87 anonymous delivery

[packers stem]

Close up of the stamps and postmark on the 87 delivery to The Black Museum .
The postmark is supposedly Croydon .
Only the 'ON' is visible and 'RREY' at the bottom .
The issues are firstly ,I've so far been unable to find a single known Croydon postmark from 1965 onwards that shows Croydon on the top and Surrey on the bottom .They all show CROYDON SURREY around the top edge .
Secondly, the date on the known postmarks for Croydon have the format

Day month
Year

This envelope postmark shows the

Month [OV] for November followed on the same line by the year in full .

I'll post a few links of Croydon postmarks
January 1987
June 1988
November 1987 (same month)

Photo courtesy of Rob Clack

http://www.bfdc.co.uk/1987/flowers/slogan_postmarks.html

http://www.bfdc.co.uk/1987/christmas_1987/gold_angels.html

http://www.bfdc.co.uk/1988/australian_bicentenary/amy_johnson.html?stockcode=1166

[packers stem]

Incidentally , you can clearly see previous postmarks on the two stamps from .... erm.... the last time the stamps were used .
Zoom on the left edge of the left stamp..... postmarked and yet only the stamp ... not the envelope .
Half the reason that a postmark goes over a stamp is so that these marks show and prevent the risk of the stamp being used a second time

Enjoy .....

[Simon Wood]

Hi Packers,

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Nothing is ever what it appears to be in Ripperology.

No wonder the mystery has rumbled on for so long.

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Nothing is ever what it appears to be in Ripperology.

No wonder the mystery has rumbled on for so long.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

Thanks

Yes , if a few of us keep ploughing on we never know what little treasures we may unearth

Nick

[Simon Wood]

Hi Nick,

Yes indeed.

BS is like Tofu.

It takes on the flavour of whatever fact it's mixed with.

Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the well-known photograph of Mary Kelly is a fake?

How do you explain that Macnaghten describes it as early as 1894 and that a copy of it was published as early as 1899?

Or are you suggesting something else?

With all good wishes. RP