Saucy Jack Postcard

[Stewart P Evans]

Not

This is what the Saucy Jacky postcard should have looked like—

[ATTACH]3503[/ATTACH]

And this is what arrived at Central News—

[ATTACH]3504[/ATTACH]

Where's the pre-paid stamp?
Simon

That is not what arrived at the Central News office. To make up such images is misleading.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

The Saucy Jacky postcard which arrived at Central News was reproduced on Metropolitan Police posters as I showed—sans pre-paid stamp. I didn't make it up. It's a fact.

And there's nothing misleading about showing what the postcard should have looked like.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Wrong

Hi Stewart,
The Saucy Jacky postcard which arrived at Central News was reproduced on Metropolitan Police posters as I showed—sans pre-paid stamp. I didn't make it up. It's a fact.
And there's nothing misleading about showing what the postcard should have looked like.
Regards,
Simon

I am not suggesting that you are deliberately misleading anyone, merely that you are wrong. Your montage of what the postcard received looked like is wrong. You are suggesting there was no stamp, you are wrong to do so.

[Stewart P Evans]

The 'saucy Jacky' Postcard

The 'saucy Jacky' postcard, postmarked 'Oc 1 88', is missing and has been for many years, certainly beyond living memory.

We do not have a photograph of the postcard. What we have is the 1888 police colour facsimile of it (I have an original) and the early colour printing process used appears to have allowed only red and black. Therefore, presumably for that reason, the stamps were not shown on either the 'Dear Boss' letter, which carried a stamp-sized red outline and the postcard on which the stamp area is covered by the black postmark and the underlying stamp does not appear. Had a stamp have not been on the card then the usual postage due rubber stamps should have been present. I thought that I had explained this in the past on these boards.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Dear Boss' Envelope

I am posting the images below to illustrate that the stamp (which is there on the original) is missing on the police colour facsimile of the 'Dear Boss' envelope. The edge of the stamp is shown by a red lined outline of the stamp.

[Cap'n Jack]

'To make up such images is misleading.'

I shouldn't be surprised if someone didn't post an image of a letter from Jack the Ripper from 1888 with a lined Woolworth's notepad as the background.
Whatever next?

[Stewart P Evans]

Woolworth's?

'To make up such images is misleading.'
I shouldn't be surprised if someone didn't post an image of a letter from Jack the Ripper from 1888 with a lined Woolworth's notepad as the background.
Whatever next?

What has Woolworth's got to do with it?

[John Bennett]

I shouldn't be surprised if someone didn't post an image of a letter from Jack the Ripper from 1888 with a lined Woolworth's notepad as the background.
Whatever next?

Oh dear, AP. Not a particularly impressive post.

[John Bennett]

The 'saucy Jacky' postcard, postmarked 'Oc 1 88', is missing and has been for many years, certainly beyond living memory.

We do not have a photograph of the postcard. What we have is the 1888 police colour facsimile of it (I have an original) and the early colour printing process used appears to have allowed only red and black. Therefore, presumably for that reason, the stamps were not shown on either the 'Dear Boss' letter, which carried a stamp-sized red outline and the postcard on which the stamp area is covered by the black postmark and the underlying stamp does not appear. Had a stamp have not been on the card then the usual postage due rubber stamps should have been present. I thought that I had explained this in the past on these boards.

[ATTACH]3507[/ATTACH]

Stewart,
This is purely a technical question - are we to assume that the facsimile techniques used in these cases fail to register colours other than red and black?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

The only problem with your explanation for the missing postcard stamp is that the words "POST CARD", "THE ADDRESS ONLY TO BE WRITTEN ON THIS SIDE", the Royal Insignia and stamp were all printed in the same colour—described in various philatelic books as 'brick red'.

There was therefore no technical reason for the stamp not to have reproduced.

The penny stamp on the Dear Boss envelope was lilac—Queen Victoria's favourite colour—and having a reduced red content did not reproduce as well, though its outline is faintly visible.

So, no stamp and no "postage due" marks on an official 1888 Post Office postcard which we know carried a pre-paid printed stamp.

There has to be another explanation.

I would respectfully suggest that it had something to do with the passing-off of a rather clumsy attempt at a postmark—a postmark, incidentally, which bears no resemblance to its counterpart on the opposite side of the postcard.

I make no apology for the implications. Sometimes, in order to move on, you have to think the unthinkable.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

In Fairness

In fairness to Simon my wording was bad; what is misleading is to suggest that the card arrived as in the image shown, without a stamp.

His montage, of course, showed the postcard how it would have looked with its stamp, to illustrate his point.

Below are two scans of Ripper-related postcards of the day showing two types of pre-paid postcards -

[Cap'n Jack]

I came here to be pertinent, not impressive.

[Stewart P Evans]

Printing

Hi Stewart,
The only problem with your explanation for the missing postcard stamp is that the words "POST CARD", "THE ADDRESS ONLY TO BE WRITTEN ON THIS SIDE", the Royal Insignia and stamp were all printed in the same colour—described in various philatelic books as 'brick red'.
There was therefore no technical reason for the stamp not to have reproduced.
The penny stamp on the Dear Boss envelope was lilac—Queen Victoria's favourite colour—and having a reduced red content did not reproduce as well, though its outline is faintly visible.
Simon

There is, I would suggest, no reason to think that there was not a printed stamp on the original postcard. I am no expert on screen printing, or whatever process was used, but I think that the printing process is the reason for the omission of the image of the stamp. It is probably to do with the heavy date stamp that covers the stamp image, or the complexity of the stamp image. Or was it because it was not allowed to print the Queen's image on anything but a valid postcard? I don't know, but I'm sure that there is nothing sinister to be read into it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Stamps

Hi Stewart, ...
There was therefore no technical reason for the stamp not to have reproduced...
There has to be another explanation.
I would respectfully suggest that it had something to do with the passing-off of a rather clumsy attempt at a postmark—a postmark, incidentally, which bears no resemblance to its counterpart on the opposite side of the postcard.
Simon

I think that the technical reason may be that where black was superimposed over the stamp it was only possible to use one of the colours and black was preferred as it showed the posting details.

An indicator of this is that the date stamp that was used on the reverse of the postcard comes out in the same red as the rest of the card when it should be black. The rubber date stamps were applied by hand and it would appear that the first date stamp had been erroneously placed on the wrong side. When this was noticed it would have been stamped properly over the stamp. These 'stamping clerks' would rush through bundles of dozens of cards or letters and if one had been placed the wrong way round it could easily get stamped on the wrong side.

[Stewart P Evans]

Image

Here is an image of the postmark on the wrong side of the 'saucy Jacky' postcard -