First, Losar la Tashi Delek zhu, I wish Best Auspicious New Year !
Then, this is titled "Waterfall Type VIII" but relates of course also to "Hellrigl bilingual postmarks T40 to T46".
Well,I am not sure that this topic has not yet been already argued here, or possibly elsewhere. But I still will make some remarks!
In fact, it is obvious common sense to class these 7 postmarks under a same group (Type VIII / Bilingual postmarks of 1933), as they are all on the same fashion. However, there are some slight différences:
Firstly: concerning the "fleurons" on the left & right side of the postmarks:6 of the postmarks have this "fleuron" as a center "point", encircled by 6 "petals". The 7th, i.e., the LHASA one, has for it's center a concrete small circle (not just a point), encircled by 8 (eight) and not 6 "petals". So, perhaps, this "special" Lhasa postmark/cancel,being the capital was a master type for the 6 other ones (which are hereby to be considered as "subtypes".
But, secondly,in these postmarks, the mention "P.O." appears only on the smallest post offices, Chushur and Pelti ! Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, was not even deserved a Post Office "P.O." mention !!!
That does not seem to relate to the length of the town's name (i.e.: quite understandable for "Nagartse", but, why no "P.O." for "PHARI", and obviously "LHASA", where there was plenty space to fill !!!
Well, I think it is the Tibetan way of thinking, not ours, not worrying for matters which dont't deserve to matter for !!!
|