General Telegraph 6d

Telegraph stamps of Great Britain.

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

This site has been expanding. Click here for a site-map.

Railway Telegraph cancel on 10s
अनुवाद Übersetzen sie Traduisez ترجم
перевести Traduca Traduzca 翻译
Back to HOME
General Telegraph 6d Electric Telegraph Submarine British English & Irish British & Irish LDTC UK Electric South Eastern Railway London, Chatham and Dover Railway
General Telegraph Electric Telegraph Submarine British Telegraph English & Irish British & Irish London District UK Electric S.E.R. L.C. & D.R.
Bonelli Universal Private Telegraph Company National Telephone Company Army Telegraphs-1 Army Telegraphs-2 Railway Telegraph cancel on 10s Post Office Telegraphs Unusual Unexpected Contributions
Bonelli's Universal Tel. National Telephone Army Telegraphs 1 Army Telegraphs 2 Railway Post Office Unusual Unexpected Contributions


Prices have been brought up to date, and are for stamps in 'average' condition.  
The currency is now selectable, the default is British Currency (£).
  I have revised Hiscocks' original listing, though leaving references to the original designations. 
The new designations have 'RH' numbers (Revised Hiscocks) to avoid confusion.
CheckList         Setup


Bonelli's Electric Telegraph Company Limited.

Steve Hiscocks wrote:
This company was set up in 1861 to exploit an improved print-out technique. It is generally supposed that the company never in fact acquired
any lines or transmitted any messages but that the stamps were produced by Waterlow and Sons in anticipation. However a note written some fifty
years later in 1908 by a man previously associated with the company (Morley's Philatelic Journal) recalls their having a single line from Manchester
to Liverpool and suggests that a few stamps were in fact used although the company did very little business. The second design of the 3d value (No.5)
was issues in a booklet (seven sheets of 12 (3 x 4) completely surroundedby selvedge, plain thin covers, sewn, numbering alternatively left to right
and right to left down each sheet). This is thought to be in the first production of a stamp booklet anywhere in the world, predating the London and
(q.v) by a year, the Californian State Telegraph Co. by eight to nine years and the first postage stamps by 28 years.

There is no evidence that the 9d and 1s were used (Perf.12½), but there is statistical evidence
in the form of survival rates to suggest that the 3d and 6d were used.

Note on perforations: There is a difference of opinion between Hiscocks and L&H on the perforations of most of these.
Hiscocks says they all have Perf.12¾ except for H2a (Perf.12) and H5 (Perf.13).
L&H say that only the normal 6d is this size and all the rest (except H2a) are Perf 12½.
I find that apart from H2a they measure about Perf. 12.6 to 12.7 so I will refer to them as Perf 12¾.
I put the differences of opinion down to somewhat uneven perforations.

Like the Universal Private Telegraph Company stamps, these were printed in sheets of 100.
In each row, the second series of 5 matched the first, so that any variety was repeated every 5th stamp.
Both companies had their stamps printed by Waterlow and Sons on, apparently, T. H. Saunders watermarked paper.

Since this disagrees with Langmead & Huggins assertion of 8 x 10 stamps per sheet,
I give the evidence of this on the Bonelli's_Proof page.

Bonilli's 6d Electric Telegraph


RH # Hisc. Description Rarity Mint Used
RH1 H1 3d bright green (tall 'THREEPENCE') Common 20.00 -
RH1a H1a         3d bright green (short 'THREEPENCE') Common 30.00 -
RH1b -         3d bright green (both sizes in pair) R5 - -
RH1c -         3d bright green scratch on buckle Common 30.00 -
RH2 H2 6d black Common 20.00 -
RH2a H2a         6d dark grey Perf.12 Common 50.00 -
RH2b -         6d dark grey scratch on buckle Common 30.00 -
RH2c H2b         6d black Imperf without control. R3 150.00 -
RH2d -         as RH2c with scratch on buckle. R3 180.00 -
RH3 H3 9d light blue Common 20.00 -
RH3a           9d light blue Perf. without control R4 250.00  
RH4 H4 1s red Common 20.00 -
RH4a           1s red Perf. without control R4 250.00  
RH5 H5 3d brown (from booklets) Common 15.00 -
RH5a           imperf. between pair (2995 - 3076) ? 150.00 -
RH5b           complete pane of 6 ? 120.00 -
RH5c           complete pane of 12 ? 300.00 -

Look here for an explanation of the table.

The company failed June 1864, though it retained assets that were eventually transferred to the Post Office.
More details at


Shortcuts to different sections
Highest & lowest Watermark Plate production 3d Green 6d 9d 1s Used ? 3d booklets Calculator


Highest & lowest.

One of mine. Courtesy of Steve Lawrie. Courtesy of Robert Poposki. Courtesy of
Bonilli's 3d Electric Telegraph, 201 6d Column 6 Bonilli's 9d Electric Telegraph, 4781 Bonilli's 1s Electric Telegraph, 4996
3d   RH1   lowest control known 201 6d   RH2a   lowest control known 30 9d   RH3   lowest control known 1 1s   RH4   lowest control known 1712

I know of the 3d green in the range of 201 to 9740.
I know of the 6d black in the range of 30 to 19100, but according to Langmead & Huggins the highest control known is 19515.
I know of the 9d blue in the range of 1 to 4781.
I know of the 1s red in the range of 1712 to 4996.

One of mine. Courtesy of Grosvenor Auctions One of mine. Courtesy of Steve Lawrie.
Bonilli's 3d Electric Telegraph, 9822 Bonilli's 6d Electric Telegraph, 19515 Bonilli's 9d Electric Telegraph, 4781 Bonilli's 1s Electric Telegraph, 4996
3d   RH1   highest control known 9822 6d   RH1   highest control known 19515
As reported by Langmead & Huggins
9d   RH3   highest control known 4781 1s   RH4   highest control known 4996


Philbrick & Westoby (1881) were of the opinion that no Bonelli stamps were ever used. They stated:
"The stamps are readily procurable, having never been employed for telegraph purposes, and having consequently never been used or destroyed."
If that was the case, then a random selection of stamps should be randomply spread across the sheets printed, for any of the face values.
Look at the figures though:

Valuesheets that examples have been seen from Sheet Qty LowestHighest % evident
3d green 2, 21, 22, 23, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 55, 68, 84, 85, 97, 98. 16 201 9740 16.3
6d black 0, 56, 92, 110, 129, 142, 143, 182, 183, 184-186, 187, 188-191, 195. 18 30 19515 9.2
9d blue 0-6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 31, 33, 36, 37, 42-44, 45-47 22 1 4781 45.8
1s red 17, 27, 29, 32-42, 45, 47, 49 17 1712 4996 34.0

6d sheets up to 92 at least are Perf.12, sheets 143 and 187 have mis-numbering towards the bottom.
Taking the highest number control for each as an indication of the number of sheets printed, together with the number of sheets that I have seen examples from
provides an interesting statistic, though interpretation is less easy.

One interpretation is that the 3d and 6d values were actually used and subsequently destroyed along with used forms,
and that the 9d and shilling values were either not used or little used.
Also, about the first hundred sheets of the 6d were perforated differently, and most of them have disappeared?



As Raymond Lister (1961) correctly states, parts of a papermaker's watermark can be found on some stamps,
It would be nice to one day be able to illustrate the whole watermark, but multiples are very scarce.
I will show the portions I have seen, but it is already beginning to look like the paper was made by T. H. Saunders like that of the Universal Tel. Co.

Bon-3d-2228a Bon-3d-9822a
3d control 2228 3d control 9822


Bon-6d-14378a Bon-6d-14398a
Bon-6d-14378b Bon-6d-14398b
6d control 14378 6d control 14398 there may be something before the 'S'

Anyone got 14388 ?   Actually it isn't quite that simple.
The stamp numbered 14398 is actually mis-numbered, the last digit should be '0' or '5'. See below.

Bon-9d-3113a Bon-1s-4083a
Bon-9d-3113b Bon-1s-4083b
9d control 3113 1/- control 4083


Plate production.

Since the 6d value is the only one known imperf and perf.12, I presume that it was the first plate made.

The transfer group of 5 stamps for the 3d was then made by copying from the 6d and then
changing the value tablets. This is the source of the famous 'small threepence' variety, and a few other minor defects.

Look at the buckle on these four below.

6d Column 0 6d Column 5 3d Column 0 3d Column 5

The scratch on the buckle occurs on all of the 6d stamps and all of the 3d stamps with the last digit of the control a '0' or '5'.
It does not occur on the 9d or 1s values. It is not on any other 3d or 6d stamps either.

This was not done for the 9d and 1s values. the other flaws (not involving the value tablets) are also the same on the 3d green and 6d.


The plate for the 3d green was produced from the 6d transfer-block by removing the 6d value and inserting 'THREEPANCE'.
Langmead & Huggins (following Hiscocks) note that there are two types of the 3d green with different sizes of the 'THREEPENCE'.
The difference is not easy to distinguish with single stamps, but S.E.R. Hiscocks gives the more helpful note that
in the large type, the 'T' and 'H' are almost touching (as above), whilst in the smaller type they are well separated.

Bonilli's 3d Electric Telegraph control 8593 Bonilli's 3d Electric Telegraph control 8507 Bonilli's 3d Electric Telegraph control 8442
Normal for comparison. Column 7. Column 2, courtesy of  Roger de Lacy-Spencer.

The 3d green stamps with small 'THREEPENCE' are on stamps with controls ending with '2' or '7'. The stamps with controls ending in '0' or '5' are almost as small.

This implies that nearly 45% of horizontal 3d green pairs (4 pairs out of 9 per row of 10 stamps) would have a large and small type (L&H Rarity R5).
i.e. (1-2), (2-3), (6-7), (7-8) or 4 pairs in each row of 10 stamps leaving (3-4), (4-5), (5-6), (8-9) and (9-0) which would have both types large.
This fact is quite extraordinary, I can only assume that all pairs of the 3d green are very scarce (it is the only value I do not have as a block of 4).


Plate characteristics.


3d Green.

3d Column 1 3d Column 2 3d Column 3 3d Column 4 3d Column 5
3d Column 1, as 6d flaws below plus
Dot on top of last 'E' in 'THREEPENCE'.
3d Column 2, as 6d flaws below plus
3d Column 3,
as 6d flaws below.
3d Column 4, as 6d flaws below plus
Dot bottom-left in value tablet.
3d Column 5,
6d flaws as below.
One of mine. Courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson. One of mine. One of mine. One of mine.
3d Column 6 Bonilli's 3d Electric Telegraph control 8507 3d Column 8 3d Column 9 3d Column 0
3d Column 6, as 6d flaws below plus
Dot on top of last 'E' in 'THREEPENCE'.
3d Column 7, as 6d flaws below plus
3d Column 8,
as 6d flaws below.
3d Column 9, as 6d flaws below plus
Dot bottom-left in value tablet.
3d Column 0,
as 6d flaws below.
One of mine. One of mine. One of mine. Courtesy of Steve Lawrie. One of mine.


3d pair
3d pair
This pair shows that the 'THREEPENCE' on columns 0 and 5 is almost as small as that on columns 2 and 7.
Image courtesy of Martien Blank.
The 2206/7 pair showing different sizes of 'THREEPENCE'. This is from
Langmead & Huggins' book (colour plate 2), courtesy of the Great Britain Philatelic Society

These two pairs are coincidentally from the same sheet. Pairs of these are scarce, I only know of three. I have not seen any larger multiples.


6d Black.

6d Column 1 6d Column 2 6d Column 3 6d Column 4 6d Column 5
6d Column 1
Dot over 'A' of 'TELEGRAPH'
6d Column 2, Dot between
lines of Control Tablet above 'o' of 'No'.
6d Column 3, White dot left of
'T' in 'Telegraph' and broken frame nearby.
6d Column 4
White spot in top of 'D' in 'LIMITED'
6d Column 5
Black scratch on Buckle.
Courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson. One of mine. Courtesy of  Mike Jackson. One of mine. One of mine.
6d Column 6 6d Column 7 6d Column 8 6d Column 9 6d Column 0
6d Column 6
White dot over 'A' of 'TELEGRAPH'
6d Column 7, Black dot between
lines of Control Tablet above 'o' of 'No'.
6d Column 8, White dot left of
'T' in 'Telegraph' and broken frame nearby.
6d Column 9
White spot in top of 'D' in 'LIMITED'
6d Column 0
Black scratch on Buckle.


I find it hard to distinguish between the shades of the 6d.

Bonilli's 6d Electric Telegraph Bonilli's 6d Electric Telegraph Bonilli's 6d Electric Telegraph
6d Imperf Proof.   RH2b Black 1st.printing.   6d Perf. 12   RH2a Light Grey 1st.printing.   6d Perf. 12   Highest known number, 9222
Bonilli's 6d Electric Telegraph Bonilli's 6d Electric Telegraph
2nd.printing.   6d Perf. 12¾   RH2 Black 3rd.printing.   6d Perf. 12¾   RH2 Light Grey


According to Langmead & Huggins the 6d has the following printings:
  1. Imperf Proofs, no control, black.
  2. 1st. printing, Perf 12 known up to control 8499, light grey. (9222 shown above)
  3. 2nd. printing, Perf 12¾ known up to control 14387, black. (lowest not given !)
  4. 3rd. printing, Perf 12¾known up to control 19515, light grey. (lowest not given !)

Personally I see no significant difference between any of these. But then these were all scanned on the same scanner.
Perhaps images created with different scanners by different people would look different.
I would like to see both 'shades' scanned side by side together with the same background.

It would have really helped if Langmead & Huggins had quoted lowest numbers seen as well as the highest known number.
If the intention is to find a boundary, there seems little point quoting a 'known up to' figure without a 'known down to' figure also.


Dr Mark Gibson kindly sent me the scans below as an example of the two shades.
However if 18794 is indeed from the 2nd printing then it considerably extends the number of 14387 given.
The 19023 would seem to be from the same sheet as my example above, although the perforations are well shifted!

Bonilli's 6d Black Electric Telegraph Bonilli's 6d Grey Electric Telegraph Bonilli's 6d Grey Electric Telegraph
2nd.printing.   6d control 18794   Black
Known up to control 14387 according to L&H !
Puzzlingly, this has the characteristics of a
column 1/6 stamp !   See the "6d Anomaly" below.
3rd.printing.   6d control 19023   Light Grey 6d with London Hooded Circle of 1894
Images courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson.

Perhaps it is a mistake to scan these with a black background.


6d Sheets 143 and 187 Anomalies.

In showing shades above, I came across some mis-numbering
Compare these with the '2', '3' and '4' numbered ones above.

Here is 18794 again, together with 18793 which is correct. The alignment of horizontal to vertical perforations at the corners show that they were not adjacent.
18763 and 18793 both have the expected flaw above the 'T' of 'TELEGRAPH'. 18794 doesn't have the expected 'D' flaw at the end of 'LIMITED', but instead has a dot over the 'A' of 'TELEGRAPH'.
Numbers 18702, 18707, 18717, 18727, 18733, 18734, 18738, 18743, 18744, 18763, 18793 on this sheet and 18827, 18835 on the next, are all correct.

6d Column 7
Bonilli's 6d Black Electric Telegraph-18763 Bonilli's 6d Black Electric Telegraph-18793 Bonilli's 6d Black Electric Telegraph-18794
18763 - correct. 18793 - correct. 18794 should have last digit '1' or '6'.
Anonymous. One of mine. Image courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson.
On the left is a strip of column 7 from the first 3 rows. The black dot between lines of the control-tablet
above 'o' of 'No' (the same as 18702) can just about be seen on a couple of them so these are not mis-numbered.

This error seems very localized probably just a few stamps on the bottom row.
Anyone have more examples from 18761 to 18800?

Either Mark's stamp is very rare, or perhaps there were many such errors.

  If the control numbers were just for accounting purposes, then it does not require any specific pattern of use, only that 100 numbers were used on a sheet of 100 stamps.
The fact that I can plate them at all implies that the pattern was generally regular anyway, which makes irregularities all the more interesting.

In looking out for other irregularities, I came across 14398:-
6d 14387 6d 14398
The scratch on the buckle indicates this should have had '0' or '5' for the last digit.
From this sheet, I also have 14339, 57, 65 and 78, but only this last one is mis-numbered.
14387, image courtesy of Grosvenor Auctions (ex-Iain Stevenson) is also correctly numbered.
Both of these mis-numbered examples are from the bottom row of a sheet.

18707, 18717, 18727 - correct.



9d Blue.

9d Column 1 9d Column 2 9d Column 3 9d Column 4 9d Column 5
9d Column 1, White marks bottom-right corner
and below 2nd. 'E' in 'ELECTRIC'. Broken 'N'.
9d Column 2, Blemishes on 'R' of 'ELECTRIC',
2nd.'E' of 'TELEGRAPH', dot over head on some.
9d Column 3,
White mark between 'I' and 'C' of 'ELECTRIC'.
9d Column 4, Shadow under
9d Column 5
Dot each side of 1st. 'E' of 'ELECTRIC'.
Courtesy of Robert Poposki. One of mine. One of mine. Courtesy of Steve Lawrie. One of mine.
9d Column 6 9d Column 7 9d Column 8 9d Column 9 9d Column 0
9d Column 6, White marks bottom-right corner
and below 2nd. 'E' in 'ELECTRIC'. Broken 'N'.
The mark in the serial number panel is on some.
9d Column 7, Blemishes on 'R' of 'ELECTRIC',
2nd.'E' of 'TELEGRAPH', often dot over head.
9d Column 8,
White mark between 'I' and 'C' of 'ELECTRIC'.
9d Column 9, Shadow under
9d Column 0
Dot each side of 1st. 'E' of 'ELECTRIC'.
Courtesy of Steve Lawrie. One of mine. One of mine. Courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson. One of mine.


Bonilli's 9d Electric Telegraph block of 4 The dot above the head on columns '2' and '7'
is not on every stamp.
Above, the pronounced dot over the head of Mercury can be
seen on '277' and '382' but is not on '372' on the left.

I have been looking at all the examples I can find of these and done an analysis.
The table below shows the pattern I have found so far.

using '*' to represent dots and 'o' to represent no dots gives this table:

col 2 o o o o o * * o * o
col 7o o o o*o * o o

There is still one that I have not yet seen.
Anyone have examples ending with 17 ?


There is perhaps a similar situation on columns 1/6. See 346 above.
I have only recently noticed this and need to see more examples, but
here is a start on a similar table:

col 1 o   o o         o  
col 6     o  *   o o o 

I have only seen this is on 246 and 346, so possibly it's just on one stamp per sheet.
Can anyone help fill some of the gaps ?

Bonilli's 9d Electric Telegraph pair This pair is from 5 columns away with the same flaws.




1s Orange-Vermilion.

1s Column 1 1s Column 2 1s Column 3 1s Column 4 1s Column 5
1s Column 1, White scratch
between 'E' and 'C' of 'ELECTRIC'.
1s Column 2
White mark top-right of 'L' in 'ELECTRIC'.
1s Column 3, Line above 'N' of 'SHILLING'
indented with dot, and other mark before it.
1s Column 4, Shortened 'L' and
Deformed first 'E' in 'TELEGRAPH'.
1s Column 5, Frame break left of serial tablet
and damaged 'IN' in 'SHILLING'.
Courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson. One of mine. One of mine. One of mine. Courtesy of
1s Column 6 1s Column 7 1s Column 8 1s Column 9 1s Column 0
1s Column 6, White scratch
between 'E' and 'C' of 'ELECTRIC'.
1s Column 7
White mark top-right of 'L' in 'ELECTRIC'.
1s Column 8, Line above 'N' of 'SHILLING'
indented with dot, and mark before it.
1s Column 9, Short 'L' and
Deformed first 'E' in 'TELEGRAPH'.
1s Column 0, Frame break left of serial tablet
and damaged 'IN' in 'SHILLING'.
Anonymous  Courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson. One of mine. One of mine. One of mine.


Used ?

3d used at Totton  9d used at Totton  1s used at Totton
Some joker in 1956 decided to get postal cancellations on some telegraph stamps. They are cancelled in Totton, Southampton.
The 3d and 9d are dated 7 September 1956 and the 1s is dated 4 August 1956.
The 3d and 1s still have full gum, so were presumably cancelled by favour. I don't know about the 9d.
This cancel is also known on stamps of the English & Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company and the London District Telegraph Company (Limited).
9d image courtesy of The other two are mine.
A 6d stamp with an 1894 London Hooded Circle postal cancel is shown above.



3d Booklets.

Lowest seen 108, highest 18714 (L&H report 18946).


To me the variation in shade of the later booklet 3d (RH5) is much more noteworthy than the 6d, but doesn't get a mention!
These are to the same scale as the ones above. The stamps are longer to allow for a larger control tablet. 18714 below is the highest number I have seen.
With the 3d green, the control numbers were smaller to allow for more digits. The fact that these are re-designed and now the digits are larger has implications.
Presumably the 3d green was produced before booklet stamps were envisaged and the booklets had to be numbered by hand.
This suggests that the sheet stamps were numbered by machine.

It is normally stated as fact that these were all numbered in a serpentine manner. However I have found that not all of them were.
Some were numbered in the conventional manner. For the evidence, see my Bonelli's_Proof page.

Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps   Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps   Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
The quality of the perforations is much poorer also. They may be likened to chain-saws.

There were two types of booklets, both had 7 pages with 3 stamps to a row.
One type had 2 rows, the other 4 rows of stamps per sheet and were numbered in a serpentine fashion.
It is generally assumed that Waterlow & Sons produced the booklet stamps as well as the sheet stamps.
I have not seen their imprint on any of the booklet stamps however.

Bonilli's 3d booklet pane 10017
Reconstruction of a 3 x 2 booklet pane showing serpentine numbering.
Half-size image, courtesy of Dr Mark Gibson.

Bonilli's 3d booklet pane

Another example from the top-right side.


The red numbers are the control numbers modulus 6, explained below.

Bonilli's 3d booklet pane 18631
Reconstruction of a 3 x 4 booklet pane showing serpentine numbering.
Half-size image, no selvedge at the top.
Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
The low numbered ones are scarce and had red-brown wrappers,
the later ones had greenish-grey wrappers. This is displacement group 2.

One thing I find puzzling is that, if we assume these were both panes of 6 stamps, then between them were controls 10021 through 18628.
This represents 8608 stamps (18628 - 10021 + 1). This represents 1434 panes of 6 plus 4 stamps ?


Since these two blocks represent the same positions in a pane, I thought I would compare them for similar details.
This was not simply because I had too much time on my hands. I have been puzzling over LDTC stamps for a while,
it seems that while some make a regular pattern, some do not.

I wondered if it was because some were booklet and some were not. This made me think of the Bonelli's.
Because of the serpentine pattern of the control number, there is no easy way to find position from the control number.

Taking modulus 6 (the remainder left when dividing by 6) of the Control Numbers is helpful.
If the numbering started at control number 1 and the numbering remained consistent, the mod-6 numbering on the
booklet pane above should have started at 1, not 5. It is out of sync by 2.
I refer to this as displacement-2. It will be seen that the dispacement varies and the numbering is sometimes NOT consistent.

Here are the most noticeable constant flaws for the repeating unit of 6 stamps.
I have included the mod-6 value, assuming displacement-0, as they presumably started.

Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
E-flaw-a. Mod 6 = 1
Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
Dagger flaw. Mod 6 = 2
Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
N-flaw. Mod 6 = 3
Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
N-flaw alternative. Mod 6 = 3
Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
E-flaw-b. Mod 6 = 0
Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
U-flaw. Mod 6 = 5
Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamps
Scroll-flaw. Mod 6 = 4
The flaw above is on the same stamps
as the N-flaw, but the N-flaw is
not always clearly visible, so this may
sometimes help.

It can be seen below on:

2583, 13735 and 1668.


Bonilli's 3d Booklet E-flaw-b progress Bonilli's 3d Booklet stamp - 1668
E-flaw-b gradually changes as the plate ages. 1668 (Courtesy of  Mike Jackson) had me puzzled for a while.
It has the same flaw in the bottom-right diamond as the 3 above.
It is between a Displacement-3 and a Displacement-2 group
so should have E-flaw-b or N-flaw. But I couldn't see either.
Then I noticed the small mark above 'MI' at the bottom.
It matches the two above with the N-flaw.
Perhaps this flaw first appears somewhere between
1668 and 2583, or perhaps it is weak on this stamp.
Anyway, 1668 is in the Displacement-3 group



For those that have found the arguments a bit tenuous so far, thankfully I can now show you a booklet pane that makes it more salient
The lowest number on this pane is 18275. The lowest number on the pane shown above is 15823, a difference of 2452, representing 204 panes of 12 plus 4 stamps.
The argument is about how this 4-stamp anomaly arose and the consequences.

Bonilli's 3d Booklet pane
Can you see the two with 'dagger flaws' ?   Image courtesy of Paul Ramsay

These numbers are there for accountancy purposes.
The Victorians took accountancy very seriously and to their credit the numbering is in general very reliable.
4 x 3d = 1/- which is not insignificant in Victorian days, 3d coins were made of silver.
The discrepancy could be the result of one incident or several. Since such incidents seem rare, let us assume for the moment it was just one.
At the moment we know that this discrepancy took place between 16318 and 17141,
a range of 823 stamps or less than 69 sheets, quite a narrow range for more than one mistake.
Off-hand I can think of three possible scenarios:

1) Somehow a mistake wasted 4 numbers ( + 0 or more sheets) and numbering was continued without resetting the counter.
2) The numbering machine was used for other things. The counter being set as needed for each job. At one point the counter was set 100 too high (8 sheets + 4 stamps).
3) 4 stamps were numbered 'By Favor' for a V.I.P.


I spent some time trying to pin down the boundaries of the displaced groups.
anyone wanting the (painful) details can find it on the Bonelli's_Proof page.

Here are my current findings (so far):

1 assumed as 'displacement-0'.
2 - 107 'unknown'.
108 was 'displacement-2'.
109 - 322 'unknown'.
323 and 340 were 'displacement-4'.
341 - 884 'unknown'.
885, 903, 958, 965, 973, 974, 1309, 1553, 1608, 1589, 1619, 1668, 1715 were 'displacement-3'.
1716 - 1722 'unknown'.
1723 was 'displacement-5'(E-flaw-b) (or conventionally numbered 'displacement-3').
1724 - 1745 'unknown'.
1746 was 'displacement-0'.
1747 - 1785 'unknown'.
1786 to 1875 conventionally numbered and 'displacement-3'.
1876 - 2109 'unknown'.
2110 - 2111 conventionally numbered 'displacement-0').
2112 - 2199 'unknown'.
2200 - 2202 conventionally numbered 'displacement-0').
2203 - 2582 'unknown'.
2583, 2920 were 'displacement-0'.
2921 - 3516 'unknown'.
3517 - 3528 conventionally numbered 'displacement-0').
3529 - 6822 'unknown'.
6823, 6824, 10015, 14098, 14324, 14738-14741, 15691, 15703/4,
15719, 15735, 15823, 15912, 16244, 16318 were 'displacement-0'.
16319 - 17134 'unknown'.
17135, 17136, 17141, 17144, 17778, 18275, 18629, 18714 were 'displacement-2'.
18715 onwards 'unknown'.

By conventionally I mean that they have been numbered left to right on each row,
instead of the expected serpentine procedure.


Any of these ranges may contain pockets of something different

I have included this information in the 'widgit' tool below to help identify flaws, and to help identify further inconsistencies.
I would appreciate information with a scan of any examples that break the known pattern or narrow the boundary areas.

This will check your booklet control numbers for flaws.

Enter a Control number to check          

Dispacement_0 image Displacement-1 image Displacement-2 image Displacement-3 image Displacement-4 image Displacement-5 image
Displacement-0 group. Displacement-1 group. Displacement-2 group. Displacement-3 group. Displacement-4 group. Displacement-5 group.

The 'widget' above will correctly show the flaws on 80%+ of the booklet stamps and
show the possibilities for the ones where I have not yet determined the 'displacement'.
It will also flag if the number entered is a new 'highest known' control number.

Please send a scan of any it gives the wrong results for.


The fact that I found it hard to get a
scan of the top-right stamp of the
booklet pane might tempt me to think
that it was because they
preferentially got used first.

However, since everyone knows that
the Bonelli's were never used,
that cannot be the reason.

This last is a test for you,
Another (digitally) reunited pair.

Are these numbered in the correct sequence?
Bonilli's 3d used booklet stamps
For an alternative explanation see booklet precancels 6823 Courtesy of  Mike Jackson,     6824 Courtesy of Mark Talbot.


Complete booklets.

Langmead & Huggins say they have seen the following booklets of 84 stamps (7 x 12):
14479 - 14562
18863 - 18946

In addition Steve Lawrie has:
15823 - 15906

Steve Lawrie's is in a Displacement-0 area, and L&H's low numbers are too.
Taking the last stamps in the booklets:

15906 - 14562 = 1344 = 16 x 84   -   this is consistent with the stamps between being used to make 15 complete booklet.

18946 - 15906 = 3040 = 36.190476 x 84       this is not consistent.     3040 = 36 booklets + 16 stamps.

This would make the first stamp mod-6 = 5 instead of mod-6 = 1
That makes it Displacement-2 which is the same as the highest that I have seen 18714.
For now I will assume that 18715 to 18946 are all Displacement-2 until proved otherwise.



Comments, criticisms, information or suggestions are always welcome.
Contact:   Emale
Please include the word 'Telegraphs' in the subject.
Alternatively Yahoo Group   Yahoo-Group   is a forum.


Last updated 25th. March 2019

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


Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional  Valid CSS!