Queen Victoria on Cover

That's a cool find!! Particularly nice when the arrival postmark confirms there was no mistake in the date-slugs of the postmark applied in London. Congratulations.
What was the issue date?

The SIX-PENCE with small corner letters comes from two plates distinguished by fine diagonal white hairlines plate 4 or no hairlines plate 3


Plate 3 was issued 1 Dec 1862 A year earlier than this cover

Plate 4 was indeed. 20 April 1864

Problem is I do not see the hairlines on your image so question that this is in fact early usage plate 4 .

Most probably 1 year old plate 3

Of course if the hairlines are there, then congratulations on EKD .

Thanks - and no worries, the pages can wait  - the only important is that you get better! Be well 

I think I can just make out the lower half of the hyphen

Yes, I thought I saw what could be the bottom of a hyphen, but I couldn't be sure. Even used my Mac's magnifying glass in addition to two of my own (one lighted) but was still unsure. Thanks, guys, I appreciate the help. Will rename this thread because Vickingeek stated that the first post doesn't count as late usage.

Here's another of these rather long lived Penny Lilacs, slightly later than the above but still all that was available..

Used at concession rate for soldier with British Army Post Office in South African War 30 Oct 1901  KROONSTAD  in the occupied Orange Free State

1844 GB MINEHEAD CANCEL, IMPERF TO LONDON




<br /><br />

Am I being nit picky here? but it looks like a stamp has been removed from this cover , top right there is a hint of another space and part cancel .

If indeed there was another stamp it must have been a heavy letter , over an ounce to require more than Two Pence . Wonder what the enclosure might have been ?

GB LONDON Inland Office „11“ Numeral Postmark (Parmenter 11D) on QV 1 d Env




Lady John Scott

paul1    I copy and paste the title from the listing.  See Daniel's answer below for an explanation.

have deleted my post just sent  -  Daniel, thanks, I should look before leaping  -  I posted without having read your reply.   Quote ..........  "Parminter was the author of book on the subject and, presumably, 11D was his numbering."   
I do have some smattering of knowledge, plus G. Brumell's book 'British Post Office Numbers' and Seymour's part 1 of the line engraved issues  -  but the word Parmenter was confusing me.          According to my books, No. 11 was used initially for Enfield in the 1844 allocations, then it looks to have shifted to Chelsea in the 1887 list  -  agree, the No. relates to the hand stamp only.           Can't seem to reconcile a reference for the 11D - it obviously means something, but can't see a connection in my 'oldish' books.    thanks again for the help, much appreciated.   

I see now why some people repeat the previous post at the head of their reply  -   not doing so means the the previous words can't be seen without scrolling to the bottom of the page.     I always used to think it was irrelevant to repeat the previous message, but now I understand.       

     

Hi paul1 . So, the 11D reference relates to the 4th handstamp introduced for the number 11. They can be differentiated by the shape of the oval, the number font and the number of bars surrounding the diamond shape, see this 82 page pdf link if you want more details, page 20.

Quoting a previous post in its entirety can be cumbersome, especially if there are pictures and is often unnecessary. tagging someone in is often better or quote selectively by deleting picture or comments to which you are not replying.

I have Brummell too, it is very useful. On page 7, Introductory Notes, beginning with the final paragraph on that page, there is information as to when the Post Office numbers apply and when they don't. Likewise, the London Inland Office section on page 138 explains that the numbers are (hand)stamp numbers only. Similarly, with the London District (Second Series) section beginning on page 155, the numbers are just handstamp numbers.

I hope this helps,

Daniel

PS Buccleuch  is apparently pronounced be-Kloo, well, it was never going to be obvious   (I missed off an o at the end which I have now added)

big thanks again Daniel - you're obviously a genius at these early issues - thanks for the link and I must read more. As for the pronunciation of Buccleuch - it defies words. Bit like the correct pronunciation of Greenhalgh which is another 'not how it looks' word.