BEF 1939 - 40 / FPO 168

[Ingo Egerlandt]

Hello members,

have you a Information about this FPO 168? Daynes note later Dates and not in France or Home Force. The date is 14th December 1939. Is the year a error from the FPO Officers?

Many thanks about answers.

Ingo

[Peter Harvey]

Ingo,

Are you sure this is not 68 - Proud records as in France 11.12.39 through 14.6.40. Where as 168 is not recorded used to 1942?

[Michael Dobbs]

Ingo - This is a difficult one !

A typewritten manuscript (the history of which I don't know, but I believe that this has been used as the basis for all WW2 British FPO recordings) shows the following in respect of FPO 168:

? 9th Army P.U. Palestine 44
B.A. 8. MEF
22 Mar 43 5 L. of C. M.E.F. 21 Feb 41
12 Jan 46 5 L. of C. P.U. M.E.F.
2 Apr 47 B.A.P.O. Moascar
Jun '49 9 B.A.P.O.

There is also a handwritten entry ME 41-43 next to the number (my copy is a photocopy and so this handwritten is not too clear.  This nearly ties in with Proud's entries.

Irrespective of the accuracy of some of the above entries, 9th Army is known to have served in the Middle East from Nov 1941 to Aug 1945.

Now turning to the cover in question - I can easily see why Ingo thought that this might be 168.  But if you blow up the image of just the datestamp you will see that it could easily be 68 - the so-called '1' being the right hand edge of the left thick bars.  You will notice that this is not dead straight.  Now look at this display I have found of the web:
https://www.davidfeldman.com/wp-content/uploads/items_treated_pdf/2015/03/136240-1_270400_1426762612.pdf

The very first cover shown is a clear FPO 169 and you will see that the '1' of 169 is indeed dead straight.  That coupled with Ingo's date of 14 DE 39 and dates of use in Proud suggests to me it is 68 and not 168 - I therefore go along with Peter Harvey and suggest it is FPO 68.

Mike

[Ingo Egerlandt]

Hi Peter and Mike,

I control my FPO 68 envelopes. I think about, it is FPO 68!

When I look my handstamp from 1940, the FPO 68 is not shifted and from handstamp from 1939 the FPO number shifted to right. Please look at the different of the FPO 68 handstamp. And from FPO 68 exist more than one handstamp. The first picture has got a "A" in 1940 and no letter inside in 1939.

Thank you for help and history from FPO 168.

Ingo

[Ross Debenham]

I agree definately FPO 68. I got caught out not long ago where somebody advertised an envelope as FPO 141 when it was actually FPO 41.