "Proctor and Notary", not the telegraph office. It presumably contained documents required by the Insurance Company. The backstamp is also shown. Images courtesy of wendiwoo-2008.

This has a Wellawatta telegraph cancellations. It constitutes a First Day Cover Sent to Fife in Scotland on 1 October 1958. Clearly this was not Telegraphic. Images courtesy of Chandima L. Fonseka.