STAMPBOARDS - Postage Stamp Chat Board and Stamp Forum

I just noticed that Australia Post has issued an instant stamp for the wedding. It is listed on Aus Post website as being unavailable. I could not find a FDC which covers this stamp.

This would appear to be the second issue this year from AP without a FDC. I am fairly new to collecting, but is it common for stamp issues without FDC?

Does anyone know how difficult the instant stamp is to obtain (I would presume it is fairly easy).

Cheers
Michael

On day of issue I was able to obtain the last sheetlet at my post office. I was expecting a self adhesive sheetlet (s/a) per the website and Stamp Bulletin310, but it a gummed sheetlet.

While AP advise that a blank cover (that is cache no stamp/postmark) is available for collectors to make their own I didn't see any, nor was there any stamp packs or booklets available. The clerk told me that the sheetlet I had was the only item they had left.

The website shows that the covers are still available as are stamp packs with the sheetlet, but the booklet (while advertised in Stamp Bulletin 310) I can't see on AP's site.

While the photo on the stamp shows a newly married couple the caption identifies the bride as Miss Catherine Middleton.

The stamp from the sheetlet:


The sheelet for completeness:

Just to clarify what is happening with this issue.

The following items are available:

• A gummed sheetlet of 10 stamps.
• A self-adhesive booklet of 10 stamps.
• A blank first day cover.

Nearly all post offices are sold out of the gummed sheet, and the self-adhesive booklets have been sent out to post offices, but I believe have a limited distribution at the moment (I know Melbourne GPO sold out within hours, and Perth hasn't received there's yet). You would be advised to ask you post office to hold onto any self-adhesive booklets they get in.

For collectors wanting a first day cover you can send your covers to Williamstown post office in Victoria for postmarking. There is a first day of issue postmark for this issue, and is available for four weeks. I have sent covers to Williamstown and they are very efficient and postmarked accurately and cleanly.

1stStamp wrote:On day of issue I was able to obtain the last sheetlet at my post office. I was expecting a self adhesive sheetlet (s/a) per the website and Stamp Bulletin310, but it a gummed sheetlet.

Mention of a self-adhesive sheetlet was an error in the Bulletin.

1stStamp wrote:The website shows that the covers are still available as are stamp packs with the sheetlet, but the booklet (while advertised in Stamp Bulletin 310) I can't see on AP's site.

Australia Post is currently sending all stock to post offices, with limited stock available online. Self-adhesive booklets will be available online but at a later stage (i.e. when the demand from post offices has quietened down). Self-adhesive booklets can be ordered through mail order and by calling the Bureau's 1800 number. The online webshop is not intended to list every item available from the Philatelic Bureau - reprints are a notable omission.

Flounder wrote:I just noticed that Australia Post has issued an instant stamp for the wedding. It is listed on Aus Post website as being unavailable. I could not find a FDC which covers this stamp.

This would appear to be the second issue this year from AP without a FDC. I am fairly new to collecting, but is it common for stamp issues without FDC?

Does anyone know how difficult the instant stamp is to obtain (I would presume it is fairly easy).

Cheers
Michael

Generally, Australia Post does not provide FDCs for self-adhesive booklet stamps. For example, this means no official FDC exists for the first Royal Wedding 60c self-adhesive stamp.

First day covers are not produced for issues produced at short notice (i.e. Flood Relief issue or the Instant Stamp). First day covers take time to produce and often use the first stamps produced for an issue. There are also commercial reasons too - this is why no covers are produced for some of the gold medallist issues.

Hi all
I spoke to the lady at our local philatelic counter .I was told she ordered 800 and has only received 20 so far .I don't think AP know what day it is sometimes
Brian

I have little doubt that in a week or so post offices will have enough stock of the Royal Wedding instant stamps.

I remember how the Sydney Gold Medallist issues sold out, but were available from the Bureau for many months afterwards. They even reprinted the litho versions to meet demand. Now I see the 16 sheetlets turning up in club auctions at less than face value.

For collectors wanting a first day cover you can send your covers to Williamstown post office in Victoria for postmarking. There is a first day of issue postmark for this issue, and is available for four weeks. I have sent covers to Williamstown and they are very efficient and postmarked accurately and cleanly.

Thanks for the heads up Chris. I am pretty new to all this, I now have the stamp and the cover, how do I go about sending the cover to Williamstown. Is there someone there to address the letter to. Do you usually send a stamped envelope to return the cover?

Cheers
Michael

What I do is I send the covers with some cardboard and a letter explaining that I want them postmarked with the first day of issue postmark (you can add where you want it applied). Include a stamped self-addressed envelope for your reply.

I often use DLX envelopes (available from Officeworks etc.), as these are just a little taller than DL envelopes and comfortably fit the Australia Post first day covers inside. Plus these can be sent for 60c, rather than $1.20 for a larger envelope (when you do this regularly the difference adds up).

Colleen also posted some information about getting covers on her blog at http://ozpictormarks.blogspot.com/

Forgot the address:

Postal Manager
Williamstown Post Office
WILLIAMSTOWN VIC 3016

This works for most postmarks - you can use Australia Post's website to find out the exact street address.

1stStamp wrote:While the photo on the stamp shows a newly married couple the caption identifies the bride as Miss Catherine Middleton.

The stamp from the sheetlet:

Yes this is a MAJOR Design error.

The stamp was issued a week after the wedding and despicts the newlyweds in the Abbey.

She was no longer Miss Catherine Middleton at this point but -

Her Royal Highness Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus.

Unlike the majority of Royal brides, and in contrast to most previous consorts-in-waiting for over 350 years, Catherine did not come from a royal or aristocratic background.

On the morning of their wedding day on 29 April 2011, at 8:00 am, officials at Buckingham Palace announced that in accordance with Royal tradition, and on recognition of the day by the Queen, Prince William was created Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.

GlenStephens wrote:

1stStamp wrote:While the photo on the stamp shows a newly married couple the caption identifies the bride as Miss Catherine Middleton.

Yes this is a MAJOR Design error.

The stamp was issued a week after the wedding and despicts the newlyweds in the Abbey.

She was no longer Miss Catherine Middleton at this point but -

Her Royal Highness Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus.

Unlike the majority of Royal brides, and in contrast to most previous consorts-in-waiting for over 350 years, Catherine did not come from a royal or aristocratic background.

On the morning of their wedding day on 29 April 2011, at 8:00 am, officials at Buckingham Palace announced that in accordance with Royal tradition, and on recognition of the day by the Queen, Prince William was created Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.

Glen,

While you are correct that Catherine is no longer 'Miss' or indeed a 'Middleton', this stamp does not contain a 'major design error'.

As noted in the Bulletin, the frame had to be pre-approved by the Palace. I doubt that as Australia Post knew exactly what photograph they would be able to use, e.g. it could have been a photograph taken before they were announced husband and wife, they decided to stick with the wording that is on the stamp.

The Queen confirmed the titles on the day of the wedding, and no doubt long after the frame design had been approved by the palace.

stampchris wrote:While you are correct that Catherine is no longer 'Miss' or indeed a 'Middleton', this stamp does not contain a 'major design error'.

Chris I disagree.

It is a caption to a photo that is totally incorrect.

As a caption is part of the design, it is a design error.

HAD the photo been of them before April 29, it is the CORRECT caption. As it is AFTER they are married it is totally wrong.

It took a week to issue the stamps, so they could have used the correct wording. The Palace flunkeys signing off on that was still possible - although the need for that would be moot.

Royal Wedding stamps do NOT need name captions really -

GlenStephens wrote:As a caption is part of the design, it is a design error.

HAD the photo been of them before April 29, it is the CORRECT caption. As it is AFTER they are married it is totally wrong.

It took a week to issue the stamps, so they could have used the correct wording. The Palace flunkeys signing off on that was still possible - although the need for that would be moot.

Royal Wedding stamps do NOT need name captions really

Just to add to your comments. The stamp was actually issued less than a week after the wedding (on 4 May). The stamps would've been printed probably a day or two after the wedding, and then had to be distributed to post offices for the issue date. Any change in image caption would warrant a design change and so would've had to have been signed off (again).

I do agree that Australia Post could've featured the correct titles, and perhaps didn't need to include them - 'Australia', value and date probably would've been enough, but can see the reasoning behind why the caption is as it as.

Chris, my initial response to the OP by Flounder was to indicate what was available and how popular and thus how quickly they moved.

That being said I was able to get another sheetlet and an sa booklet on the morning of Saturday 7th May from another Postal Outlet. The presentation pack was available when I purchased the Dame Nellie Melba issue on Tuesday 10th May, from my local postal outlet. But, from what I gather from to talking to the clerks is that deliveries were staggered.

To tell the truth on the day of issue I wasn't expecting to be able to obtain more than the name of the closest participating post office for the issue. I actually think that Australia Post did a fantastic job in distributing stamps to a much wider network than the Instant Stamps associated with the Olympics for first day of issue.

stampchris wrote:The online webshop is not intended to list every item available from the Philatelic Bureau - reprints are a notable omission.

While I am aware that not all items are available through the webshop, Australia Post's practice prior to this would suggest that the booklets would be available through the webshop. Particularily since they are not marked as (MO) in the Stamp Bulletin (I also note that the retail reference number is not included in the issue 310). A moot point perhaps, as I notice that they are in fact now showing as available for purchase from the webshop.

With regard to the caption on the stamp for the photograph used, whether one calls it a design error or an error on the stamp (I have trouble discerning a difference with this), it is a serious faux pas, in the older sense of the term. This is a situation that could have been avoided and without knowing the full process for approval and printing, I feel that the responsibility should be shared by both Australia Post and the Palace.

We know that the template was pre-approved per AP's Media release of the 3rd of May:
"The stamps are able to be released within days of the wedding due to special technology that allows the images to be uploaded into a Royal Wedding stamp template, pre-approved by Buckingham Palace."
https://auspost.com.au/about-us/royal-wedding-instantly-stamped.html

and I am certain I heard on the radio while driving on Sunday morning, 1st May, they were still awaiting the final approval from Buckingham Palace for the actual photograph to be used. So the the Palace approved both the template and the photograph.

Australia Post obiviously received approval to use a photograph of the married couple leaving the abbey, was a photograph of the couple at the alter prior to the conclusion of the "I do's" submitted for approval and rejected?

Did Australia Post submit a pre and post template for approval contingent on the photograph to be used? I have my doubts on this, as if you look carefully at page 8 of Stamp Bulletin 310; published more than a week before the wedding; you can see that the template shown is that used for the stamps.



Perhaps Australia Post submitted a template without a caption and it just wasn't approved by the Palace. I don't know. What I do know is that I am pleased to have the stamps with the faux pas clearly included, in my collection.

1ststamp,

I understand the border design was approved before the wedding (I am not privy to information on the approval process, but suspect it takes several weeks). The official Palace approved photograph was inserted after the wedding (my understanding is that Aust Post had to use an official palace approved photograph). This is a similar process to that used for gold medallist stamps, where a template is and the image inserted, except the only approval needed is that of the CEO of Australia Post.

Like you, I wonder why the Palace would've approved the caption, but as Aust Post has explained to me, they had no way of knowing if the official wedding photograph would be taken before or after they were married. I doubt Australia Post could change the wording, as they would have to get it re-approved.

I agree with you about the speed they got the stamps out. Amazing to think the wedding to place Friday pm Melbourne time, Aust Post had to wait for the approved photograph. Printing the stamps would've taken a few days (given the demand for the product), and then they had to be sent to distribution centres (by Tuesday at the latest), and then to post offices (by Wedneday morning at the latest).

1stStamp wrote:
With regard to the caption on the stamp for the photograph used, whether one calls it a design error or an error on the stamp (I have trouble discerning a difference with this), it is a serious faux pas, in the older sense of the term.

This is a situation that could have been avoided and without knowing the full process for approval and printing, I feel that the responsibility should be shared by both Australia Post and the Palace.

Yep, totally avoidable and as it stands, clearly a design error.

Glen

Covers from Williamstown have arrived:

Gummed stamp:


Self-adhesive stamp:


Nice first day of issue cancels.