• Welcome to FPHS - Legacy Forum.
 

News:

If you are having a problem logging in or using the Forum contact the Webmaster at webmaster@forcespostalhistorysociety.org.uk. Every member has been pre registered so new members should not try and register themselves. You will have been advised of your login details with your membership information.

Main Menu

RAFPOST India 143 or 147?

Started by Jim Mackay, November 18, 2022, 06:32:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Jim Mackay

A couple of enigmatic RAFPOST Airletters. At first glance they appear to be postmarked RAFPOST 143 but closer examination suggests a possible 147.

However the  situation is further complicated by the sender's address of RAF Jharsuguda which is in India. E B Proud in his Postal History of Naval & RAF Postal Services lists RAF Indainggyi in Burma as being RAF PO 143 and 147 as not known.

Does anyone have other items from this correspondence with a clear date and number?

(Second pic to follow)

Jim

Jim Mackay

Second pic.

Michael Dobbs

Jim

Your second cover (dated 17 OCT. 45) is definately 143.

I see in Proud's book there are asterisk's (*) after various dates, but I haven't been able to find a note or reference as to what this represents!

Unfortunately earlier editions of books on RAF postal services overseas (by John A. Smith in 1957 and W (Bill) Garrard in c.1991) do not show a location for 143 or indeed anything for 147.

Sorry I cannot help further.

Mike


Chris Grimshaw

Hello Jim

I'm going to disagree with Mike here,  Taking the second cover up to 300 % I'm happy its 147.

First glance on the first cover I'd say 143 but taking up to 345 % happy last digest is a 7

Chris

Nick Colley

Well, for what it's worth (maybe not a lot), I'd say there's sufficient ambiguity about what is (under-)inking of the numbers, and what are small-scale variations in the printing of the air letters to render both numbers no more than a definite 140-something - even at 345%.

Sorry :-(

N

Jim Mackay

Thanks all for your input. I've used a pocket microscope on these to no avail. The rest of the correspondence is (presumably) also in the philatelic arena which is why I was (am) hoping that someone somewhere might have a clearer strike.
Jim