1.E.F. cachet - 1916

[Michael Dobbs]

I have received an enquiry concerning an unusual WW1 cover with 1.E.F. cachet (not IEF). Can anyone identify the cachet if possible and provide any additional information on its use ?

The reverse appears to show 'part' of a Cairo or Alexandria obliteration; the obverse shows the 1.E.F. cachet which at first the person making the enquiry thought that it may have been First Eastern Force, but as the Rottingdean postmark is 16 May 1916, this was before the First was formed.  Also is there any text missing from the line which has 1.E.F. ?

Or is this simply I.E.F. but the numeral '1' used in error ?

Your thoughts welcome please.

Thanks, Mike  :)

[Ross Debenham]

Mike
I believe this is an incomplete impression of an Indian Expeditionary Force marker used on the front of OAS envelopes in East Africa with quite a lot missing. They were most probably produced by workers with limited knowledge of the English language and this is a genuine error with 1 being inserted for I. On the gailsinger site on Ebay there is an envelope with the word "POSTAGE" incorrectly spelt withing to body of the same type of marker. I am not sure but the above error could also appear in the marker. The Field Post Office marker also appeared on the rear of the envelopes. The partial FPO post marker on could well be 315 which I believe was used in East Africa, but your guess is a good as mine. hope the helps.

[akennedy]

The full wording of the cachet is:

I.E.F. "B" F.P.O No .....
  POSTAGE FREE

Apart from minor variations in style, this cachet was used by most of the Indian FPOs in East Africa in WW1.

Indian Expeditionary Force "B" was the designation for the Force in East Africa.

The first letter is definitely a capital letter l. What is being read as a serif, making a figure 1, is actually a manuscript dot, similar to that a little to the left.

I don't know how the suggested origin of Cairo or Alexandria for the partial postmark on the reverse is arrived at - it is clearly an Indian FPO, number ending in 1. Could be 301 or more likely 51 or 21. The same number would be in the cachet.

Alistair

[Michael Dobbs]

To Ross and in particular Alistair

Many thanks for your responses.  I have now taken a closer look at the illustration and would agree with Alistair that it is indeed an 'I' and not a '1' for the reasons he gave.

Regards, Mike  ;D