Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editorial: Pricing policies
 Correspondence with Canada
 The RSFSR 70r. error of 1922
 Internal postage due procedures...
 Postage stamps of the Zemstvos
 Romanovs used in 1912
 North Korea and the Soviet...
 Mongolian philatelic exhibition...
 International reply coupons in...
 Some interesting Soviet Armenian...
 Some interesting Tuvan items
 Philatelic shorts
 Review of literature
 The journal fund
 The collectors' corner

Title: Yamshcik = Post-Rider
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076781/00033
 Material Information
Title: Yamshcik = Post-Rider
Series Title: Yamshcik = Post-Rider
Physical Description: Serial
Creator: Canadian Society of Russian Philately
Publisher: Canadian Society of Russian Philately
Place of Publication: Toronto
Subject: Stamp collections -- Russia   ( lcsh )
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076781
Volume ID: VID00033
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

00033 ( PDF )

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Editorial: Pricing policies
        Page 2
    Correspondence with Canada
        Page 3
    The RSFSR 70r. error of 1922
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Internal postage due procedures from the Revolution until WWII
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Postage stamps of the Zemstvos
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Romanovs used in 1912
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
    North Korea and the Soviet connection
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Mongolian philatelic exhibition Ulaan-Baatar 1991
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    International reply coupons in our sphere
        Page 67
    Some interesting Soviet Armenian postal history items
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
    Some interesting Tuvan items
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    Philatelic shorts
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
    Review of literature
        Page 77
        Page 78
    The journal fund
        Page 79
    The collectors' corner
        Page 80
Full Text

Prind In Camnd

Via Pocobelli 16
CH-6815 Mclide

Telephone 091/68 42 85
Telefax 091/684294

Dear Member of The C.S.R.P.,

We are pleased to advise you that the next series of
auctions of the famous Liphschutz Russia Collection is
scheduled on February 19th, 1994 in Lugano, Switzerland.

Last April, Members of The C.S.R.P. were sent on request
Parts I and II of the Liphschutz auction series free of
charge. Due to the high costs of production and shipment,
it will no longer be possible to send catalogues without a
contribution of US$20 for a set of two catalogues comprising
of a full color catalogue containing:


and a separate catalogue comprising of:


When ordering your set of catalogues, please include cash
with your order, and send it to:
Via Pocobelli, 16


ADDRESS: (no P.O. Box address, as catalogues are shipped by
courier express or indicate a day time telephone or fax

Tel: Fax:

Please indicate the number of sets of catalogues desired:


Leader in the
world philatelic market




P.O. BOX 5722 Station 'A', TORONTO,
"The Post-Rider" No. 33.

December 1993.


2 Editorial: Pricing Policies
3 Correspondence with Canada
4 The RSFSR 70r. error of 1922
8 Internal Postage Due Procedures from the
Revolution until WWII
41 Postage Stamps of the Zemstvos
53 Romanovs used in 1912
59 North Korea and the Soviet Connection
63 Mongolian Philatelic Exhibition Ulaan-Baatar
67 International Reply Coupons in our Sphere
68 Some Interesting Soviet Armenian Postal
History Items
71 Some Interesting Tuvan Items

Derek Palmer FRPS,L, RDP
D. Palmer & A. Cronin
Robert Taylor
Alex Artuchov
Eric Peel
Dr. P.A.. Michalove &
Ya. Afangulskii
Late Meiso Mizuhara
Andrew Cronin
Professor Henri
H. Weikard, R. Taylor
and A. Cronin

74 Philatelic Shorts
77 Review of Literature
79 Journal Fund
80 The Collectors' Corner
COORDINATORS OF THE SOCIETY: Alex Artuchov, Publisher & Treasurer
P.J. Campbell, Secretary
Andrew Cronin, Editor
Rev.L.L. Tann, CSRP Representative in
the United Kingdom.
The Society gratefully thanks its contributors for helping to make this
an interesting issue.
( 1993. Copyright by The Canadian Society of Russian Philately. All
rights reserved. All the contents in this issue are copyright and
permission must be obtained from the CSRP before reproducing.
Eyebrows up

When the Jo-
seph Stalin mu-
seum in .Gori,
Georgia, reopens
after a five-year
shutdown, visitors
will be able to buy
Stalin T-shirts and
Stalin-brand vodka as souvenirs.

With respectful
to "The Globe
and Mail",
22 October 1993.





Pricing Policies

The recently published book "Russian Postal History 1857-1918" by Martin
Holmsten of Finland has been severely criticised in at least two
quarters mainly because of the pricing of Russian material on cover
with one or more stamps. An example was an additional amount of 104 or
US$156 suggested for a "dots" cover from an office in Estonia.

Basically, books of this kind tend to reflect local preferences and such
pricing could be at extreme variance with international trends. In this
particular case, the Finns and Estonians are kindred peoples, hence the
popularity in Finland of Russian "dots" postmarks from Estonian offices.
On the larger international scale, the commonest "dots" markings are
from the Baltic provinces, where literacy was highest because of the
important Baltic German element. By contrast, Siberian "dots" are far
rarer. Mind you, as the economies of the reestablished Baltic republics
improve, their collectors will delve further into the early postal
history and prices for Baltic "dots" will inevitably rise. In short,
popularity and not scarcity governs market prices.

Let us now look at inflation covers of 1920-1923. Price levels in Europe
are relatively high, as that material is generally regarded there as
scarce. The opposite is the case in North America and the reason is
simple. There was for many years large-scale emigration from the
Russian Empire to North America and the volume of mail correspondingly
large until well into the Soviet era.

Another factor is the difference in commercial practices. North
American dealers (God bless them') generally operate on a low mark-up
so as to obtain a quick turnover of material. That allows the local
philatelists of moderate means to build up very respectable collections.
In some other countries, the practice appears to be to buy cheap and
sell dear. The turnover period is thus much longer and serious
collecting becomes restricted to an affluent elite. The practice of
"price on request" would be laughed out of court in North America.

A final point can be made that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder",
as one reviewer recently put it in "The London Philatelist".

Truly has it been said that one man's meat is another man's poisson
(yes, you read that correctly).



"Correspadence with Canada" is a regular feature X Jau I AL
of this journal. Anyne possessing interesting
Russian mail to Canada is invited to share it
with the readership, by forwarding a photograph
or xerox copy of the item, along with sone expla-
natory text to the Editor.


by Derek Palmer, FRPS,L,RDP

BjiaaHiBOCTObK1- 1-

o t- V \r Vladivostok I
sa i. Siberie, RusSe d'AsiE

The illustrations here and on the next page are of the front and back of

a U.S. ship eastward across the Pacific, as it bears on the back a
transit marking reading "SEATTLE, WASH. JAN. 23 1921 REGISTERED",
/JU.t_ "^,^ .^ ^ .

The franklin consists of three -kop. "DBP surcharges, which

The illustrations hsumably covere and on the correct rat page are of that time for a ront and back of
surface letter going abroad. Mail f the notorious stamp speculator S. A.in the
Pappadopulo, withe Vladivostok "t" postmark, dated 5.1.21 ando find.
addressed to Vancouver, British Columbia. This letter must have gone by
a U.S. ship eastward across the Pacific, as it bears on the back a
transit marking reading "SEATTLE, WASH. JAN. 23 1921 REGISTERED",
reaching its Canadian destination the next day.
The frankina consists of three 10-kop. "DBP" surcharges, which
presumably covered the correct rate at that time for a registered
surface letter going abroad. Mail from the Far Eastern Republic in the
last months of the Civil War is hard to find.
*r *( -


by Derek Palmer & Andrew Cronin.

(a) Derek Palmer
I recently acquired the cover shown on the next page, franked with a
block of ten of what should have been the 100r. definitive of 1922, but
the third stamp in the second vertical row is the 70r. error in the
same design. The letter is postmarked BIRZULA KHERS.G."g" -5.2.22. and
bears the transit marking of KIEV 24.2.22. It is addressed in Russian
and Polish to Pavel Vasil'evich Savchuk in ByteA, Slonim district,
Grodno province in Western Belorussia, then part of Poland- There is
no arrival marking.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: While the postmarks appear genuine, the dates are
far too early, as the 100r. definitive in the 1922 currency was not
issued until December that year! If we assume that there were errors
in the year date for both Birzula and Kiev, i.e. 1922 rather than 1923
(very hard to believe), the rate paid in 1923 roubles (9r. 70k.) was
far too high for a letter to Poland on 5.2.23: the charge should have
been 3r. 50k..As an added complication, Lot 2322 in the Cherrystone
Auction of 1-2 Dec.1993 in New York City has a used block of nine on
piece, the stamp in the centre being the 70r. error. IT HAS THE SAME
BIRZULA POSTMARK, but with the year date now corrected so that it
reads in full thus: -5.2.23! Please refer to the somewhat unclear
illustration on the next page; it seems obvious that some illegal
manipulation has been carried out with this particular postmarker.

(b) Andrew Cronin
(i) The American Connection
Cliche errors are not new in philately and we will now take as an
example the U.S. 2 George Washington definitive, specifically the
printing of 7 March 1917. The recess engraving plate No.7942 for that
particular value consisted of four panes of 100 units each. In entering
the plate, the technician erroneously used the transfer roller for the

*1,.- -- -- ---;

~CI ---~.~--~-_-D -hcl--r~- --- --S --

~ c;;rs;~;;;;-;-;;-;;;~iii-~;-i-:

. .4- ,

-.'-" -- -.--- rTW -..
*" ,r" --.
-- -- *.
'.- '. __; : ...,,
1 ; 7'1
. 3' 1 ^V ;_p^^. .*|^-;*

[ ~i~'Ir-4-- 'C ---
4Ky- ;.. 1~
P .;J'-; V "
iV' :- 4 .J-,/ It

a '''
L. "



j e 1 e4,1 o z

|1a eWI e,

Z/l%^tf %^ : ^ l ^&

~" ?- ~ti* C.
\d os.-
-, 3 )

) e zA /o aJ -. z

: ZrevMnC &ZC'~ tI 5i~"

:I- 0.c .B ~et
OZ4PLL' '{: k'\$4 \3,cz4i 1i IMW eJ~

Lot 2333 in the 'Cherrystone Auction with the
central stamp being the 70r. error.


*rr\ -.,

_.___ r --

v- --


Iz -- .

5 value in the same design in three positions: upper left pane in
positions 74 & 84 (i.e. a vertical pair of the errors) and lower right
pane in position 18. All the other positions have the proper 2 design
and these stamps were issued perforated (Scott 467 with watermark and
505 without watermark) and Scott 485 as the imperforate watermarked
variety (very rare). Please see the examples given below.

By the way, all these U.S. stamps, including the errors, were printed
in carmine or rose.

(ii) The RSFSR 70r. error
In this particular case, both the 70r. and 100r. values were printed
by the typographic process and, judging from the sheet material
available, the procedure would have been as follows:-
The master die for the 100r. value, in negative relief, would have been
put in a coin press and 100 cliches struck off in positive relief.
Those cliches would then have been arranged in four groups of 25 units
(5x5), placed in a plating bath, coated with powdered graphite and four
electros of 100 units each taken therefrom in negative relief. The four
electros would then have been suitably backed, numbered in one of the
four corners and fitted together to form the printing plate of 400
units, in the order shown on the next page.

After having been printed with positive images,
the sheets would have been guillotined into 1 2
post office sheets of 100 units (4x25), prior to -
perforation by harrow machines.

The existence of the 70r. error has been 4x25 4x25
explained by the similarity in design to the
100r. value (as with the 2 & 5 U.S. George
Washington dies cited previously) and that a
70r. cliche had been inserted by mistake into -
the plating bath. The pane of 25 stamps with the 4x25 4x25
70r. error (No.12 on the pane, i.e. the second
stamp in the third row) is normally found with 4 3
trimmed margins, so that the electro number is
not visible in one of the four corners. The present writer has deduced
that it must have appeared only on the bottom left pane of electro
No.4, with the figure "4" in the bottom left corner of the pane
margins. Further evidence pointing to electro No.4 will be given
below. A substantial number of sheets must have been printed with the
error and panes containing that variety are not rare, although the
price has steadily risen over the years.

By contrast, ten imperforate panes also exist with this same error,
all in collections in Russia and they are thus of considerable rarity.
One wonders as to whether these panes came from proof sheets, which
were pulled to see how the error would look after having been "found".
By the way, the colour of both the 70r. error and the normal 100r.
stamps is orange-red.

(iii) The Substituted Cliche
Your editor originally wrote up this unusual variety in BJRP No.9,
pp.210-211 for July 1952 (my, how the years have flown!). In brief,
the details are as follow. In instinctively examining -,,,;,,) ,,
normal sheets of 100 stamps printed from electro No.4,
the present writer noted that, in the bottom left
pane, position No.12, where the 70r. error originally
appeared, the 100r. stamp now there was noticeably
different from its neighbours. It was slightly out of
alignment with the other units on the pane and a
broken line of colour hugged the frame at right (see i
the enlargement herewith). Your editor therefore
postulated that the offending electro No.4 was '""'>
corrected by excising the 70r. cliche and soldering in its place a
substituted 100r. value, resulting in the broken line of colour
adjacent to the right frame.Such a procedure is technically feasible
for typographic electros and is also known for stamps of other
countries. This substituted cliche has now been listed in the Stanley
Gibbons catalogue, Part 10 for Russia, under No.310b and it is a
genuine non-philatelic variety, much rarer than the original 70r.
error. It would be even nicer to find it properly used on cover and
details of such a usage would be welcomed from the CSRP membership.

(iv) The Plot Thickens
The evidence is all circumstantial, but it would appear that the 70r.
error was a deliberately manufactured variety, for the following
(a) If the 70r. cliche had been placed by error in the plating bath,
it would have appeared in the same position on all four electros, not
just electro No.4.
(b) The Soviet postal authorities appear to have heard about the U.S.


transfer errors some time after their appearance on 7 March 1917 and
decided to follow suit, so as to produce a marketable philatelic
(c) They even went so far as to approximate the colour of the
original U.S. errors; carmine and rose in the American case and
orange-red in the Soviet version.

(v) Conclusion
Your editor very much doubts that sheets of the perforated 100r.
definitive from electro No.4 and containing the 70r. error were ever
placed on sale to the public at the post offices in the RSFSR. Any
evidence to the contrary would be welcomed. Furthermore, he has yet
to see the error properly used to make up the correct rate on a non-
philatelic cover or card. If such an example does in fact exist, it
must be very scarce. Comments, please!


by Robert Taylor.

At the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917, Russia had
already been a member of the Universal Postal Union since its
inception and the Soviets continued to comply with its basic
regulations, including postage due. However, the complex system of dual
delivery of mail within the Russian Empire via the Imperial Post and
the regional Zemstvos made postage due relatively uncommon and the
Imperial government had never bothered to issue special stamps for that
purpose. Such stamps were first issued by the USSR early in 1924, with
a definitive set following in mid-1925. However, their use came to an
abrupt end early in 1926, with the surcharging of the existing issue in
order to enhance the stock of 8-kop. postage stamps needed for internal
rates. Since that time, no postage due stamps have been used or issued
in the former Soviet Union. The brief two-year existence of specific
postage due stamps make their use on covers quite scarce today.

The system generally in use in Russia, throughout both the Imperial and
Soviet eras (at least until the period of WT7II) was for the post
office, either in the town of origin or of destination, whichever
recognized the shortage, to place on such mail an oval cachet, usually.
reading DOPLATIT' (= to pay an extra fee) at the top, with the post
office town name at the base and a space in the middle for the
postmaster to note the amount due. During the 1924-1925 period of usage
of postage due stamps, they were usually accompanied by either the
normal oval cachet or a large boxed DOPLATNOE, or a boxed two-line
cachet, indicating that postage due should be collected according to
the value of the attached stamps. Other odd cachets are occasionally
noted, which will be reviewed later.

The mandated charge for postage due was double the shortage in
franking. However, particularly during the hectic inflation days of
1921-1923, the rates were changed so frequently that some very unusual
charges may be noted. Actually, it is surprising that, during that
period, frankings were as accurate as they were and that, when
incorrect, postage due was bothered with at all. Just a small example
of the working man doing his job despite the turmoil surrounding him!

On close examination of postage due material, it becomes .apparent that
the normal charge of twice the shortage was changed by the Soviets,

probably at the beginning of 1923, to a system of charges that
consisted of the deficiency, plus a flat fee which was equal to the
then current intercity letter rate. With a few exceptions, that system
remained in effect until about 1939, when the charge returned to one
of double the shortage. Another interesting note is that the postage
due system, with the normal oval cachets applied, was used to collect
the Poste Restante or General Delivery fees, with such charges noted in
the early 1930s. The accompanying table reflects internal postcard and
letter rates from late 1917- until WWII, with what I believe to be the
applicable postage due charges for the period, together with notations
to illustrated covers and cards.


15 Aug. 1917
-see Fig.l.
28 Feb. 1918
15 Sep. 1918
1 Jan. 1919
-see Figs. 2 &

Postcard Local Intercity
Rate Letter Letter

Postage Due Fee

5k. 10k. 15k. Double. the .deficiency

20k. 30k. 35k. Double the deficiency
.1Dk. 15k. 25k. Double the deficiency
Free Free Free
3: Examples of Denikin and Wrangel South Russian

15 Aug. 1921 100r.
-see Figs. 4 & 5.
11 Feb. 1922 3000r.
(approx.)-see Figs. 6 & 7.
1 Apr. 1922 4000r.
15 Apr. 1922 20,000r.=
-see Figs. 8,9 2r.1922
1 Oct. 1922 5r.
1 Nov. 1922 10r.
-see Figs 10 & 11.
1 Dec. 1922 20r.
1 Jan. 19231 50k.1923
-see Figs.12-14.(one 1923
10 Mar. 1923 75k.
1 May 1923 Ir.
20 May 1923 Ir. 50k.
10 Jun. 1923 2r.
-see Figs. 17 & 18.
5 Jul. 1923 3r.
-see Fig. 19.


due usage in the free post Soviet period.
100r. 250r. Double the deficiency

5000r. 7500r. Double the deficiency

6000r. 10,000r. Double the deficiency
30,000r.50,000r. Double the deficiency
3r.1922 5r.1922
5r. 10r. Double the deficiency
10r. 20r. Double the deficiency

20r. 40r. Double the deficiency
50k.19231r.1923 Deficiency + Ir.
rouble equal to 100 roubles of 1922).
75k. r. 50k. Deficiency + Ir. 50k.
Ir. 2r. Deficiency + 2r.
Ir. 50k.3r. Deficiency + 3r.
2r. 4r. Deficiency + 4r.

3r. 6r. Deficiency + 6r.

Postcard Local Moscow/ Intercity
Rate Letter Leningrad Letter Postage Due Fee

20 Aug. 1923 5r. = j 5r.= 6r.50k.= 8r.= Deficiency + 8r.=
4k.goldI 4k.gold 5k.gold 6k.gold 6k.gold
-gold kopek rates first stated but neither stamps nor money existed..
1 Sep. 1923 8r.= 8r.= 10r.= 12r.= Deficiency + 12r.=
-Fig.20,21. 4k.gold 4k.gold 5k.gold 6k.gold 6k.gold
15 Sep. 1923 13r.= 13r.= 16r.50k 20r.= Deficiency + 20r.=
4k.gold 4k.gold 5k.gold 6k.gold 6k.gold
1 Oct. 1923 4k. 4k. 5k. 6k. Deficiency + 6k.
15 Dec. 1923 3k. 4k. 5k. 6k. Deficiency + 6k.
-see Figs. 22, 23 & 24.
1 Sep. 1924 1 3k. 4k. 5k. 7k. Deficiency + 7k.
-see Figs. 25-32.
1 Feb. 1926 5k. 4k. 5k. 8k. Deficiency + 10k.*
-Fig.33-36. 3k. local
* Exception with fee raised more than intercity rate.


15 Jul.1928
1 Jun.1931
25 Feb.1933
1 Feb.1939








Moscow/ Intercity
Leningrad Letter Postage Due Fee









Deficiency + 10k.
5k. Poste Restante
Deficiency + 15k.
5k. Poste Restante
Deficiency + 20k.
10k. Poste Restante
Double Deficiency

Fig. 1.
A card sent A ,./- /17 a ,/ .
from Gomel', / -
Mogilev IO' TOB PT
prov. 21 L
Sep.1917 to 0 !Y L L >
Livonia 25 f
Sep. without ; '
franking. "..... .." .....
Rate was 5k.
DOPLATIT' 10 ..--- ,. ..
was correct
double ..- .....
deficiency, -- <
p r e s u m a b l y .s ..e.. .... .... .. -
applied in c
Gome 1'.Ca a.rd kJ
written in .
Latvian by *< .AL! 1C.
O 4 Tpt i .oKYoaBa *OTOTl.m IEPEPS SAStot., n K MOCKBA.
Vl. Didenko. OT PEP W OC

Fig. 2.
Letter card .
from .I 7
Stavropol' BCEMIPHbIl nQITOBbI"I CO .'
12.9.19 to -/
Akhtyrka 18 rr I '
rate paid -IICbMO--LETTRE "
of 45k. The.
correct ,r -- .
Sth. Russia / .
letter rate e /9/'/46,/ -,;
then may / /
have been -
70k., with -
25k. short, 6-
so that .*
STAVROPOL' .. .. ':.
50k. would ...........
have been .
correct at
double the deficiency. This is a nice South Russian usage of an
Imperial 10-kop. letter card in combination with a 35-kop. Denikin

: o' *. \" '

The oval cachet reads
95r. and thus postage
due was charged equal
to the deficiency.
This is a fascinating
cover from the
correspondence and was
sent by Aleksandr
Volochenko in
Simferopol' only a few
weeks before the Red
forces broke through
into the Crimea early
in November 1920.


'l zC IL ,., _,

Fig. 4a.
A very interesting local Crimean-use postcard, mailed from Simferopol'
on 13 Aug.1921, when the free franking privilege was still in effect,
but received in Evpatoriya on 18th. August after the new rates had
been established and then charged postage due at the new postcard rate
of 100r. Note the oval DOPLATIT' marking with "lOOp" inserted by hand.
Addressed to Evpatoriya Dachi (Summerhouses).

IFig. 3.
A cover from Simferopol'
,15.10.20 to Evpatoriya
iDachi (Summerhouses)
'17th. Oct. with the
Wrangel Crimea letter
rate of 5r. This was
increased to 100r.
shortly before the
evacuation of the White
forces, thus underpaid
by 95r. Note the
franking of 3x50k. Arms
and 5x70k. Denikins.

Fig. 4b.
This card was
written by
the same
party and in
the same
being a
of the same
begun on the
card. Sent
13.8.21 and
with the
same postage
due cachet
but with the
"10Op. "
written by
another clerk.


Fig. 5.
An unfranked letter
from Polotsk Viteb.
7.12.21 to
Petrograd 12.12.21.
The correct rate as
of 15 Aug. was 250r.
and the charge of
double the shortage
was denoted by the
POLOTSK marking
with "500" written
in the centre.

nO ""

TO H-- ..A.. ,. .i.
S* / ,._ -.. ..1, .... .

_ -7 c' <2 _'.

sit n,-.3; / / .-
_ "" -

PHEC .. O.-rp

,3iL'- .LW 'BL
*Ii Op -

S, //


. / 7/

Fig. 6.
A card from
15.2.22 to
23 Feb. The
rate as of
10 Feb. was
3000r. and
6000r. was
on arrival,
the 250r.
denoted by
the 5r.


S.. ... g".' '

10 nOTOBAq KtI

..... .. ......... .. ...

S .. ...... ....... .... ......... .... .:.;c; 2
.- .... .. ... ..-.... I .. ....- -- -
-- :.-'r .____,______________^ ^

" ~-" ;Cc/-~~c ~
s :r




II -1

~u a r ~ ar ~r

_. .. -- _


S -. -.

-- u 'E^ 4 M

: -, .
', '': ; "-' : .. ,"

; " ' .
: : .. ... ..: ,- -'
% j l ; % ,. u . ,

S r

-V ,

usuaI y preJsumer V
to represent


Fiq. 8a.
Letter from
Lipetsk 2.5.22
to Moscow. The
correct rate
as of mid-April
was 5r. 1922
currency or
50,000 old
roubles. The
total franking
as seen from
Fig. 8b overleaf
was only 10,000
old roubles or
lr.-1922, hence
underpaid by
4r. as denoted
8 ru." on the
front of the

Fig. 7.
"' A cover from
S with transit
three solid
triangles on
*same day to
Kiev 17 Mar.f
franked with
3r. Control
= 250r. and
14500, which was
double the
allowing for the
correct value of
Sthe control
S stamp. Note the
long delay in
delivery. The 3-
triangles mark
of Orenburg is
*- i.P.r 1~1 r d\L UhI.L ^J \ i

*** j.. c.*'.j ' .' .i

Fig. 8b. The franking for this internal cover was made
with ten copies of the 100r. Control stamp, now calculated
at 250r. each, plus the 7500r. Soviet issue to total
10,000 old roubles or Ir. in the 1922 currency.

to Tambo 8 Sept. when the internal postcard rate was 2r.

4r."to denote douleB t Khe deficiency

14,. h arkgDPT' No. 1
1 4"- '. :2 "-

Fig. 9..s Moo 7 .9
..-..- ..-, o 8,. S. w en ... .t n .s r .. w s 2..
1922 ..r

Fic. 10.
A cover fror
Petroqrad 2.11.22
to Moscow 3 Nov.
Franking of
100,000 old r. =
10r. 1922 currency

......l...n..a... 4 8"" -" '"

/ Correct intercity
rate as of 1st.Nov.
S- was 20r. 1922, so
double deficiency
r -20r. was charged
_, .~r~p- er oval applied
"-- .-.... either at
- '. ..- etrograd or

SThis is another item from
the Zhdanovich, ..

S.'-" ''..- -correspondence and sent by "l
Aleksandr Volochenko.

------.---". ,

Fig. 11.
Letter from Evpatoriya
27.11.22 and franked with
3k. & 7k. Arms revalued to
10r. 1922, so underpaid by
10r. as of intercity rate
effective 1st. November.
Double the deficiency was
thus charged. Note also
unusual circular marking:
SIMFEROPOL' on the back.


A5 -V7

K~ ~~ "P"~~~4~r


Letter from Simferopol' 9.1.23 to
Evpatoriya 8 May (!).,i.e. four
months in delivery and presumably
charged 3r.1923 on arrival. Paid
by 600,000 old roubles = 60k.1923
Sometime early in 1923 the RSFSR
went to a flat fee (2r. in May)
plus the deficiency of postage
due, but no formula works for a
3r. charge. Note that the 10000Or.
surcharges were no longer valid
in May 1923. From the Zhdanovitch

f S4

y4t". rati

Fig. 13.
Cover from
10.1.23 to
Kozlov and
franked with
100,000 old
roubles =
10k. 1923,
by 90k. See
lr. 90k.",
i.e. a fee
of Ir. plus
of 90k.
Mailed ten
days after
new rates
had been
set in 1923
roubles, to
include set
fee plus


* ~~1
.7, .

/~ CI2 4'~c *

* .. V 7 l

'7 A .-. -- S-
'.'.- ft. d -, ... &C t'd ..-',t, .t--'.-,- ,O,<,:-, \ '
('" ") ." ""/' .'

S, .
'- ,'" -* : 5'
, " < 9- t- *. ,'....- .

,; -d".o -.. .-.
., .

-,1 ... ,"

K. ..r



- : .

` L


: :


.p .. .

? '

S.......- .- --.--. Fig. 14.
S An invalid 20-k.
"' Kerenskii card
STOB. sent locally in
Petrograd on
S. 11.1.23 and
I ~ k i ~ franked with
pair 7r. Arms,
worth 140,000
... .. ".....:...... .. .... worth 140 00.
S- ". old roubles or
u r14k.1923, thus
......... .. ... .. .......... .. .. ............. ..................... .... ..... un d e rp a id 3 6k .
S., as of 1.1.23.
,. I Note "DOPLATIT'
.... / I .PETROGRAD lr. 36"
: A- ., ..i.e. set fee
-.7 ". '' '
of lr.1923 plus
S, 12 2 .. 36k. deficiency.

. .. .." ..." .. ....... e r....e w.. ............. "

* : ." '. : .'. *

city rate as of 1.5.23. Note "DOPLAT IT' MOSKVA 2r.50k.", i.e. charge of
2r. plus the deficiency of 50k. This is the earliest example of the
/C., -'-A" ,

.g 15 ..
192 '2 = 1
_r, t. -"

'" "" "


city rate as of 1.5.23. Note "DOPLATIT'MOSKVA 2r.50k.", i.e. charge of


Fig. 16.
A local letter from
Moscow 7.5.23 franked
with 80r.1922 = 80k.
1923 = 800,000 old
roubles. Correct local
letter rate was Ir.
1923 as of 1 May. Note
2-20"i.e. 2r. fee plus
20k. deficiency, thus
apparently confirming
the fee plus shortage
system for postage
due. Both this and the
previous cover have
specific Moscow
branch due cachets.

Cover from Petrograd 25.6.23 to Novgorod 28 June. Rate paid was 2r.1923
= 200r.1922 or 2 million old roubles, plus further 2 million old rbls
which, although equal to 2r.1923 at beginning of 1923, were demonetised
in March and correctly disallowed. Correct intercity rate as of 10 June
was 4r. Note"DOPLATIT'POCHT(?)TELEGR.6-6 rub.", i.e. 4r. flat fee plus
2r. deficiency and presumably showing increase in the flat charge.

~fa a. ~irBW~6

~:'b 1

Fig. 18.
Cover sent from
27.6.23 to Tver'
2 July unfranked.
Correct intercity
letter rate as of
10 June was 4r.
Note "DOPLATIT' 8r
presumably based
on a flat fee of
4r. plus the 4r.
deficiency to
total 8r. That
would confirm
that the flat fee
was now 4r.

Fig. 19.
Cover from
Moscow 16.7.23
to Oranienbaum
20 July with
franking 400r.
1922 = 4r.1923,
thus underpaid
S' by 2r. as of
1.5th. July. Note
" thus indicating
that the flat
fee had been
Raised to 6r.
with the July
increases, as
the deficiency
Swas only 2r.


Fig. 20.
An unfranked card IA / 1. -. -
from Vladivostok JOH"..ilb-CBO C'I '
."'J1AMA. (113nij
8.9.23 to Tomsk .SK 1 I.a ior a'
26 Sept. Correct 7. V'LAnDjVO',, .' 'i rI
rate as of 1 Sep. L
was 8r.1923 or 4k, h vanoh..w .s ;C'
gold. Note cachet r -
"DOPLATIT' 20r. ,s... ^
crossed out and c,......... .r
"DOPLATIT'10k. C-n
TOMSK". .This it 64.ee oor
fascinating card ei( --'; /y '
took about 2 6;Z 74
weeks via the --//
Trans-Siberian _9 ._ .
Rly, with a flat *4hC
fee of 6k. + 4k. 1c I2 af/ -C
deficiency in the t~ ^ t../(, ,
yet non-existent <, .;:./ /e.; J4, 4t.
gold currency.

Fig. 21.
Cover from Kiev
1.9.23 franked .
with 8r.1923 on ... \
the day the rate
went to 12r. for
intercity mail. "

hence the flat
Tfee must have
*gone up to
1r2r. on that
'same day.'. The

cover was
',. *s *. *- ?, ,

S- properly

^ .^^- ;.'/ sta hence the flat
chargfee must have
pone up to
'. ':12r. on that
,* .. 'same day. The
... cover was
*. ': properly
S. \ charged
S- .. '. --- postage due.

i ? .-" ,,' -, ,.' ; ft, :-'L C.? td f-,',' r,: .
,. ;, /n ..; ,% ... ^
S L.. ,, --,i
i -
/,<. ,.' "/ ,'*l,' ,i

57~e C'.-~ i?-A-4% c- g^l 5:Y ;* t-'
ft-ft ft.., f, ftf,

: ~. -.. f' ' '. -"

^^. .: : W

ftI. "' ~- ~


4. /f
ft f tf

.1 -t .: '
.Fig. 22.
'f:, Unpaid local cover Moscow
12.6.24 with black boxed
.DOPLATNOE cachet. Postage
due stamps applied to
''charge flat 6k. fee plus
.the deficient 5k. local
letter rate. "llk"
handwritten in green.

'f t ft ft ft ft

ft '1


... .,-.'- ---' --t1^ :- -. -'. v "

-.. 1. .. .
.. ,. i .

_- '- .. .


.-._ ._ ... ., as- .., :., : .
----' .'- t -
.- _" .,' .. ,. 7---. '. t,.. -. *

" .I" --; -. .
* _.,--V Cp. ..,

.,. 1 ."i :"
/- O-

--r I, ft

* .:* -t
/7'N e^ULf
/ i7

Fig. 23.
Unpaid cover
Penza prov.
24.6.24 to
Moscow 26th.
with two
7500r. 1922
sealing the
back. Rated
12k. due,i.e.
flat 6k. fee
plus 6k.
at Moscow-12
post office
per oval
OTD. with
12-kop. due
stamp added
on back and
at 19th.
post office
On 27 June.

ft *)t~*f

--=I----~~~~ ~ ~~-

Fig. 24.
An unpaid cover CB
from 1. 1*
Ekaterinbura -
22.8.24 to
Moscow 27/28 6
with oval /2
DOPLATIT' 12k li ____"
and showing V
very unusual 11
application .a1-
of a vertical
pair 1k. on '4
100r. due
provisional as
part of the Q O
postage due: .
6k. flat fee + .
6k. intercity ..
letter rate. .I '
Note what r \ "
appears to be r' ,\l ." ?.' -j
the masthead i-. -' 'r "o
of the '- ,-, ,
"Peasant '?
Newspaper" of ;. 'sr "-
Moscow added -ti
as an address

tr :i/ ,- .

r .. .
.. .-:" .*.. ;, ,..

Fig. 25. With the internal intercity rate going to 7k. on 1.9.24, the
above cover from Ekaterinburg 2.9.24 to Moscow 5.9. was short paid 1k.
The flat fee was now 7k., hence a total of 8k. due was collected.

9~ unl
a A

r-Olt- .w.- to

04 an

II lei


W77 /PZo

-- i .iYes~ s .2 z O

__ on
~ / ~a.~CV ~wh.

"i' ~~!3i~*.Oc X C __ NY (. a

.. th

4N1 7k

7'moc. ry6. Ka m. no1m. ronoA.
IJeOa 50.000. py6.




g. 26.
paid cover from
sochnoe 17.9.24
Leningrad 21.9
d forwarded to
binsk 24.9. The
rrect intercity
tter rate as of
Sept. was 7k.,
nce the oval
stage due
amps to the
lue of 14k.
fixed in
ningrad 21 Sep.
e cover has an
ficial cachet
the flap,
ich may or may
t relate to
e original
ck of franking,
t there surely
e a variety of
ndwritten notes
fleeting the
forts of the
stmen. The
large covered
e flat fee of
.+ deficiency
7k. = 14k.

SFig. 27.
,An interesting
card from the
series "IN AID
franked with
an Epirus (!)
,stamp and
postage due.
;Local card
rate was 3k.+
.7k. flat fee
,for this item
posted Moscow
18.4.25 and
marked boxed

*. .. ;
.,.< ..., -,. .. ** .- .* ". '

"- .. .-
.. M .. -, ,
,A L ,, .. I .

..-; ^ '..: '* *51l. ,*A i~ <. *- *. *
-"*- ,. '-
**; '* \ :' ^ -. .- .'- > .., '

*;:y ^ :. A.
< K ,V.
PS ;. -, I .- ; -
C' r
,' ^' '. ..' -. :.

.:^ 1 .. --.. .- *. .-, *.. !., : .;
1; -.. -'. '^*^ '.- .*- ., .." *i ;
/^. ^^ --,...- .
'. A --,) :.. .. . -
.-. ,. : ,, ." i ) .*' ,t

", "' "' '. '" '

.,. ,J .. "% .. . ,
.: ,, :. :. ., ; ,. .

''. ~ ~ -,.. ,., .
; ',-' '- ', % . "7 : .- i- .
,,. 2..-' ':' % '. ." -' .' '; '." ". .
/ ,. .. ,,
,..,, #-. ,. -. . .
-. r .; ,) ', ,( .. -- ) v "
--'.' F "'-,t i '

r .

I ,6
,'I", ,[ .

'- C
(I. -. -1- *

, ., V


E i =. 0. ___ -
An unfranked cover addressed to a lady in Staraya Bukhara and marked
HA XPAHEH.(for holding) on the front. On the back at top right there
is another note: "There is no such lady" and 14k. in postage due
stamps affixed for a flat fee of 7k. + 7k. deficiency. Cancelled
STARAYA BUKHARA g 13.6.25? and boxed "Nedeistvitefna" (invalid) on
stamps, with a cachet below reading: "On account of non-appearance
of the addressee with the expiration of the holding time".

. .-i

r'..- *.n i

"" -

."'' .
-.i M17. ,.*. ,
' : "i.. ; ''" : "- .

.. ; ." .

:4 : -.' .~'~ "' ..... C;
J s .. I

r ___

r ----- -- ---


,,, J






,:- -*^ ;:
-.- n .' -

1,_ ..N *" 1
:j-. .--. rP.7 IA^7~j

-- *1~ 8." -- -

"' .. .. "
f -

Fig. 29.
A wrapper from Chishmy, Bashkiria 13.6.25 to Moscow 16.6., originally
rated as 14k. due per the boxed cachet reading "Upon delivery, charge
the sum specified on the postage due stamp". The fee was changed to
8k. and although a wrapper, treated as being 1k. short for the inter-
city letter rate (flat fee of 7k. + 1k. deficiency).

)~ 1;

'r1- 7~--------- --~ __

--I-- -

":~r~ i.l:

: i.

~y r,'

-----II-- -

.. .. -"- '-- L .

Fig. 30. ...
Letter from TPO/RPO Kamyshin 150 Tambov to Tambov same day, prepaid 7k.
but rated 12k., so probably overweight: 7k. flat fee + 5k. deficiency.
Note boxed cachet slightly different from previous one of Moscow.
",----------------------- -- -- --~- ---:--
.. I.. -
-~ .. >- .-' .

Fig. 31. -

An unpaid letter from Groznenskie Neftyan. Prom. Ter. Obl.
27.7.25 to Pishpek, Kirghizia 9.8.25 with postage due stamps
affixed to value of 14k.: flat fee of 7k. + 7k. Deficiency.
Note also the boxed cachet in black specifying the amount to
be paid according to the postage due stamps.

. . . . . . .- 4.A

".. .

_,j 9 '-
-4 .~~
- -i4-1


AjL cWs
II- 1 ^ .. ... .'

An unpaid letter from Leningrad Okt.Vokz.22.1.26 to Moscow 23.1. with a
14k. postage due stamp affixed to cover the flat fee of 7k. + 7k.
deficiency. Note yet another type of the boxed two-line cachet noting
that a charge should be collected as specified by the postage due stamp.

., ...- .. ... .. -.. .. .L -'--
4 -I ", '" ,.
4 T '
*. / '
4 4 '-4-:^ ^ ^

I. ... I-. "
.... / _. & ./ '.. -], ^. ","
/ _^-, -.-- \ .? ... *''O .- : .A

,I B I ;-' .,-

t -- ,. -rP; r
I' i ." ,.

ir ; r 'r^^
., /,/, ,; :^ ^^ :.:.
!. I 33 .. ^ .L..-. /.. -..;,"
.. .- ./ ~ .. <

Fi. 3.. .< o. ..

An unpaid cover homemade from newspaper,
Moscow 20.4. Correct intercity letter ra
postage due stamps were presumably with
18k KRUGLOE, i.e. 10k. flat fee + 8k. de

-- : .- ,
K '-^ v/ s30
7j 71W-;~:iP~ ~_s+ I~P~

Irawn also, hence oval DOPLATIT'
1 '7

Fig. 34.
"\<^ /
1, / -' '1' "
., .;
\ LL ":'------- .... ': '

,- /. ..

postal authorities charged only the letter rate of 8k. remain a


,; -.: .- i .- I*"
.. .
*:03~ :*';// ./ i/LP
-' .. -, .- .; .' -- ..

E; ;
'.e. 6:
. ..' . -..,

." **' :-. -. r -."
"i- :, .'"C^ > "%
S:- ** '~p 1 "
V J~

-. ,

S -6---.

L/"-it7CA-~"-Q -~ -P,

' ?;

Fig. 35.
An unpaid letter from Leningrad 24.9.26 to Alushta 27.9., with oval
DOPLATIT 18 LENINGRAD, based on a flat fee of 10k. + 8k. for the
intercity letter rate.

, .,

E L 3 *, *,

ri i "

.Me 3. T.a-rp
*' r '> .R. k j::* I.A 44



S-.-,; -- -, -.- -

S .- --' :------- -----.... '...
_^ ,'---.,- r."".......; .- .... -. "" '.

-'-,"'"-- ... ...... ... .;.:.-. ..."; "
,,. ..,,. :.s c,^ *, -", .-."l

, r : "': ;L.' ,
'4t P

B r. Fpocnaehe.
!)o -

- ..aR..O./

Fig. 36. ... .
An unpaid postcard from Kostroma 21.6.27 to Yaropolets. The correct
internal card rate was then 3k., hence the oval DOPLATIT'13 KOSTROMA
charge, based on the flat fee of 10k. + 3k. deficiency. The card
shows the flag of the Volga State River Shipping Authority.

...'.fnPO C T O E

/'- ,

M C K B A- L e-H T p "l *

BaHKy ,Ann BHeWHem ToproeBn C. C. C. P.


Fig. 37. -
A money transfer receipt card from Ryzhanovka 23.7.28 to Moscow. The
correct rate for such receipts was as for normal intercity letters.
That rate went from 8k. to 10k. on 15.7.28, hence the oval DOPLATIT' 2k
RYZHANOVKA KIEV, which covered only the deficiency, without including
the flat fee of 10k.

L..~~----- '--L--- -----


Fig. 38.
A cover from Leningrad
15.10.28 to Tiflis 20
Oct. Appears correctly
paid at the July rate
increase to 10k., but
addressed to Tiflis
Poste Restante/General
Delivery. Hence the
oval bilingual
KONT,, from which we
can now presume from
this and later postage
due covers that the
5k. was the fee for
the Poste Restante /
General Delivery pick-
up service. ,
n -. --


C-, 4/$4Wk-6-62I A7

L#)r, A~st

t- ---- ;- -I

Fig. 39.
An unpaid letter -
dropped in the box
at Kovzhinskii -
Zavod 10.12.28 and. :4
correct postage of
10k. added at
Konevo 23 Dec.Note L
oval DOPLATIT' 20k
to cover the flat
fee of 10k. + 10k.
deficiency. Was
Konevo compensated -
for its outlay of
10k. in stamps?
Addressed to the
People s
Commissariat of
Agriculture of
the RSFSR, The .
Kremlin, Moscow. L *-



*--- 0:




.. "" ', .


... ... ..... k! -. ".- .


f ... ." -': ," /-: ..

iC N n"-. '-: .*' z.. -.

". -.. ,0-- *. ..


--~ ~c~-----~

1/ crt

^: ^:,,;:,,..^ >^
... ^ .' '^ ,:ivr i^
.V; t. ,?., .

.*. .: -., .. .
'-I '' 'I 6,,[J
: ,..: ,3Jf(0. J~~S i

Fig. 40.
A readdressed letter
Moscow (5k.local rate
5.6.29 to Tashkent 1i
with oval DOPLATIT'Nc
5 crossed out, with
correct new charge ol
based on a flat fee c
10k.+ 5k. deficiency.

"~ C

(i .. yqacTOH

AdpecaT .' / .. t
He p03blCaH -

b l6 ', . .... ........ ...

iHc .- OHOOe-
I neMCLnoHocen --,'.....,
i npoeepB n/T. paoTHmiH...

,' .-*-"4 ; '
] ^. .-'.

3 June -
o.2 & ":''-N

f 15 .
'/,. ? 2 -

noAn lcH nlcbiviD- t .
HocqeB no Apyrim -
S yqacTKar: ~,

r /. ; g
r'T ** 1 ., / .

.' y Fig. 41.
Sy.q An unpaid letter from
Leningrad 20.7.30 to
y Lodeinoe Pole 22.7 and
-, .. *.;-.*.. correctly charged per
..... / oval DOPLATIT' 20k.
2 ......LENINGRAD 4 EKSP. with
___ imprinted amount due,
i.e. flat fee of 10k.+
S" .. 10k. deficiency. This
., is the first noted
i'. "'"'-. example of the charge
S n'-*:ov-al being part of the
.. -val cachet.

* 1' -








.. .

Fig. 42. t // ;
A cover with 4k. / f '
postage from Minsk
10.11.30 to
being underpaid by .
6k. for the inter-
city rate, hence -T.,>
the oval DOPLATIT'
16 MINSK P.T.K., .c -< '
the charge based
on the flat fee .. .
of 10k. + 6k.
deficiency. Sent /
within the Minsk /. % I"
region and '
received the same
day. -

..ri.i' ... _.. > i-x ;i .1. ..a ................ ... ...... .

: : ) "\ -- N "

O& A B' O CK. He GKncer a0 r o''..06pa I.. Tun.. Afoe H8. o
.* -*^ ^ '- -.- ...;. i;.;.. ....... .. -..... .

.N. A -5 32 XPO A. 205. 3a1. V 3741. Tip. 5000.
Fig. 43.

A card from Pyatigorsk 2.6.31 to Tambov 8 June. Note DOPLATIT'20 TAMBOV
2- .\

as the intercity card rate had gone to 10k. as of 1 June. The charge
Btiea oan o alcK. h~eadoGHHicKHli ^ro'r M!a-no-trTO f*i 06paax. TOIT. Moe~sa. BajIoBaR; 28. 1f-
-' HaK- J9 P\aan.?. .\ A.-53281. XPO-rH3 205. aK. 3a i'a mTrp, 5000.

Fig. 43.
A card from Pyatigorsk 2.6.31 to Tambov 8 June. Note DOPLATIT' 20 TAMBOV
as the intercity card rate had gone to 10k. as of 1 June. The charge
was based on a new flat fee of 15k. + 5k. deficiency and noted by the
oval cachet at the office of destination in this case.

AAq o' nde '' ?
,, ,, ,- po'r..\FnA NA-Po

., > a : ........... .. .... .. ... ..... ......... ...'. ,.. ;. ,,,. o.. .... ..... ..
S(iiii L;.IjG-'Ii 1.*: 1 it I l i.n I T- r. :l 1 1 I I 61.' ,: i '11.111 0 .F ,
a 2.11 CTItii.jIII- jiI.;...L.;iiI a. 4.)

S. ..........

a ..'

S.............. ........... .. ....... ..... ... .....; .........
y.u111L, I. AO J, R, hhaprul

I: .......... ....... ...... ......... ... ... .
S (nOQpCGHII ]' iI hlofl]IIc a;rci ai )

I' .1 *'t

Fig. 44. .
A 5-k. card sent from Kazan' 12.6.31
DOPLATIT'20 KAZAN', the charge based
This is another example of postcard

to Moscow 15 June and with oval
on a flat fee of 15k. + 5k.shortage.
underfranking in the first month.

; ......... .. ... .. .. .. ..

Fig. 45.
A 5-k. card from Orl 27.6.31 to Rostov-on-Don 29 June and with oval
DOPLATIT 20k. ROSTOV n-D, the 20k. charge being either part of the
cachet or added by a separate handstamp to cover the flat fee of 15k.
,i "7 -.".'.|^., T :, -." "

plus 5k. deficiency. Yet another example of postcard underfranking in
the first month after a rate change. 33
the first month after a rate change. 33


ceao un 4epeans
Fig. 4.

5k. in stamps, which was the correct intercity letter rate at the O

..IOOa .. LO-uyn ,.4.....-- ......

,. ,

Fig. 46. .. ...... .

15k. in stamps, which was the correct intercity letter rate at the
time. Note the oval DOPLATIT'5 MOSKVA No.2. With the letter rate
correct, this charge must relate to the delivery service in Moscow.

D 0 T 'A

/ -
^ /, / ~7 .'. <*'-

:'.'" i'

2< 4--;

/. ,/',-... ,,

rpT Je lepmoonToBa, /
Die Lermontoffagrotte.

It A D. TO

,yg a ........ .....


........ .. ....................
c $ 7.. :'':-:-':" "

30 40. rjaBjr M2 68316, Xpo0-I3 J. 214.
A. 5 E. Tap, 80,000 as r.a. roana. M ea, 17. 1930.

Fig. 4/..--------
A card from Pyatigorsk 16.9.31 to Rostov na Donu P.K. 18.9 with correct
intercity rate of 10k., but with oval DOPLATIT' 5k. ROSTOV n-D. Sent to
Poste Restante/General Delivery in Rostov, presumably confirming the
assumption that such deliveries required a 5-k. charge.


_ ------i---i--*--L-----L- *------C-I--rT~- 1S~i

' ~ ~ "~~'~' ~~' ~ ;~ -` "~ ";~I""''" ''"



S :- < < ..
'**- ... ;,,, -, -,* .I .. .

-- eI :0 ^Zll', ,,
r"ig .. 4 7 a ""
'-- -. l .4-"

based on a flat fee of 5k. + 5k. deficiency.

Fig. ....* .* -.".(, xz -

Ei .4 wit oLknin

*ii- / A4 2$ (3 e
Ac 2/ P / '.
rI f '- .

4\Ivs.e defrge / / .',
. i ,* ./ c. .h' i

.. ;. >' N K .
TOVI: fl-KO11C *+h"TH 1 Jonfan i 1
t3-17.-17 u8.n r.. ,. 173'J-17;J3 Ec. ,a '!. L. I
'l'ur3Inu ecKI it fle' nj1 Pa S I I phe hbao sllifn"n ,_

I: ", .S''/ ., ....
/ ... ... .., / :4
I, z.$>' .. >,'-
L / } /t ... ,. ; .. .' I

S.. ........ .. -

34 leu-aroA:.u 2 35' 69... |I 000 Sag-. 134 189
0 I30ort13 ME J37Fi ;
I. n21. i;nOf 3 uu. He'aIn li eaopooa. n'rp.

. A. '0. I
An unpaid card from Blagoveshchensk 23.3.32 to Ashkhabad 12.4. with
oval DOPLATIT'25 BLAG.VOST...AK. The charge was based on a flat fee
of 15k. + 10k. deficiency. Note that the card took almost two weeks
for delivery from the Eastern Siberian city of Blagoveshchensk to the
Southern Turkmenistan city of Ashkhabad on the Persian border.



i-: AO

....-.. ~.. ......_


Fig. 49. ` -- ---- .. --.. .---
A card from Moscow 25.12.34 to Sverdlovsk 28.12, underpaid by 5k. per
rates of 25.2.33. Note DOPLATIT' 35 MOSKVA, perhaps based on flat fee
of 20k.+ 5k. deficiency + 10k. Poste Restante/General Delivery pick-up
cost, but the latter fee was normally denoted by the receiving office.

A, p, .' '

,p/ .T .., --- .,. Oe .

... .

K. y:! ,. p,:--e W.e;,-

Fig. 50.
A cover from Kazan' 10.3.35 to Simferopol' 23.3, underpaid by 5k. per
rates of 25.2.33. Note DOPLATIT'25 KAZAN', based on a flat fee of 20k.
+ 5k. deficiency. Both cities had bilingual Russo-Turkic postmarkers.

Fig. 51.
An unpaid letter from
Leningrad Volodarskii
District 19.4.36 to
Tula 21.4. Rated
DOPLATIT 40, based
on a flat fee of 20k.
plus 20k. deficiency,
as the intercity
letter rate was then



* -f. s oe.t n---CI -y.acKy.




loo ioa mKire-cCLC1701____
-a __ _

.------ 1937 tons.
. Tsc..w-owceIt*/,

, .. .,-, -

Fig. 52.
A card from Zaporozh'e 19.10.37 to Leningrad 26 Oct., being underpaid
by 10k. for the intercity postcard rate. Hence the interesting
bilingual Russo-Ukrainian oval cachet, reading ZAPOROZH'E UKR.
DOPLA 30 TIT'ZAPORIZHZHYA, with the word DOPLATIT'split in the middle
for the handwritten charge, which was based on a flat fee of 20k.
plus 10k. deficiency. Note also the enquiry label, where the postman
noted that the addressee would be home at 6 o'clock in the evening.

;;' /~

. 16 Ff

/ c-&./

-I -- -

__--L-~~-LI~-IPi-- -i_-~


* -U*S I H. c'A'

I "*.' 1
S ......... ,-

/ (.... ..................... ........ .... ....


O M -, ,i A: ,
j4H"l i-P / '1 ti V
,.j .8 d 262.

z/-'r/^ *'- /
n owybFIPb ::.i *.." ...*.*.**' ir
;? *C~'- .~n -

Fig. 53.
An unpaid patriotic pictorial with internal censorship cachet LENINGRAD
176, sent from Leningrad Dzerzhinskii 29.3.43 to Kirov 15.4 during the
siege and with oval DOPLATIT'40 LENINGRAD DZERZH., thus showing that
the charge was now based on double the deficiency of 20k.

C no 51V;d~la~~ a

T.h/ -h- '!a .-aw

,,,e-. cn ; ".acies "- i, > I.. -i

emne iytseatro

t "c".. Gf c ..q?/Qf a-
i^' ^^^.-^.. .,.. -Tr
'--, :.a '.<, r<-" -'',- AIj ;;
I ""-i ra i/ a "' 4-...

pBsyme COIpoaoal. 8Ia i XygoiKeientenaarO
iaa CCCP noawaay Hyflbumeaao n IcunTropIu
rl" -~ir-Bpar lO;.j. Tan. au. Mnr!, r.

j L." .i -: ? '


Fig. 54.
A card from Kuibyshev 4.4.43 to Verevkino and with censorship cachet
KUIBYSHEV/40. Underpaid by 10k., hence the oval DOPLATIT'20, based
on double the deficiency. This is confirmed by the 10-k. franking
and clear postage due indication.

K .

/ a

h '-" \

TCI\ C _L*1

I *t

.p._ _- ,

"' .-^ .. -,
Ci J1 ":?tl ." -, -

,,. .. ". ^,' ,

S '''. .* \- j' / -:
^ -%^ -


An unpaid soldier-style triangular folded letter with internal
censorship cachet "18380", sent from Shalya 12.2.44 to Sverdlovsk
14.2 and with oval DOPLATIT'60. The letter may well have been sent
by a soldier on leave, but this item coming from a civilian office
rather than the fieldpost was correctly charged 60k.= double shortage.

N- ,* A
*~~~ -,.Z~~

I~~ ~~~~~ A u s'C:" ~

~RB-i~c~ Jze '-3

~. O- tg. it~

*il~b;n Cr'

Fig.56. -.
An unpaid card from Leningrad Smolniisk. 11.8.45 to Tallinn with oval
DOPLATIT' 40 LENINGRAD VOLOD., the charge being based on double the
deficiency of 20k. for an intercity postcard. This item has an
internal censorship cachet No.10912 and a patriotic design referring
to the Great Fatherland War (WWII). The card was unfranked for no
apparent reason and correctly charged postage due.


g. 55.



y'yQ^: .ft;:KivccTJ Ta" 2SKI i.;.?"^ i5.1
r;-w.'.w-wiP~ W~fb PIwsYI2'.,A T -9- 1DA.F'K.*

------'----...------ ;---,--"- --..-w,*: : ..,

u o ,,- m
CAsepib HmeletpfUM 3stearanKqrMU folde? losaAf! ii L';

M 2 S ...e ...pt . ........ .e .. c....... ...

..o i ......o .. .. ..... .. .n.
.. .. '" ,... ...... ........
-". .- : -- -."..C / ...:...*'..f t.. *,** ** ..

u a ..hi T e l 6a
thu :.h wit appro'-. h
.0u, a 6 oAlo. 7 .
'.d4 lnO5LA'1 MocoF6;.y poMCGL' 0o' 03alavy Bfnl Xya.H.KHi. r.18.1.845; nf12 5'A'T

a-' : -,

..... -: g :, ...

... .. ....-'r "

Fiq. 57. )

An unfranked military style folded letter from Uryupinsk 12.9.46 to
Moscow 24 Sept. with oval DOPLATIT'60 ...., i.e. postage due charge
of double the deficiency applied on arrival, with an additional
large oval Moscow postage due cachet and the fee "60 kop." included
as part of the inscription, rather than written in by hand. This is
another example of private correspondence, perhaps from a former
soldier using a fieldpost letter without franking. The letter is
thus correctly charged postage due with two appropriate cachets.
40 (see also p.77).


BY Alex Artuchov
(continued from No. 32)


Type 1 Small dent in NW corer frame.
Typ 2 Break in letter T of IIOMTA.
Typ 3 Does not seem to display any particular flaws.
Typ 4 Short line inside letter C of 3EMCK.
Typ 5 Break in left inner frameline under X of JIOXBHLI.

ype 1 Type 2 Type 4 Type 5

Pro fs are on white paper, typographed in several colours, on sheets of 5 x 5 with the same 5
typ s as the actual stamps, the sequence of the vertical rows in the sheet is 3+2+5+4+1,
im erforate, yellowish white gum.

3 kop. rose
3 op. blue
3 op. green
3 op. orange
3 kop. lilac rose


1902 (January, 1)
Printed in Moscow by Hagen, oval in shape, black embossed print on
surface coloured paper 0.09 mm thick, 20.25 x 27.75 mm white gum,
printed singly, 2,000 stamps of 1 kop. value printed and 1,000 stamps of 3 kop. value printed.


3. 1 kop. black on bright blue green paper 5.00

4. 3 kop. black on orange brown paper 5.00

1904 -1906
Printed by I.L. Frishberg and S.E. Sarachovich in Poltava, 19.25 x 23 mm lithographed on
white paper 0.08 mm thick, brownish yellow gum, perforated 11.5 2 editions.


THE FIRST EDITION (February, 15)
Sheet of 9 x 6, the 1 kop. stamp was made by changing the corner
numerals of the 3 kop. plate which produced 2 types placed horizontally, both values occur
perforated 11.5 and imperforate, 1 kop. value is also known perforated double vertically.

5. 1 kop. yellow brown 1.00

6. 3 kop. blue green 1.00

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2


Type 1 Short upper stroke in k of OjHA K., thin top numeral in top right corer.

Type 2 Long upper stroke in k of OJAHA K., numeral 1 in top right corer circle is thicker
and shorter.

Type 1


Type 2


THE SECOND EDITION (November 20,1906)
Sheet of 9 x 6, sheet for 1 kop. is 5 mm wider and 7.5 mm higher, the same 2 types but with
additional characteristics described as types 1 and 2 below, the 1 kop. value also occurs
imperforate and double perforated vertically, 10,000 stamps printed of the 1 kop. value and
5,000 stamps printed of the 3 kop. value.

7. 1 kop. dark yellow brown

8. 3 kop. dark blue



1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2

Type 1 LetterA of OJHA without legs.
Type 2 Bottom frameline under the letter H of OJHA is thickened.
Type 1 Type 2


1909 (January, 29)
Similar to previous issues but without period after 3EMCK, flags on the tower are shorter,
lithographed on smooth white paper 0.12 mm thick, 19 x 22.75 mm yellow brown gum, sheet
of 10 x 7 with both values placed on the same sheet with the 1 kop. in a pane of 6 x 7 on the left
and the 2 kop. in a pane of 4 x 7 on the right side, the space between the 2 panes varies, 2 types
for each value both in a 2 x 1 transfer block, perforated 11.5 and the 1 kop. value is also known
imperforate and double perforated horizontally or vertically, the 2 kop. stamp is known
perforated double horizontally and both stamps are known imperforate horizontally orvertically
and perforated both ways through the centre, 9,786 stamps of the 1 kop. value printed and 5,107
stamps of the 3 kop. value were printed.

9. 1 kop. reddish brown 2.00

10. 2 kop. dark gray blue 2.00

Type 1 Damaged window on tower.
Type 2 Break in curve of shield at bottom right.

Type 1 Type 2

Type 1 Damaged window on tower.



1 kop.

2 kop.

The 4th stamp on the sheet (type 2) has a white spot in the NW corner circle.

White paper 0.07 mm thick, white gum, imperforate.
- 1 kop. yellow
- 2 kop. blue (tower window is not damaged as on T. 1)
- 3 kop. emerald green

1910 (January, 28)
Provisional issue with changed postal rates of 3 kop. for ordinary mail and 6 kop. for registered
mail overprinted in light or dark violet on stamps of the previous issue by hand as the new
stamps were not ready at the time they were required, the overprints are found in all positions
and are known double.

3 kop. on 1 kop. 721
3 kop. on 2 kop. 676


1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1- 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 211 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

- 6 kop. on 1 kop. 300
- 6 kop. on 2 kop. 383

11. 3 kop. on No. 9

12. 3 kop. on No. 10

13. 6 kop. on No. 9

14. 6 kop. on No. 10





Proofs of the 1 kop. stamp surcharged in red are known. According to Schmidt only 3 such
copies are known.

1910 (March 1)
Similar to issues of 1904 1906 with the only difference being the inner frameline under the
word JIOXBHIUK. which extends and touches the lower left corer circle on this issue,
lithographed on smooth white paper 0.08 mm thick, white gum, sheet of 5 x 5, perforated 11.5
and imperforate, the 3 kop. stamps are known perforated vertically and the 5 and 6 kop. stamps
are known perforated through the middle vertically or horizontally, the 10 kop. stamp is known
perforated double horizontally or vertically, 1,000 stamps of each value issued including 100 of
each imperforate.

15. 1 kop. yellow

16. 3 kop. blue

17. 5 kop. emerald green

18. 6 kop. dark red

19. 10 kop. lilac







1910 (May 7)
Provisional issue, remaining higher value stamps were overprinted by hand in violet and black
violet in order to convert them to lower values which were in much greater demand, overprinted
on the stamps of the proceeding issue, all overprints are diagonal but also known horizontal on
No. 20.

- 1 kop. on No. 17 200
- 1 kop. on No. 18 200
- 3 kop. on No. 19 250
- 5 kop. on No. 16 25

The 5 kop. on No. 16 is considered to be a speculative issue.

20. 1 kop. on No. 17 5.00

21.1 kop. on No. 18 5.00

22. 3 kop. on No. 19 4.00

23. 5 kop. on No. 16 RR
(? known)

The 1 kop. stamps is the 1904 issue with value and colour changed and is with the same 2 types,
2 types for the 3 kop. value, 2 editions.

THE FIRST EDITION (May 10, 1910)
On smooth white paper 0.08 mm thick, brown gum, sheet of 5 x 5, types arranged in 2 different
ways on the sheet as illustrated below, perforated 11.5 and imperforate.

No. 24 1,500 including 100 imperforate.
No. 25 1.000 including 100 imperforate.

24. 1 kop. gray 2.00

25. 3 kop. gold 3.00

26. No. 25 printed in the gray colour of No. 24 RRRR
(2 known)

Type 1 Point of shield is long.
Type 2 Point of shield is short.




Stamps of the first edition of May 10, 1910 surcharged diagonally
in violet with a new value.

27. 3 kop. violet on No. 24 RR
9 stamps issued (? known)
28. 5 kop. violet on No.24 5.00
200 stamps issued

29. 6 kop. violet on No. 24 5.00
200 stamps issued
known with inverted surcharge

30. 5 kop. violet on No. 25 R
75 stamps issued (? known)

31. 6 kop. violet on No. 25 R
84 stamps issued (? known)
known with inverted surcharge

SECOND EDITION (July 3,1910)
Stamps of the first edition with changed colours and rearrangement of types on the sheet in 2
different ways, on white paper 0.1 mm thick, white gum, perforated 11.5 and imperforate, the 1
kop. stamp is known perforated double and perforated through the middle of the stamp vertically
or horizontally, the same 2 types as on the first edition.

32. 1 kop. black 0.50
2,000 stamps printed, 100 imperforate

33. 3 kop. dark lilac 1.00
1,000 stamps printed, 100 imperforate


1 2 1 2 1

2 1 1 2 1
1 2 2 2 1

1 2 1 2 2
1 2 1 2 1
2 1 1 1 2
2 1 2 1 2

1 1 2 1 2


Stamp 1 White spot at top of NE corer circle.
Stamp 2 Double white spot in NW corer circle.
Stamp 4 Break in inner frameline on left under letter O of JIOXBHLIK.
Stamp 5 Break in inner frameline on left under letters HL, of JIOXBH4IQK.
Stamp 7 Blue spot above 3 in NW corer between the thin outer frameline and corer circle.
Stamp 9 Break in top inner frameline just left of the right curve.
Stamp 10 Break in thin bottom frameline near SE comer.
Stamp 11 Blue guide dot on margin, break in inner curved frameline in NW comer, spots of
colour between outer framelines on left and and in and around letters BH4L of JIOXBHI4K.
.Stamp 14 Blue dot to right of tower near centre of inner frameline under O of IIOMTA.
Stamp 15 Blue guide dot on margin.
Stamp 19 Blue dot under curved inner frameline in NE corner.
Stamp 20 Break in thin outer frameline on right about 1/3 of the way of the way up from the
bottom corner.
Stamp 22 Short blue line parallel to left side of tower.
Stamp 23 Breaks in curved inner framelines in NE corer.

Stamp #1. Stamp #2. Stamp #7.

Stamp #22


2 2 1 1 1
1 2 1 2 1
2 2 1 1 1
2 2 1 1 1

1 2 2 2 1

2 2 1 1 1
2 2 1 2 1
2 1 2 1 1
2 2 1 2 1
2 1 2 2 1

1910- 1911
Similar to previous issue, 20.5 x 24.25 mm lithographed on white paper of various thickness,
yellowish white shiny gum, sheet of 5 x 5, perforated 11.5 and imperforate, 3 editions.

FIRST EDITION (July 13, 1910)
On white paper 0.08 mm thick, 1,000 of each stamp printed perforated 11.5 including 100

34. 5 kop. blue and brown 1.00

35. 6 kop. lilac and emerald green 1.00

36. 10 kop. black and carmine red 2.00

37. 15 kop. carmine red and blue 2.00

SECOND EDITION (November 10, 1910)
On white paper 0.06 mm for Nos. 38 and 39 and 0.13 mm thick for Nos. 40 and 41, 2,000
stamps of each value printed including 100 imperforate.

38. 1 kop. yellow and black 0.50

39. 3 kop. emerald green and lilac 0.50

40. 1 kop. yellow and black 1.00

41.3 kop. emerald green and lilac 1.00

VARIETY: Coat of arms inverted, on imperforate stamps only.

Due to a shortage of low value issues the 15 kop. stamp of the first issue was overprinted by
hand in violet with new values, issue of 1,000 stamps for No. 42 and 200 for No. 43.

42. 1 kop. overprinted in violet on No. 37 10.00

43. 3 kop. overprinted in violet on No. 37 10.00

VARIETY OF No. 43: Overprint inverted.


THIRD EDITION (February 1911)
The 1 kop. stamp of the first edition in changed colour and with differences in shape and
position of corer numerals, sheet of 5 x 5, 1,000 stamps printed including 100 imperforate.

44. 1 kop. emerald green and carmine red 1.00

1911 (August 11)
Similar to previous issues but with K instead of KOII at the bottom except on 25 kop. stamp
which is larger, with differences in shape and position of corer numerals, 25 kop. stamp is 24 x
29.5 mm, lithographed on smooth white paper 0.1 mm thick, yellowish gum, sheet of 5 x 5,
perforated 11.5 and imperforate, 1 and 3 kop. stamps known perforated double and perforated
horizontally and the 3 kop. stamp imperforate horizontally.

No. of Stamps Printed:
No. 45 1,500 including 100 imperforate
No. 46 500 including 100 imperforate
No. 47 300 including 100 imperforate

45. 1 kop. red and emerald green 0.75

46. 3 kop. lilac and black 3.00

47. 25 kop. olive yellow and brown 10.00

1911 (Sept. 22- Oct. 23)
34.5 x 46 mm hectographed on smooth white paper 0.09 mm thick, white gum, in a new
ornamental Ukrainian style design, in sheets of 3 x 2 or printed singly in small sheetlets,
imperforate, 250 stamps printed.

4. 3ttnfwi3 i

48. 3 kop. lilac rose, green and lilac 50.00

Shades: The first stamps printed were in a darker shade but later
became progressivesly lighter.


1911- 1912
Designed by Hanko in the style of the murals in the government offices in Poltava, plates
prepared in Moscow but printed by Podsemsky in Poltava, 30 x 32.75 mm printed by a
combination of typography and zincography in 3 colours on white paper 0.1 mm thick, light
brownish yellow gum, sheet of 5 x 5, perforated 11.5 with mostly rough and incomplete
perforations as well as imperforate, 4 editions.

FIRST EDITION (October 23, 1911)
1 kop. stamp with 2 types and 3 kop. stamp with 3 types, 3,000 stamps of each value printed
including 150 imperforate stamps of the 1 kop. and 125 of the 3 kop..

49. 1 kop. green, brown red and black

50. 3 kop. lilac, green and red brown




1 Kop.

3 Kop.

1 KOP.
Type 1 Numeral 1 without serif at the bottom.
Type 2 Numeral 1 with serif at the bottom.
3 KOP.
Type 1 Both numerals 3 with flat heads.
Type 2 Head of 3 on left with serif, round head on right.


1 1 1 1 1

*1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1

1 1 2 2 3



by Eric Peel.

Following Leonard Tann's article "Three Days Early" in "The Post-Rider"
No.27, he has been good enough to allow me to examine the postcard in
question and to correspond at some length on the matter. These notes
are an attempt to summarise the evidence and to present our separate

Post offices were indeed staffed on January 1st. Not only did they
deal with incoming mail for delivery, but they also cancelled and
despatched outgoing mail. I have no fewer than 11 cards or covers with
despatch marks of January 1st.: Vil'na 1898, Warsaw 1904, Kainarveki
Bess. 1904, S.P.B. 1905 & 1907, Novorzhev Psk. 1909, Gatchina SPB 1911,
Armavir Kub. 1913, Proskurov Pod. 1914, Rybinsk Yar. 1914, Kulikovo
Tamb. 1916, covering every day of the week other than Sunday. The
Armavir item bears Arms stamps, not Romanovs and has a DOPLATIT'mark.
I therefore see no reason why a PO employee could not have purchased
Romanovs, affixed them to cards or letters and cancelled/despatched
them on 1.1.13, either on his own account as a favour to a friend, or
under pressure from someone in a position of authority. One would
expect a card of that nature to be locally addressed or contain some
request to be retained; a cover, unless with the enclosed letter,
would have no such request. It seems to me significant that we have
NO record of any such items, which I would regard as far more likely
to have been created (and to have arrived!), than items arising by
reason of a PO employee selling Romanovs over the counter on or
before 31.12.12.
S..... What DO we have?
.. ... ..... To the two items
...... iSC -mentioned in
.... ...- : Leonard's
article (a reg'd
-- card and a
cover), I can
add cards used
on 2.1.13 at
Warsaw and
(Fig. i) the
SOTKPLWToEy o. \ latter dated
in manuscript
S ARTE .PoS 1.1.13 by the
3 "nlrH / sender.

-.. __, 1"Fi. 1.
i '^^ :


1 41

Fig. 4.

Fig. 2. Fig. 3.
I have no loose Romanovs cancelled
1.1.13, but Peter Walker has 10-k.
stamps with the cds of Gur'ev and
Pereslavr-Zalesskii (Fig.2). For 1912
I have Zavertse Petrok. 14.1.12 (now
Zawiercie in Poland: see Fig.3), Urga ..
21.12.12, Kashgar 14.5.12, Kazan' 23.3.12 and Warsaw 7.11.12 (Fig.4)-
The Urga 21.12.12 is on a 50-k. and is no doubt connected to Antoine
Speeckaert's 35-k. of the same date.

Fig. 5. ~.
Ii i ./490

.. ....

.. Best of all, I have a registered
letter whose reverse bears a
..- 5-k. Zemstvo of Ust'sysolsk
"- /. (Chuchin 24) cancelled
,' ".. ...... 4;cra^ ri" f^ 'BORISOVSKOE/VOLOST. PRAVL., the
: cds of Ustsysol'skaya Zemskaya
S. f- Pochta dated 23.8.13 and a
j- receipt mark of Vologda 29.8.13.
/ ... The obverse bears a 2-k. and
.* .'" :'- ....... 4x3-k. Romanovs with five full
:'- : strikes of UST'SYSOLSK 24.7.12, a
Double error for 24.8.13(Fig.5).


It seems unlikely that the stamps .........
were delivered before December
1912, which rules out as obvious
errors earlier dates in the year
1912. At the other end of the I
time-scale, I have Bairam-Ali
28.1.23, Chita 17.8.24 and
Andizhan 19.2.25. We know that Fig. 6.
usage in those years is
impossible and that in all probability they were used in 1913, 1914
and 1915 respectively (Fig.6).

Lobachevskii in Rossica 98-99, p.56 says: "Separate cases are known
of stamps placed in circulation at the end of 1912. This was
requested by L.P. Volynsk of Moscow and A.P. Kulkov of Perm'. The
author has an open letter of birthday greetings with a 3k. stamp...
postmarked...Kataiskoye Perm 23.12.12".

It will be seen that errors of date are by no means rare, but become
obvious on loose stamps only when the date falls outside the period of
circulation, or on a card or cover where joined up by divergence in
dating by the sender, or by postmarks of transit or receipt. Among the
many used Romanovs with perfectly normal dates in 1913-1915, there is
certain to be a small proportion with erroneous dates. It cannot be
stressed too often or too strongly that the date of cancellation shows
only what numerals have been set into the canceller. Certainly a very
high proportion of dates is correct, but a small proportion I would
hazard 1 in 250/500 is not.

Let us now assess the recorded material by these criteria, beginning
with the first-day items of 2.1.13. Leonard's registered card and my
Vinnitsa card appear as certainties, while my Warsaw card has a faint
French receipt mark of 18(5) Jan.1913, which I think entitles it to
join them. The illustration of Henry Blum's letter on p.70 of "The
Post-Rider" No.6 does not show the date clearly and no mention is made
of supporting transit or receipt postmarks; the cds is SPB 4 Eksped.4
incidentally and not as stated in the text on p.69. If the date on the
original letter is clear, we can say that it is authentic. There are
numerous authenticated cards and covers bearing Romanovs used in Jan.
1913 and those of 2.1.13; therefore, the odds are greatly in its
favour. While no entire of 1.1.13 are known, the date seems possible
and the chances of error small. The evidence is too sparse to come to
any definite conclusion, but I am inclined to think that the dates on
the two 10-k.. stamps are authentic.

Before considering the 1912 items, let us think what would have
happened in the post offices when the Romanovs were received in
December 1912, with instructions to place them on sale at the
beginning of 1913. Stocks of the Arms types were available; they
continued to remain so during 1913 and subsequently. Given the
rigidity of approach typical of Russian officials, I cannot believe
that any local shortage of an Arms type value would have led to the
sale of its Romanov counterpart before the dawn of 1913. We may
confidently assume that the new stamps were locked away and placed on
the counters on 1.1.13, when the offices were closed to the public;
an ideal time and opportunity to do this at leisure. Sales of
commemorative stamps prior to the official date of issue are a common-
place nowadays, but it must be appreciated that in the Russia of 1913,
circumstances were very different. Apart from the stamps of. 1904,


which bore a charity surcharge and were therefore sold only when
specifically requested, only the Arms types of various designs had
passed over the counters for 55 years. The Romanovs were much larger
and totally different in design, arresting the attention of staff and
customers alike. While I can then accept it being possible that
Romanovs may have been available in rare cases at a counter before
the end of 1912, I cannot believe that a clerk, if not asleep or
drunk (!) would have sold them in error.

Consider too the reaction of the purchaser, unless he was informed,
philatelically minded and blessed with the necessary sangfroid to
accept the stamp without comment or display of excitement. If
informed, he would doubtless have said "I didn't think that these
were coming out until the New Year". If uninformed, he might have
commented "What the devil are these?". In either case, we may assume
that the clerk would have apologised and repossessed the stamp.

I think we have shown that the chance of a sale in 1912 was extremely
small and we can now look at the 1912 material, leaving aside for the
moment Leonard's card. Lobachevskii's card is unauthenticated by a
sender's dating or a receipt mark and the reports of Volynsk and
Kulkov give no information by which they can be evaluated. My cover
is a patent error, as are all my stamps other than the Urga 21.12.12;
but there is no justification in regarding this as more likely to be
a genuine date and the same applies to Antoine Speeckaert's twin and
the 2-k. reportedly seen by the late Dr. G.B. Salisbury. As with my
cover, these "12" items are doubtless all errors for "13" and such
errors were as likely in December 1913 as in any other month. Putting
it bluntly, there is NO recorded authenticated usage in 1912, so that
although errors of date are scarce, the possibility of authenticated
usage in 1912 is zero and no credence can be given to any
unauthenticated material.

Now at last to Leonard's card. A lady writes to Natalia, addressing
her as "Dear little pigeon", conveying New Year's greetings,
enquiring as to the possibility of a meeting in Moscow and referring
to a cold caught in Lugansk. There is no direct clue to the sender's
location and no hint of philatelic interest by either sender or
recipient. We may hazard it to be written by an older woman to a
younger sister or niece, for example, that the sender was within easy
reach of Moscow, probably (from the reference to Lugansk) to the
south of the city and not far distant from the address at
Starozhilovo. Despatched by an unknown mail coach (pochtovyi vagon)
on 30 December, evidenced by the New Year's greeting, posted perhaps
on the train by the sender or a friend, or much the more likely at
a station with no canceller of its own, that placed it on the train.
Almost certainly, therefore, the mail coach was, so to speak, on the
way and the card would have reached Starozhilovo in one or two days
at the most. I have tried without success to identify the canceller.
Only a small number of mail coaches were using cds at that date,
although this may have been the stray use of a superseded canceller.
One attractive possibility is Mail Coach 61-62 between Ryazhsk and
Vyazma, for which I have only ovals, but all of later dates.

Where and when were the stamps purchased? The date 30.12.12 was a
Sunday; some large offices were open to the public, but only to 10am.
I do not for a moment believe that the stamps were bought specifically
to frank this card anyway. No one, apart from philatelic
considerations, buys 3xl-k. stamps to frank a card and no clerk
supplies.3xl-k. when asked for a 3-k. stamp, unless he is out of


stock of the latter value and, if we are in 1912 with Romanovs at the
counter, he had 3-k. as well as 1-k. stamps. We are looking therefore
at stamps already in the sender's possession (or available to her
from a father, husband or brother possibly) in a wallet, desk or what
have you. Now, the 1-k. stamps were probably purchased to despatch
printed matter or to upgrade 3-k. stationery cards for addresses
abroad. These three copies were probably part of a larger block
purchased on or before 29 December and possibly well before that date.
It seems pertinent to comment that the accidental sale of a block is
far less likely than that of a single stamp and that the further back
we go into December, the more unlikely any sale becomes.

The Starozhilovo mark shows the year as "13" quite clearly. The month
has failed to print almost entirely and the few flecks of ink
remaining could as well be a double digit as a single. The day shows
the digit "1" singly, which is decidedly unusual for a circular mark
of this date, although common enough for oval marks of all types, as
both Leonard and I can show from our collections. Double circles of
earlier dates up to about 1911 occasionally show single-day digits
singly and that is especially the case with the smaller marks, but at
this date we normally find "-1", occasionally "1-", while a few
cancellers, in particular some of L6DZ CENTRAL and KHARKOV STATION,
show "01". The observant reader will have seen that my Vinnitsa card
is one of the scarce exceptions to that rule! So the "1" is therefore
very likely to be "11", "21", "31" or indeed "-1", with the first
component not printing: the spacing certainly points to something in
front of the "l", although I suppose this is equally consonant with a
blank piece of metal in the canceller. There are therefore two
A. The card was despatched on 30.12.12 and received on 1.1.13. I hope
I have shown that the odds against this are astronomical and, of
course, without a clear 1.1.13 receipt the card must fall into the
unauthenticated class with all the other 1912 items which are not
patent errors.
B_ The card was despatched on 30.12.13 and received on 31.12.13, the
30.12.12 date of the mail coach canceller being an error for 30.12.13.
Long odds, but far shorter than those for A above and these are the
only two horses in the race.

Therefore, on the available evidence, I must conclude B to be true.
That said, there is still a chance, however slim, that A may be the
LEONARD TANN REPLIES: In our correspondence, Eric Peel and I discussed
what I shall call "single-digit day dates", where the day of the month
is a single number, any date from the 1st. to the 9th. of the month.
In single-digit day dates there is frequently, but not always, a dash
confirming that it is a single digit and not a double one, with one
figure failing to print. One frequently finds examples printed thus:
"-3" or "4-". Having scoured my not inconsiderable collection, I have
found in circular town postmarks and oval railway postmarks or TPOs/
RPOs and station offices as many single-digit day dates with dashes
confirming a single figure and almost as many with a single figure
WITHOUT any dash, before or after. Eric wanted to suggest that my card
shown in "The Post-Rider" No.27 had a figure missing in the day-date,
as there was no dash to confirm a single-digit day date.

I agree with him absolutely that the delivery of Romanov stamps to the
post offices throughout the Russian Empire and beyond (think of the
task of distribution! To all the stations on the Transsiberian, Trans-
caspian and Transcaucasian railways, to the postal desks on the ships

and steamers from Murmansk to Vladivostok, the post offices in
Manchuria, Mongolia, Northern Persia, Constantinople, the offices in
the Turkish Empire; a Herculean task in itself!) was accomplished in
December 1912. Further, from my own studies of the essays and proofs,
I can state that those were still in process in mid-1912, so the
printing had not yet taken place, let alone issuing the stamps and
an erroneous early use! Dates before December 1912 should be regarded
as an error of datestamp and not as a pre-issue usage. I further
agree with Eric that it was possible for a clerk to buy a Romanov
stamp, stick it on a letter and cancel it on lst.Jan.1913, motivated
by pressure from a highly-placed collector, as a favour for a friend,
official First Day of Issue is the day that the Romanov stamps went
on sale at the post offices to the general public. My registered card
to Germany states in the words of the writer:"I was the first in the
post office to buy the new stamps. The Jubilee stamps went on sale

Eric points out, as I myself would, that pre-sale of commemorative
stamps is known in our times. Some have been registered on letters
and the attempt by the post office to delete the date on the actual
letters is defeated by the matching receipt. He is right in saying
that (a) the Romanov stamps were vastly different from the Arms
types, (b) there were no other commemorative issues to confuse them
with and (c) the innocent clerk or the innocent customer would have
been struck by the designs. However, let me say too that, in earlier
years, we have had examples of stamp errors being sold over the
counter and being used. I can understand a stamp with centre inverted,
such as the 1902-1905 25k. or 35k., since the centre was there and it
requires a keen eye looking carefully to spot the inversion. But an
omitted centre: a blank white oval should attract some attention!
A paper fold causing part of the design to remain unprinted, or a
centre severely shifted to cause a crescent moon of white in the
stamp centre; yet these are known used quite normally! I suggest, if
I may, that the vast majority of people wanted a stamp to stick on a
letter. They did not care if it was printed upside-down, back-to-
front, was square with a picture of Genghis Khan on. They wanted
something to mail their letter. The clerk slapped it on the desk and
took the money. The customer stuck it on the letter and put it in the
box. That was all there was to it. Stamp collectors, mainly
foreigners and highly placed people who could afford the luxury of
the hobby, cared. The majority, peasants struggling for a living,
did not care.

Further, there was a lot of publicity about the stamps. Certainly
collectors, Russian and foreign, were waiting eagerly for the stamps.
The man who mailed my registered card was obviously keen enough to
be there, first in the queue and got them that morning. His message
attests to it. Hundreds of other Romanov stamps and the associated
postal stationery were purchased and mailed on that day 2.1.13. Many
items were ordinary commercial and non-philatelic mail and were
thrown away. Other examples have survived.

Let me mention the usages at Urga, Mongolia in December 1912. There
is a large number of high values known used from Urga altogether,
probably from parcel cards, money transfer cards and registered items.
There are Ir. Arms stamps, high value Romanovs, which were very high
frankings in those times. The clerk at Urga obviously needed high


values. He probably would have had no more than a sheet of each high
value of the earlier Arms stamps, requisitioning from the head post
office for the district. His new supplies were the Romanovs, he
needed high value stamps and I suggest that he used the only ones he
then had: the new Romanov issue. I see no problem with that. Way out
in Urga, that seems reasonable. But wanting 1-k. stamps in the heart
of Russia; as Eric says, it takes quite a stretch of the imagination.
Yet is it so impossible for someone, the writer's husband, father or
she herself to have gone to the local post office, asked for a block
of 1-k. stamps, perhaps among other items and be given a block of
the Romanovs? Even if queried, the clerk might just have said: "Yes,
they're out now. Yes, you can use them, they're OK", because he was
too bored or too fed-up to be bothered to go and get some Arms stamps
instead. Or maybe he was tearing up the sheets at the counter ready
for 2nd. Jan., so he tore a few off: "Here, Madam, have these". As a
colleague of mine said: never put down to malice what can be
attributed to stupidity! I will apply that here; why try to
rationalise what might be attributed to stupidity/boredom/lethargy?

Perhaps Eric will agree with me on another point. It is a fact that,
long after the introduction of standard oval railway cancellers, one
occasionally finds the old circular Pochtovyi Vagon type used.
Route No.271 was Valk-Stockmannshof in Livonia. There are beautiful
examples of the ovals used there, yet I have a 1911 postcard that
for some unfathomable reason has the old circular type used on it. I
would not read anything in particular into the use of the circular
PV postmark on the three-days-early card, nor the fact that the
single-digit day date does not appear to have a dash confirming the
date as 1.1.13 in the Starozhilovo receipt mark. I agree that the
circular Pochtovyi Vagon postmarks were used into 1913 or even 1914,
I have one used on a postage-free postcard of 1919, but probably the
oval type had been lost or damaged in the Revolution, or was worn
out and not replaced.

For what it is worth and not because it is in my collection, I do
think that the postcard has been used on 30.12.12 and is a true
example of Romanov stamps being used before the date of official
issue, the. first day of official sale being 2nd. January 1913.
Finally, I wish to express my thanks to my friend and colleague Eric
Peel, a respected philatelic scholar in our field, for having
stimulated discussion on this interesting subject. It would be most
helpful if any other specialists would have any further comments to


by Dr.P.A. Michalove & Ya. Afangulskii.

(a) Dr. Peter A. Michalove.
Allan Steinhart'-s cover from North Korea in "The Post-Rider" No.27,
p.64 reminded me of the cover shown on the next page, which may be of
interest. It was mailed from the USSR to North Korea on the eve of the
Korean War. The return address is given as Rostov-on-Don and the
cover is postmarked at Kamennomostskaya, a village a little to the
north of Rostov. Judging from the Russian portion of the address, the
sender was probably a Korean studying in the USSR. The cover is
addressed to "u'ezd Kham-Zhu in the Southern Khamchen Province" of
North Korea. The letter was mailed on 15 June 1950 and there is a
Vladivostok transit mark of 21 July on the reverse in Cyrillic and


I^L1. 1

; $. s
^ >11'
^ ^


7 Fa-

Latin, evidently intended for outgoing international mail. There are
no Korean receipt marks on the cover. Thus, the letter was still in
transit on 25th. June when the Korean War broke out.

(b) Ya. Afangulskii.
To understand the significance of Dr. Michalove's cover, it would be
useful to summarise the history of Korea from the capitulation of
Japan on 15 August 1945 to the war of June 1950 to July 1953. With
the end of WWII, the Allies agreed that the Soviet Army would take
the surrender of the Japanese forces north of the 38th. parallel in
the Korean peninsula and the U.S. Army south of that line. With the
onset of the Cold War, the 38th. parallel solidified into the border
between the two zones of occupation. Ironically, at that time, most
of the industry, minerals and hydro-electric power were in the North,
which demanded capital goods and hard currency for its products. It
was offered consumer goods, which it refused to accept and the level
of tension kept rising.The southern zone became the Republic of Korea
on 15 August 1948, the third anniversary of the Japanese surrender
and the Korean People's Democratic Republic
(KNDR in Russian) was proclaimed in the North
Son 9 Sept.1948, a new distinctive flag being
S6 Ialso adopted (see the illustrations here).
Si- The last Soviet forces were withdrawn from
the North on 30 December 1948.

The present writer has read many histories of
the Korean War but still does not know the
S exact circumstances surrounding the actual
outbreak of fighting on 25 June 1950. Now that the Cold War has ended,
further details will eventually come to light. Anyway, the writer has
visited the demilitarised zone separating the two countries, where it
became evident that there had been many clashes along the 38th.

_-i-iii~--i;~L~;-~--- --- -- -------r- -- ___


~g~~-r ~Z~e/l
/3y~oB. /py~~y~zea~

parallel before June 1950, including some initiated by the South
Korean forces. Whatever sparked that dreadful war, a likely scenario
is that, during an outbreak of fighting on 25 June, the North Koreans
struck with such overwhelming force that the Southeners quickly
crumbled. The Northeners had been very well trained by their battle-
hardened Soviet advisers and they had enough firepower for an army
six times their size. They kept on going and, in three days, were in
Seoul, the South Korean president Dr. Syngman Rhee. (Li Seung-man)
and his cabinet barely escaping with their lives. By September,
almost all the South was in Northern hands, except for the Pusan

In a brilliant flanking movement, the U.S. and South Korean forces
under General Douglas MacArthur landed at Inchhon, the port for
Seoul on 15 Sept.1950, cut off the Northeners and crossed the 38th.
parallel in force on 9th. October. The North Korean capital of
Pyongyang was captured ten days later. Many world leaders,
including the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, now urged
caution as South Korea had been liberated, but General MacArthur and
the South Koreans decided to "puk chin" (go north). By November, the
United Nations forces had reached the Yalu River at some points, on
the border with China. That brought the Chinese Red Army into the
conflict on 6th. November, taking Pyongyang on 5th. December and
Seoul on 4 Jan.1951. The front eventually stabilised roughly along
the old border and an armistice finally came into effect in July 1953.
The Korean War was a great human tragedy, as more than ten million
Koreans on both sides of the border have been cut off from their
relatives for more than 40 years and the end is still not in sight.
ing''1m CCCP '94 g '" ... w .. .

a l o s .oo -

philatelic market. A similar item is shown here, posted in Leningrad
on 24.8.50, with the machine cancelled missing the stamps. The latter

During the roughly eight weeks that the U.N. forces were in the North,
a lot of souveniring went on and the post offices were stripped of
their stocks. That is how Dr. Michalove's cover came onto the Western
philatelic market. A similar item is shown here, posted in Leningrad
on 24.8.50, with the machine canceller missing the stamps. The latter

were cancelled in transit on 13.9.50 by the same Vladivostok bilingual
M ZH D /"D" postmarker, which was applied as a backstamp on the cover
held by Dr. Michalove. This writer has seen other examples from Soviet
post offices in the southern part of Sakhalin Island (Karafuto), sent
by Koreans taken there during Japanese rule and addressed to North

North Korean stamps and postcards of 1946 to 1950 also came onto the
international market in the same way and some of them showed Soviet
influence almost from the first issue. Examples are given below and
the similarities are apparent. For those interested in further
details, our editor wrote a comprehensive article "A Look at North
Korea" in The N.S.W. Philatelic Annual for 1955, published by The
Philatelic Society of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
___"The Order of the
OF CHINA issue of 1950.

23 x 37mm. in
green (shades).

20 x 32mm.

The 50-cheun brown
Kim Il-sung stamp of
15.8.46, inscribed
in Korean, Kanji &
Russian ("chen")
and also showing
the original
traditional Korean
flag in the
background of the
stamp design.

Soviet & North Korean
flags for 5Th. anniversary
of liberation from Japan,
15 August 1950.

Capture of Seoul
28 June-1950.


EDITORIAL COMMENT: We are reproducing here the four pages of a coloured
leaflet for the above event. It is not copyright but, as a matter of
courtesy, we requested permission four times to print it. Unfortunately,
Mr. Mizuhara has been very ill for some time and no confirmatory reply
has yet been received. We are going ahead, feeling that he will
understand. This is an admirable summary of Mongolian and Uryankhai/
Tuvan philately and your editor has added supplementary examples at
the foot of each page. PS: Mr. Mizuhara has since died 28.11.93. R.I.P.
PART I : RUSSIAN POST (p.oo os o
Czar's Russia concluded a commercial treaty with China at Kyakhta in 1927.
Later a private postal route was opened between Peking and Kyakhta. In 1863,
Russian consulate was established In Urga (Ulan Bator). It is said the adhesive of
Czar's Russia from 1870 in Urga, but the earliest usage known to date from 1878.
Russia continued to open their post offices In Ulyasutal, Kobdo, Tsaln-Shabi,
Sharasume, Khatkhyl and Mondy. Here shows those covers chronologically.

1879 (Apr. 29) Urga to Peking

: First type
cancellation Type IIA

1878 (Jan. 30) Urga to Peking, pen-cancellation Type llB Type IIC

Meiso Mizuhara's
Mongolian Philatelic

b. 20.1.16

......... .- ...................... .MONGOLIA, (MONGOLIA)
both types. URGA-v 11.12.16
i Please wave some smelling salts under Leonard's nose!
L 63

The Postal Administration of Ch'ing Dynasty started their preparation to
establish the modern postal system in May 1909 at Kulun (now Ulan Bator).
From December 5 in the year of cock (January 15, 1910), they began a service
connecting Kalgan and Kulun using thinese adhesives. This route extended to
Kyakhtain Lstumn of the same year. In 1918, post offices were opened in
Ulyasutai and in Kobdo, followed by the Postal Agencies in Chayinkulun,
Uryankhal and Ulankom. All were closed at the beginning of 1921.

V KULUN Date stamp

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

SType 3B Typoe 4B Type 4C

Type4D Type 4E Type 5
KULUN (Urga) First Chinese Mall Cover

Kulun (Type2) Kulun (Type 4E)
Vert. pair shown
right was surchar- KULUN, Jan. 18,
ged with Republic 1921, Latest used
of China which date of Chinese
founded in 1912. .h, Post in Mongolia. Urga Branch
Kulun (Type 3A) .

Tungyingtzu Chayin- Kobdo Uryan- ... *
(Urga Branch) Kulun Type I Khal Kiachta (First type d.s.)

Mongolian Postal Cancellations (1924-36)

Type I: Box type date stamp
Ind. No. P.O. name (Col.) Earliet dat
Cl-01 URUGA (Bk.) 23-08-24
Cl-02 ALTANBULAK (ray-Bk.) 28-08-24
(Black) 17-07-25
Cl-03 KHANKENTEI ULA (Dp.violet) 27-06-26
Cl-04 KOBDO (Bk.) 01-11-25
Cl-05 TARIATU (Bk.*) 2007-25
CI-06 TSETSERLIK (Bk.) (*0) 02-05-26
Black(early) 25-08-25
Gray-brown 26-10-25
Violet-brown 17-11-25
Laketo Brownish 14-12-26
Rose-red to Dull Vermi. 07-02-27
Orange-brown 10-0-27
Blaclateruse) 07-05-28
CI-08 UDDE (Bk.*) only loose stamps, date prob.
CI-09 ULANGOM (BLk.) 20-12-26
Cl-10 ULIASTAI (Bk.) 13-07-25
(Blue-black) 10-09-27
(Brown-red) 13-01-27
Cl-11 VANOHURYE (Bk. ) 20-07-25
(Violet*) 27-03-28
*Date by nm. In empty date space. **Russian book recorded.
Type IA : Rectangular Boxed Type (Russian cyrillc)
CIA-01 BAMH-TYMblH (Bain-Tumin-Han)
CIA-02MYPHH (Murin)

Type n: Double c.d.s.
Ind. No. P.O. name



Last date to
25-12-25 C2-01
24-05-28 C2- 1
28-12-27 C2-07
25-11-28 C2-09
22-07-29 C2-12
1927-28 non
19-12-27 C2-10
07-01-28 C2-06
xx-04-27 C2-04

Size(mm), at boom Ealiest date Latest dae
28/18.5mm m fo 14-01-26 end of 34
(yr. shown as "24" in 1934) cary 1934 end of 35
31/19m (solid bar) 1101-36
29/18.5mm o 25-09-28 end of35
28.5/18.3 mmn xx-10-30 mix. use C202
31/18.5mm ra xx-09-33
ditto. Blue(date ill.), Red(09-7-35)
29/20 mm (col.Violet) 24-11-28 xx-12-28
ditto. Black 2108-29 09-07-35
29/20mm (Gray Violet) 26-05-28 28-09-29
29/20 mm (Black) 01.xx-31 (only one date)
ditto. Purp-rd xx-0-35 (on cover)
dito. Russian"XATXbblI"(Bk.) x209-27 07-11-27
29/20 m r *- 3003-28 2106-30
29/20 mmr Black 22-10-28 18-04-29
ditto. Red 15-01-32
29/20 mm Black 2901-29 0502-29
32/24 nm Violet 19-ll-30(onlyone dae)
29/20.5 tmm 03-06-29 03-02-30
29/20m Blue 15-02-29 1108-30
ditto. Purple 11-08-30 17-08-30
ditto. Black 0201-32 08-03-36
31.5/19mm j, Purple 04-03-31
ditto. Dp. Red 22-09-31 xx-xx-32

- IMeiso Mizuhara
Born in 1924 in Kanagawa, Japan. His interest in
stamp collecting started at 12, and in 1950's he began
to devote himself to the bobby. With repentence for
the invasion by Japanese Imperialism to Asia, he grew
interested in Postal History of China and others.
He was awarded Grand Prix in 1985. The follow-
ing are the medals awarded for his collection of
Mongolian stamps, which gave Mongolian stamps a
very high reputation.
Honorable Medals awarded at International Philatelic Exhibitions

CHAYIN-KULUN Postal Agency
1919 (Dec.-) via Kulun to Kalgan

Uliassutal (Apr.4,1918, First day)

;I *0

" ': .," : -. 1-. ,, *
.= ^ ''" .

5, iC

A letter with vertical cachet "Tung Ying Tzu Postal Box No.2". with the

stamps cancelled at the Chinese post office at Urga 13.?.1912.


1 **

'?. -

PART 1fI : REPUBLIC ISSUE (Early Period, 1924-36)
The postal service by Mongolian people started under the patronage of Soviet Union at the end of 1921.
As no Mongolian stamp existed, they used "Postage Paid" cancellations on stampless covers. The first
Mongolian definitive were printed in Moscow and issued in August 1924. The collection here consists of
used adhesives and covers. It covers from the "Interim" Period, which precedes the first definitive, to
around 1935, including the first definitive and usages of pictorial issues of 1932 issue.
This period is shown in Part IV with cancellations grouped according to the known post offices.

1924 (Aug.) Litho., State Prg. Works., Moscow .

Earliest dated use of First Mongolian Stamps
1924 (Aug. 23) Registered from URGA to DRESDEN
Germany, arrival Sep. 11. Bearing total to 40c, cancel-
led with URGA Type I d.s. "23.8. 24" in black.

(A) Applied in PURPLE (Apr.24 Nov.)

-I iI

5 Dollars on cover
1926 (Nov. 6) Registered, ULAN-BATOR to UDAB-BATOR.KHOTO

(B) Applied in BLACK (Jul.24 -Dec.)

50 cents on cover
1926 (Sep.28) Registered. ULAN-BATOR to PARIS, France
Paris arrival c.d.s.. Oct. 18, 1926 on reverse

"MUNG" volue, Ltho., Fi/t home print, Unwmhd., Perf.11


22-X1-26 2.X-12 (Preious Day o l Ia-)

Litho., Ulan Bator Store Prg. Works., Unwmhd., Perf. 11

1830 44-2
114.27 2S.X.27 -.1.22 10-7215

JABHOL ANTO (ProblSil Firs Dayl

215-21 In violtt 02-427 13-11 31
Litho., Ulan Bator State Ptg. Works.
!n.trr edPerf.3

Early Air-mail Cover bearing with "Interrupted" Issue
1930 (1an.11) Registered. ULAN-BATOR to HARBIN

A letter from Ulangom 1.2.27 via Uliasutai 6.2, with 25< paid by fiscal

stamps. Treated as unpaid by the Chinese post office in Peking 12.3.27.

1930 (Dec.1) Handstamped Surcharge in Black


i i la ill t r1 ,i I 11 11

2x-IV-31 4*VI31 "6-X.31 30,X-31
Surchar..e nverted

1932 (Apr.) Photo., Moscow State Ptg. Works,
Wmkd. "Carpet" pattern

r, K-7

; .f .

.4.. :

A registered
internal cover
'from MURIIN
:30.10.28 to

Type I, Box rpe dile samp

0( 4b

C2-06 C2-07
VANGHURYE I(Bulgan Han-)
1925 Ilul. 20! Cone, to Kilipan,
via Urp. Manchoull.

C3-02 C2.03

C2-08 C2-09

19 9"18 -

C204 C2*5A C2-05

-5 120 Z 15120 P. ,

C2-09 C2-10
C2.1 2


a'~ 0 H. R 0 lo p e.- W"4
o 14

r ..jar1p'

- -

MyPP -*-R. si, o .-'M R
Myp~~n.I.-T~ype~cic. 0T1I N2MTtTC.


by Andrew Cronin.

Although the Russian Empire was one of the founding members of the
Universal Postal Union, neither it nor its successor the Soviet Union
ever participated in the International Reply Coupon programme. That
system enabled a writer in any member-country to buy a reply-paid
coupon at a local post office and it could be exchanged in the country
of destination for stamps covering the surface foreign rate. That rate
was originally fixed by the UPU at the local equivalent of 25 gold
centimes. Up to WWI, that sum was equal to 2d. sterling = 20 pfennigs
= 5 U.S. currency. A statement to that effect was given on the coupon
in the speech of the issuing country and French as the official
international language of the UPU: "Ce coupon peut etre change centre
un timbre-poste de 25 centimes ou de l'4quivalent de cette some, dans
les pays qui ont adhere a l'arrangement". Because of administrative
costs, the sale price of the coupon was always a little higher than
its exchange value. The coupons were first introduced in 1906.

The abstinence of the Russian
Empire is puzzling, but at least i3enHna Am TaaTa.T ,'ZenonalAnstadta'-
one usage exists from the pre- .. .*
WWI period, as recorded in the
German "FIAS-Report" No.29 for a-'
December 1978. On 12.10.1908 NS, .. ..j.. .. .. j
a Berlin writer spent 25 Pfg. to
send an IRC to the Zenon Anstadt .
Brewery in ZduAska Wola, Russian .'-.
Poland. In replying, the brewery -
stuck the coupon on the back of
its business envelope, where it-. i
was cancelled at right by the .
Russian postmaster at Zdunskaya '.-.-.. "-
Volya on 10.X.1908 O.S. It was "Rome" type coupon, in use 1906-1930.
received back in Berlin without.
comment. Please refer to the illustration here, which is unfortunately
none too clear. This is also an interesting "Polonica" item.

The abstinence of the USSR is r----- ---
more understandable, i COUPON-REPONSE INTERNATIONAL i
especially in the Stalin era. r--trRecon'1
Ironically, after WWII, the International Reply Coupon
Ironically, after WWII, t e coupon is exchangeable in any country
purpose of the coupon was other irsal Postal Union for a postage
purpose o t e coupon was stamp or postage stamps representing the
given on the back ALSO IN amount of postage for an ordinary single-rate
RUSSIAN, as it was one of the letter destined for a foreign country. .
RUSSIAN, as it was one of the / AUG g) ^
official UN languages. The9 | C
second illustration here 13 CENT
shows a U. S. coupon : Cecoupon est changeable dans .
originally bought for 13 on tous les Pays de IUnion postal universelle
S. contre un timbre-poste ou des timbres-posm
29 Aug. 1958 at Cleveland, re nment I
29 Aug. 1958 at Cleveland, reprisentant le montant de I'affranchissement
Ohio, where many Ukrainians d'une letre ordina d ponrsple sti-
9 1 I nation de Vitranger.
live. It was sent to Uzhorod L ....-.-.-.-. -.--
in Transcarpathia almost I Etats-Unis d'mrque. United Sttetes of l ica Ie L
three years later. The L- ........................ .--- ..--
Transcarpathian province was .,.
then part of the USSR, where versal por uno o va.ios sells postales que icpresenten el imported del fran-
tueo de una carta ordinaria de porte sencillo destinada al extranjero.
the coupon was invalid. :4TOT IVyno1 Ii ci('X T'ri InltaX iHce.Mulpiuro 1l1 qiouoto Colo3a o6Mel:iunll-rc
Howeve r, that area had "ia ioiTuItyr o iltal; y LL.-1 Ml:tI)I:i lia ey.VMy upeC;raIt'TslInml o cOOoli CTOII nCTb
h0 i oi.7niTI n1Op roCo n11.1 I i o;iay ex;aunny Beta no ain'ecy as rpainiuy.
previously been part of the # Ollll CTOO L it t';Il lia I aI1C a pat

"London"type coupon, in use 1930-1965. (

Austro-Hungarian Empire,Czechoslovakia and Hungary successively, all
of which had participated in the IRC programme. The postmaster at
Uzhorod therefore honoured the coupon on 18 May 1961 and presumably
gave the bearer 6 kop. in Soviet stamps! That was the surface foreign
rate at the time.
Further comments on IRCs in our sphere would be welcomed.
S M I P *


by Professor Henri Siranyan

The above item is a parcel card, sent from Moscow 29.2.24 to Erivan
13.3 and where the sum of 9r. 50k. gold currency in Soviet stamps
was cancelled. That was a sizable amount in those days and it was
either a heavy parcel or it may have covered the COD and postage fees
for transmission. An interesting usage, in any case.

Readers are reminded that all coordinators of the Society are fully
engaged in earning their livings and thus do not have the time to answer
individual requests or queries. Where such questions are of general
interest to the readership, they will be taken up in subsequent issues
of "The Post-Rider". Please bear with us!
The views expressed in the articles contained in this issue of "The Post-
Rider" are those of the respective authors and are not necessarily
those of the Society or its coordinators.

The bilingual Russo-Armenian 3-k. cards shown below are
relatively common mint, but much harder to find
postally used in Armenia.

.... ..'FOus $IWS
: ,:..i: .".'-. .. .-*.6 B (,11l 6' ". ":* ." ,,i,, .3.-iuiufm "' "L .. .

'^ / ,." (JiY el ( idual- '"" i b n"" .-Z ,,lulf. 4f. u,.%'f su;"f," .at' ".

S, ... ...... .........I,; .n..j4. g.an. 1a mp

-............. .... ..... l....-. . . ..... ....... .. ...... ., ... ..... .
f .... .,.... .. -........- ........-... .
-.... ( t a ".. ( bq-'L,: -yb I. UFLD-b @ -{ Ia aa~-, :, p- '-b- / ,, ) ..

...........*w w .. .n n.....l ... .. .

A card sent from Karaklis (Kirovakan) 7.10.26
Georgia 9.10, where many Armenians also live.


-. .- ....', .. ... ". .....--..- .- ..: ". :. -.'
S ......- -j

.: I ., ..I..U. ..i..'. -.: -................
'/. -- '
( aj. b.,',.c; icA(:#,rltml h...... .-Tap ',~'p~m
__ ..."' .; : -.:- .: .. ..[ @ '
:'- ...'.. ... :- ... ,. ,: .: ,, :-._.:. '...
.a :I.' ,- -..-, ; .-_ .. :.).; [ ..- ., .. .,'-, .' .
'XP *-". ,, ,te .' ,b-.: .L.-F %-b" --- h

to Tiflis in

Another example from Erivan' 8.6.27 to arrive in Tiflis,
Georgia the next day.

Please refer also to the top of p.35 herewith for another
Soviet item of Armenian interest.

Two philatelic bisects that went through the post from Erevan
15.5.45 to Tbilisi without comment, but were censored en route.

P r- -=

The rates o A
'. . .. .
at that -.,.
time were ..-.-" 71 .
20k. for .." ;- .
intercity i- lU
cards and pe .. ..: ,..
30k. regn
fee so .-.. .. .. '... ........ : :-.

S Adresse. \' '
S.cards and.., ... p. .-- ,--- -

Depart EREVAN le 15.05.1945 Arriv~e TIFLIS le 18.05.1945
Affranchissement moiti6 du 30 k pour valeur de 15 k Russie 535
,. -.,: -,.. ,, ,. ,... ,.:. -

*fee, so .' .. :

,- -
this item :
underpaid :'v "n EG H& A2 B.I
by 15k. as

--: Adrregistered. e -.

..,,o-l I~iMV' P7C .X rg.M..A.,O2 .. .- ..
overpaid ;- '. ..._..., .
By c5k.tas
it was ras
registered. -"- 1 ,- ':"
K 'n ', ": 1t- -":'.~: _.,. E .. .:.+- :

D6part EREVAN le 15.05.1945 Arrivee TIFLIS le 17.05.1945
Affranchissement moitie du 30 k pour valeur de 15 k Russie 906

* *


by Helmut Weikard, Robert Taylor & Andrew.Cronin

(a) Helmut Weikard

Ko. .y: InoApo6.oe i .H .-- pec, ,i ,A,' ', I ,

Aipec oi nnpa ume-A :..
t -ll p ^ .^ -o- *p-- -au- *.,*r:- .. *~ .. .--... .- "- --'- .'---- "....-.- ...- ...
j ._./. .. ..... ............................... """ ........... ...

The philatelic cover shown above purports to have been posted in Kyzyl
12.VII.30 and was backstamped in Moscow 3.8.30. The markings are badly
clogged with ink so as to cast some doubt about their authenticity.
However, the overall

S- 7 diameter of 33mm. is
I the same as for other

1 Q i Co..

u w q

rr ti6

sa Iieu die. .i.cstination. --.
S.... ............

... .... ..... ...

strikes known to be
Two clear strikes are
shown on the card at
left, dated 15.III.30.
Endorsed at top in
Russian "Local
Official (Card)", it
was franked with only
3k. postage in the
1927 Tuvan pictorials.
The cancellation is
bilingual, in French
and Mongolian, the
latter reading at
right KYZYL KHOTO and
(Kyzyl Town, Land of
Tuva. This is a cut-
down WWI POW card used

by the postmaster at Kyzyl to inform Dr. Granowsky of Berne, Switzerland
that the only stamps available were the 1927 pictorials.

(b) Robert Taylor

I have come across a Tuvan cover as shown above, which seems to raise
.:No.810 went on that day to the Grossman Stamp Co. of New York City and
" "" .- ,

appears to have been addressed by the same party. However, the cover

Did the Soviet Philatelic Association prepare fake Kyzyl covers to
itself? Was 16 days to Moscow a reasonable transit in 1937? My only
comparable cover is a 1938 item addressed to S.M. Blekhman, taking 13

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Your editor has always suspected that there was a
duplicate KbZbL-c postmarked kept by the S.Ph.A. in 1937 for overseas
mailings from Moscow, but both the above cover and the 1938 Blekhman

(c) Andrew Cronin f
K-- IZ i

I have come across a Tuvan cover as shown above, which seems to raise
some questions about the Moscow mailings of this 1936 Jubilee issue.

The date and registration number seem to fit right in with the original
listing given by our editor on p a.24 of "The Post-Rider" No. where
No.810 went on that day to the Grossman Stamp Co. of New York City and
particularly with the Colonel Asdr-6bal Prado cover pictured on p.68 of
"The Post-Rider" No.6; the same cancel, the same franking and it even
appears to have been addressed by the same party. However, the cover
above is addressed to the Soviet Philatelic Association, with Moscow
arrival backstamrps of 21 & 22 March!
Did the Soviet Philatelic Association prepare fake Kyzyl covers to
itself? Was 16 days to Moscow a reasonable transit in 1937? My only
comparable cover is a 1938 item addressed to S.M. Blekhman, taking 13
days in transit. Is that one a phoney too?
EDITORIAL COMMENT: Your editor has always suspected that there was a
duplicate KbZbL-c postmarker kept by the S.Ph.A. in 1937 for overseas
mailings from Moscow, but both the above cover and the 1938 Blekhman
example appear to have been genuine postings from Kyzyl. It is strange
that'the KbZbL-c marking has never been seen on genuine mailings from
Kyzyl after 1937, but it may have been then assigned for other duties
in the internal workings of the post office there.

(c) Andrew Cronin
Much of the mail actually originating from Tuva during the period of
independence (1921-1944) was of philatelic origin, having been sent

prefranked by philatelists to the Kyzyl postmaster, with a request to
postmark and return. The registered item shown here from the collection
of the editor is one such example prepared by a personal friend, the
late Aaron Binder of New York City.

Aaron Sin'er^ -

.- 3ronx, g e'? ork

Such mail should not be looked down on, as it shows how the postal
system worked. A knowledge of the language and history of Tuva is also
required before one can understand the significance of this cover. The
Tuvans have a Mongoloid appearance, but the language belongs to the
Turkic family. Tuva has a common border with North-Western Mongolia and
association with their neighbours over the centuries has meant that
many Mongol words have come into the Tuvan language, albeit with
typical Turkic endings. Both peoples have been semi-nomadic with animal
flocks and were nominally ruled by China until 1921. By then, the
Bolsheviks had driven the White forces out of both countries and they
became the first Soviet protectorates.

Mongolian was the original literary language for Tuva, but by the late

1920s Soviet philologists had devised a Unified Latin Turki Alphabet
for the Turkic peoples under their rule or influence. That alphabet
appears on practically all Tuvan stamps and markings since 1931.

Now to the several strikes of the violet circular marking applied front
and back to the illustrated cover. With an overall diameter of 45mm.,
it is inscribed "TbBa Arat Respublikatin Xarblzaa Jaambzb" between the
two outer circles, literally meaning "Tuva Herdsman Republican
Communications, its Ministry". The words "Arat", Xarblzaa" and "Jaam"
are all of Mongol origin, while "Respublika" has been borrowed from
Russian. The Tuvan coat of arms appears in the centre of this marking,
a clearer reproduction being on the l-k. green 1936 Jubilee stamp (see
on the previous page). The inscription below the mounted herdsman with
a map of Tuva in the background reads: "T(uvan) H(erdsman) R(epublic)/
All the world's workers and allied herdsmen, unite!". That was the
local version of the Marxist slogan "Workers of all countries, unite!"
Incidentally, there is an understandable spelling mistake on the 1-k.
1936 Jubilee stamp, where the artist put PROLETAPLARb instead of
PROLETARLARb in the first line of the motto; i.e. he inscribed the
Cyrillic "P" instead of the Latin "R".

In summing up, an official marking of the Tuvan Ministry of
Communications was applied to cancel the stamps on this registered
cover, instead of a normal circular datestamp. That is the only example
of such a usage known to your editor. The letter was received in the
Registration Section of the New York City General Post Office on
8 December 1941.

(a) A. A. Pal'mbakh: "Tuvan-Russian Dictionary", with a grammatical
outline of the Tuvan language by Sh.Ch. Sata; Publishing House of
Foreign and National Languages, Moscow 1955.
(b) A. A. Pal'mbakh: "Russo-Tuvan Dictionary", publishers as before,
Moscow 1953.


Is there a question or point you would like to put
across to the readership; is there an interesting
stamp, cancellation or cover that you would like to
describe; is there an item in your collection that
could use some clarifying information, or might there ,
be some gems of wisdom that you could impart on some o o
newly acquired item ? o o

.Share your questions, thoughts and wisdom, in the confines
of a couple of paragraphs with the rest of our readers .

Dr. Andres Jorge Schlichter, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
I am showing on the next page a photocopy of a very interesting item in
the form of an Imperial 10-k. postal stationery envelope (Michel U34 B)
postmarked KIEV 1 9 Dec. 1892 by M. Frick of the South Russian Company
of Pharmaceutical Wares to a relative, Dr. C. Frick in Halle, Germany.
A handwritten indication underlined in red is at the top in German:
"per Eilboten zu bestellen' Bote bezahlt!" (to be delivered by express

Kiev Express Delivery Letter

.. .

, .
'' ;

That fee was 25 Pfg. in Germany as of 1.1.1875, b
closest that Mr. Frick could get to that sum.

Messenger paid!)
S- Mr. Frick
i affixed three
German stamps
S 20+3+3 Pfg.,
which were
cancelled with
the same Kiev
canceller. The
letter arrived
S :in Halle on
S. 23 December N.S.
i.e. it was two
Says in transit.
This is a .rare
mixed franking,
as Russia had
been in the UPU
since July 1875
and Russian
stamps should
., also have been
used to pay the
delivery fee.
ut 26 Pfg. was the

Helmut Weikard, Hamburg, Germany.


Parcel Card

peut etre dtetachi par

imbre tl ti .n..irL'.

T im bre d. 1 l. ,l,,.l ,.

hilL' ii. L h^h'I.

Timbre d*l I 'J.iu.in..
mTlni'.lL TIL *3f[.

u-t- ~ Y

Ninniitiu.~ Jd'\.ir ''i. l !ii I-'' I'a3z d'or iu
II) e ,,, U ... u T,.i I.LT' ... ..l I ..... : ..... .p. anw io.a'i P O o0 I fl.
U- I^- N d'"EX P L'.I0 N._
i,- C i T E fl ..PC Ib.

.l ,' lllilll..i Il ..lll, *j-- -- ...." - ...
ri I r i F,'.I '

-A.plication dn -timbre
Tero jaPs noTrroeoB aapl.u
poste ou indication
u.1m AM orFurEH o BBU-
de la tica perue.'.
,,.,elfin affopan: "


I ~

(.ii II ,irll i 111 ,\ I / il.-. it :iirc / i

S....... .................. ...

S"" """ "
iil.i.- i. ,>,., ;. "'" ") ".1....,-_-- J-- ,---

.. ... ...1 t .... .........../ ................ ..... *"
... .. :
,,"' T -

I) rCti .Ilr rell,.l I k bur.illm *AI l i.'Iu .. i' 0111 dU -. )a d b- lliau, ..i/
El ) 1 r .1.1 .I n.:.ii..eiiiihi I-.auiiini Bl ,I0 ..iit.uk i-qi nu Vuj a.,'l.'h.. /

CIL. v-r. aop. 75


,- <

.' '






The parcel card shown on the previous card was sent with 55k. postage
was sent on 17.6.27 from Marxstadt (formerly Ekaterinenstadt), Volga-
German Republic to Philipp Holzer, c/o The Volga-German Agency in
Chicago. While the town-name is spelt correctly at top in Russian, it
is wrongly given as MARKSTADT at bottom in German. An interesting item!

Dr. Denys J. Voaden, Maryland, U.S.A.

A Spartakiada Cover

Herewith yet
cover as
shown. It is
but the rate
paid of 15k.
for a
letter was
correct. Two
of the
were left
by the
Moscow Kr.
Presnya P.O.
on 7.8.35.
We must
still find a
single 15k.
paying that


S .' -
[ '

0 ^^^"^^^ <' voi
c~J ~3~M "iz (se-5,Z j


- -- -----

Andrew Cronin, Toronto, Canada.

(a) Pictured here is the
40k. Spartakiada with
other postage to pay
the registered
mail rate from
Kharkov 24.12.35 to
Vienna 29 Dec. The fees
were 15k. for a foreign
surface letter, 20k.
registration plus a
50k. supplement for
airmail service to
Austria. Details of
other Spartakiada
frankings would be



'" i .. ",.* '\ \ I : .


.... .TN...A'SY .

.. .. .
.'1. : \. ,....:,.. ,. i .
u .;/. ,. 0.
:; : o .' .

with double the deficiency of 30k. as of 1939. Suggest

S *


(b) Further to
Robert Taylor's
S study of
postage due
procedures in
this issue,
another example
is given here,
sent unpaid
S from Karpunikha
..-. Gorkii prov. to
the Minister of
Affairs. Note
the unusual
Shaved oval
GOR'K. and
S further oval
SEKSP. Back-
Sstamped Moscow
.2,8.51 and the
1 rub.
does NOT agree
ions, anyone?

L' ^


magazine in A4 (legal) size, issued by The British Society of Russian
Philately and edited by Ivo Steyn. All enquiries to the Treasurer, A. T.
Blunt, Riber House, 13 Auden Close, Osbaston,Monmouth,Gwent NP5 3NW, U.K.

This issue has an editorial and articles on the Moscow Savelovo Rlwy Stn,
by N.C. Warr; Some Unusual Stn Pmks, by P.E. Robinson; Finnish TPO on
Russian Territory & Russian Fieldpost in WWI: Addenda, both by A. Epstein;
SPB Local Rlwys:New Find, by Dr.R. Casey; Yakutsk PM Provisionals, by I.
Kolesetskii, trans. by D. Skipton; Some Notes on Soviet Latvia 1940-1941
(excellent!), Current Events in FSU & 1919 Siberian British Presence, all


by Ivo Steyn; Ukraine 1991-1993 & AzArbaycan and Belarus, both by T.
Pateman; to end with Notes from Collectors and Reviews. This issue is
notable for trying to make sense out of the current chaos in the
former Soviet Union!

1993. A 72-page magazine in standard North American size, edited by G.A.
Combs, to whom all enquiries should be addressed at 8241 Chalet Ct.,
Millersville, Maryland 21108, U.S.A.

This issue contains an editorial; Russian Federation Mar.-Apr.1992, by
G. Shaw; Arctic Ship.Mail, by J.B. Holland; R-Label Introduction 1899,
by N.C. Warr; Romanov Essays & Warsaw-G6ra Kalwarja Rlwy, both by L. L.
Tann; Romanov Stamps & Stationery used at FPOs, by A. Epstein; Notes from
Beikin Books, Faberge Obituary & Odds and Ends, all by G.G. Werbizky;
Deltiology, by Dr.W. Nickle; Russian P.O. at Beirut, by I.W. Roberts;
Modern Philatelic Exchange Cover, by M. Renfro; Vokzal Markings & Trans-
Siberian View Cards, both by P.E. Robinson; Moscow Kursk-Nizhegorodskii
Stn, by N.C. Warr & G.A. Combs; to be topped off with various Society
items and Review of Literature. Some solid work here.

Dr.P.A. Michalove. A 134-page softbound book in legal size, published by
The Rossica Society of Russian Philately and obtainable from G.A. Combs
at the address cited above at US $20.00 for Rossica members or US $25.00
others, plus postage in both cases.

This book is in three parts: (a) Classic Cartography of Russia, (b)
Imperial Russian Postal History Period and. (c) Soviet Period. An
astounding amount of both information and references is given and the
book is worth rereading many times. The point is made of Soviet
cartographic falsification, especially after WWII, but it had in fact
been going on practically from the inception of the USSR. The prime
reason was national security. When the Germans invaded in June 1941 and
captured many Soviet maps, most of the routes marked as major highways
turned out to be goat tracks and vice-versa. The ensuing chaos was of
inestimable value to the Soviet defenders. The other side of the coin is
that, for the national encyclopaedias issued for practically all the
Union republics at Moscow's expense, if one allows for the ideological
slant, there are masses of highly useful data begging to be gleaned by
the postal historian. This work cannot be recommended too highly for
pointing out the way.

magazine in A4 format, issued in Russian and Ukrainian by the LIM Firm,
P.O. Box 4933, 320101 Dnipropetrovs'ke, Ukraine, to where all enquiries
should be addressed.

This authoritative issue has an editorial; Kherson Postal District, by
S. Kapnist; Ukrainian Postal Rates 1918-1920, Ditto 1992, Forgeries of
12th. Definitive Issue & Khar'kov Provisionals, all by A. Ivakhno;
Russian Private Postal Agencies & Postal Rate Riddles, both by.A.
Epstein; Kamyshlov Zemstvo, by M. Minskii; Ukrainian Levant Surcharges,
by G. Andrieshin; Reprinted Issues, by A. Seminov & D. Khromov, to end
with various notes and literature reviews. Great stuff, but this will
be the last issue of this promising publication, due to conceptual
problems. What a pity!

Dictionary). A 720-page hardbound book in A4 format, issued in Moldavian

(i.e. Roumanian, but printed in the Cyrillic alphabet) by the Moldavian
Soviet Encyclopaedia Publishers, Kishindv/Chisinau 1989 at 9r. 40k. in
an edition of 6000 copies.

One of the last publications to appear in Moldavian before the Soviet
collapse and reversion to the Latin alphabet, this compact but
comprehensive work with three columns per page is invaluable for the
postal historian of the area, as it gives data on practically every
inhabited point in the republic. It thus supplements the listing of post
offices given in the article "Matters Moldavian" (see "The Post-Rider",
No.25, pp.41-66), many of which are now being closed as not viable

CELISTVOSTI RSFSR V OBDOBI INFLACE 1921-1923 (Covers of the RSFSR in the
Inflation Period 1921-1923), by Jan Podhajsky and the late VAclav Zeman.
A 132-page softbound book in A5 format, issued under No.42 by the
Traditional Philately Section of the Union of Czech Philatelists, Prague
1993 in an edition of 250 copies.

Although in Czech, this work has many illustrations of fine covers and
is thus easy to follow. The authors identify 19 rate changes and give
exhaustive tabulations. They also supply useful data on the stamp issues
of the period. The work is obtainable from the Journal Fund below and
early ordering is advisable.

Orders should be made payable to the CSRP, Box 5722 Station-A, TORONTO,
Ont., Canada. All previous titles are unfortunately sold out.

CELISTVOSTI RSFSR V OBDOBI INFLACE 1921-1923 (Covers of the RSFSR in the
Inflation Period 1921-1923), by J. Podhajsky & late V. Zeman. In Czech,
but easy to follow. Limited supply! Price postpaid US $ 9.00

RSF.SR: DOBROCINNE ZNAMKY 1921-1923 (RSFSR: Charity Stamps/Semi-Postals
1921-1923), by L. Cervinka. Limited supply! Price postpaid US $ 7.00

(Fieldposts of the Czechoslovak Forces in the Soviet Union in the years
1942-45), by Pavel Fiala. A 154-page detailed study in Czech by a
veteran of the campaign. Limited supply! Price postpaid US $ 9.00

Period of WWII), by S. Barafski & J. Falkowski + free gift worth $8.00.
Part II covers Soviet areas.Limited supply! Price postpaid US $20.00

RUSSIA ZEMSTVOS, by F.G. Chuchin. The English edition, reissued by John
Broadfoot in 1988 with clear illustrations in the right places on 92 pages
A4 size with Cerlox binding. Fine reference! Price postpaid US $18.00

ARMENIAN SOVIET ENCYCLOPAEDIA, Vol.12, 1986 with entry about philately
and 2 pages in colour of Armenian stamps and foreign related items. In
Armenian and a great conversation piece! Price postpaid US $16.00

Ya.Lerner Factory of Handstamps & Seals), being a supplement to the 1907
Post & Telegraph Journal, showing examples of many postal markings, incl.
for non-stamp issuing Zemstvos. Fascinating! Price postpaid US $ 3.00


Are you still missing that elusive item in your
collection or philatelic library; do you have some ..
duplicate material that you would like to trade or ;. .
sell ? We can publicise your want-list and/or your .:
.'duplicates for the most reasonable rate of 254 / line
(minimum of $1.00 payment; -maximum insertion of 16 0
lines) excluding name and address. Unless otherwise
stated, all the.catalogue numbers quoted are from Scott.
Ads from collectors only will be accepted. Dealers are
invited to respond.
NOTE: The Society disclaims all responsibility for any
misunderstandings that may result between exchanging parties.
FOR a biography of the journalist Louise Bryant, wife of John Reed and
William C. Bullitt, I am interested in hearing from anyone with letters,
memorabilia, photographs, personal recollections or other information.
MARY V. DEARBORN,.8 Quintard Ave., Norwalk, Conn., 06854, U.S.A.

WANTED: Russian revenues, fiscal, vignettes, labels or Cinderella stamps,
plus revenue & legal paper, paper seals, bill-of-exchange cut-outs and
any revenue documents, intact or otherwise. All periods: Imperial, Civil
War or Soviet. Will purchase or exchange.
MARTIN CERINI, 21 W. 12th. St., Huntington Stn, L.I., N.Y. 11746, U.S.A.

MY newly revised and greatly expanded (130 pages) Philatelic Library
listing has been published. Cost is US$6.00, deductible from first order
of over US$30.00. Many low-cost but excellent reprints are available. A
very limited quantity of Scott 212 mint in panes of 25 is available.
Position No.17 on the pane has plate variety: period between 10 and Rub.
(See Philately of the USSR,2/1982,p.51). Price is US$40.00; compare with
Serebrakian's pane without variety at $50.00. FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED.
ALEX SADOVNIKOV, P.O.Box 210073, San Francisco,California 94121-0073/USA.

WANTED: Covers of Imperial dotted numerals, Used Abroad and Baltic fore-
runners. Buy or trade. Send photo or description and price to:
M.R. RENFRO, Box 2268, Santa Clara, California 95055, U.S.A.

WANTED: "OSTARBEITER" mail of forced labourers from occupied USSR,
working in Germany during WWII. Please send offers (xerox or photo
preferable) of covers,.cards, OSTARBEITER cloth patch & related material.
GEORGE G. WERBIZKY, 409 Jones Road, Vestal, N.Y. 13850-3246, U.S.A.
The Ukrainian Philatelic and Numismatic Society (UPNS) proudly
announces that two of its special publications are still available
for sale.
by C.W. Roberts and Dr. R. Seichter, a comprehensive study of 190
pages detailing tridents with many illustrations. Highly
recommended as an excellent guide for identification of various
trident types. $25.00 postpaid.
by B. Fessak, a well-illustrated study of more than 80 pages.
$16.00 postpaid.
For those interested in obtaining both publications from the UPNS,
a special price of $35 postpaid.
Hake your checks payable to Dr. I. Kuzych and send your order to:
PO Box 3, Springfield, VA 22150. Do not miss this opportunity to
80 acquire these worthwhile publications for your philatelic library
at a discounted price.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs