Forces Letter.

[Chris Weddell]

Hello,

        Can anyone tell me anything at at all about the 'HM NAVAL SERVICE' mark or the 'NOT REQUIRED' mark.

Also can anyone read the name of the ship which is written in red.

                                              Thanks in advance

                                                  Chris

[Frank Schofield]

Chris

The boxed HM / NAVAL / SERVICE looks very Australian to me

The NOT REQUIRED refers to the Tax charge mark

Sorry cannot make out the name of the ship, even at 200% blow up

My Naval lists do not go into the QEII period, so cannot help with the officer

Is the item dated??

Frank Schofield

[Chris Weddell]

Frank,

        Sorry no date at all on the letter. I have just looked in Proud's History of the Australian Military Postal Service but that only goes up to 1950.

                                                                Regards

                                                                Chris
                                                                               

[Nick Colley]

Well, wrt date(s), I see the 3d Wilding has O.A.S. written across it - presumably to justify the 'NOT REQUIRED' cachet?

SO: we have allegedly free air mail, from a RN officer on active service, handled through the Australian (naval) mail channels. From the Korean theatre? It must be late for that, though, to have a QE2 stamp affixed?

Best I can contribute without a (1953?) Navy List.

chrs
N

[Chris Weddell]

Nick,

      Thank you for your help. I was hoping it was from the Korean War when it brought it on Sunday.

                                                        Cheers

                                                          Chris

[Robert Hurst]

Chris,

There was a ship named HMAS Culgoa (which would appear to fit with the  name added in red to the reverse of the air letter). The Culgoa was a vessel built to the British Bay class design of frigate. The ship was launched in September 1945, and saw service in Korean waters in 1953. She is reported to have returned to Melbourne by December 1953, and was paid off into reserve in April 1954. Subsequently the ship was used for accommodation at a minesweeper base in Sydney.

However the 3d Wilding (according to my copy of Gibbons GB Concise catalogue) was first issued on 18 January 1954. If the air letter was indeed written from the Culgoa, it would unfortunately indicate the correspondence was written well away from the Korean war zone.

Robert

[Chris Weddell]

Robert,

          Thank you for this. This is going to make an interesting write up. I just do not get the "On active service" endorsement.

                                                                    Regards

                                                                      Chris

[Nick Colley]

Well done, Robert, for tracking down 'Culgoa' - the name didn't mean anything to me, and I was otherwise occupied earlier this evening, so hadn't got round to doing anything about it. The addressee, Mr. Hare, was one of those (in)famous collectors in the same class as Burney, Smith, Daynes et al, who appear to have sent out a bunch of stamped saes to all and sundry in order to get back some interesting (post)marks. The 3d stamp was, I'm sure, applied by Mr Hare in ignorance of the (apparent) OAS free post concession. Jan '54 does indeed seem late if the return mail qualifies for an OAS free postage concession - but the proof seems to be staring us in the face......

chrs
N

[Alan Baker]

According to the Navy List on Ancestry (1954) Lt J Scott-Holland, RAN, was appointed to HMAS Culgoa on 21 Jan 1953.

[Michael Dobbs]

I am intrigued by the use of a 3d stamp and the use of the NOT REQUIRED cachet and the manuscript overprint of O.A.S. across the stamp - all not required!

The unstamped "Forces Letter" forms were introduced on 15 September 1947 and on the same date the postage rate for these forms was increased to 2½d. 

In my researches I have also come across the following instruction: The Post Office Circular of 30 August 1950 announced that it had been decided that underpaid correspondence which bore a FIELD POST OFFICE datestamp impression and was superscribed "On Active Service" would not be surcharged on delivery, even if no postage had been paid.  It was thought that this was connected with the Korean War.

I suppose the cover did not meet all these requirements - it was not cancelled with a FIELD POST OFFICE datestamp, although it did have a 3d stamp (½d more than required) which had been mutilated by the O.A.S. inscription.  This is possibly what caused the Post Office to apply the T mark - the stamp was not required and thus the T mark not required.

I have seen references to the Lightweight Forces Letter in BAOR General Routine Orders for 1953:

With effect from 1 Apr 53 a "Lightweight Forces Letter" form will be introduced for use by Service personnel in BAOR when writing to the UK or in the case of Commonwealth personnel to their Homelands.  "Lightweight Forces Letter" forms are issued free, and for air conveyance the postage rate of 2½d must be prepaid on each form.

and in Middle East General Orders in 1956:

The Lightweight Forces Letter was introduced as a free and unrationed supply for use of service personnel in overseas Commands, when writing to their homelands.  The postage rate for airmail is 2½d.

At present I am not sure when the postage rate of 2½d was increased - or the authority for that increase.

I have seen nothing specific so far regarding the granting of free postage from Forces in Korea other than the reference in POC of 30 August 1950.  Post Office instructions and rates were concerned with mail posted in the UK to overseas.  I need to research Far East army orders or indeed possible Army Council Instructions regarding postage from Forces back to homeland.  I am slowly making progress, but there is a good way to go yet.

Mike

[Alan Baker]

One question. Why would a communication from an Australian ship, addressed to England, bear a GB 3d stamp? Where would the ship be that he could obtain the stamp and use it?

Sorry, that's two questions!

[Nick Colley]

Alan, see my second response yesterday.

chrs
N

[Alan Baker]

Oh yes