Help unravel the mystery of New Zealand’s Railway Charges stamps’ overprinting

am78
on 19 Jun 24 (17:53)

I am researching New Zealand’s Railway Charges stamps, issued from 1925 to the late 1950s. I’m hoping members here can help unravel some mysteries about the overprinting process of the station names. My first post here will be longish to set the background, apologies.

Most were overprinted with the station name at which they were to be used from, about 300 across the country. The stamps were printed by the NZ Government Printer and delivered in sheets to the Govt Railways, who then performed the overprinting, usually on demand as stations around the country ordered more stock.

The first printings were in sheets of 10 stamps across by 10 rows, with selvedge, making a sheet size of about 11”x16.5”.
No overprinted sheets exist, unfortunately.

The first overprintings took place in 1925 with a horizontal station name very much like typewriter caps, and printed through a ribbon. From some Railways files in the National Archives I found a note from 28 October 1927 “The Multigraph machine to overprint station names is in Chief Accountant’s office”. There is no other reference to the overprinting so the story needs to be derived from looking at the stamps themselves, generally multiples. From 1928 on, the station names became vertical reading up or down, the sheets became 12 stamps across, a larger font was used but still through a ribbon (but not always) - that’s a later problem to unravel (again hopefully with members’ help!).

I’ll attach some images of typical examples of what is known as the Type I overprint.
Questions: is the machine likely to be a model 59?
Would it be able to print the whole sheet of stamps in one run? I ask because generally the horizontal multiples show the names nicely aligned across (first two images) - but some show discontinuities that imply the sheet being run through again, meaning not all columns could be printed in on go. The Symonds Street strip of 4 being the best example.
The Railways had a significant professional printing shop - think of tickets, posters, schedules etc, so I would like to think the mis-aligning seen wasn’t the result of careless typesetting, but has some other cause.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance, and of course ask further questions if I haven’t explained things adequately.
Adam

Ranfurly Type I strip 3 aligned

Roxburgh pair aligned

Te Aroha pair unaligned

Symonds Street 3d strip 4 unaligned

Dave Robison
on 21 Jun 24 (20:55)

Interesting! First, the Multigraph used would not have been a model 59, as the No. 59 was actually a “Typesetter” (really just a sheet metal rack holding sloping racks of type), not a printer. The printing Multigraphs available around 1925 would probably have been models 36, 46 (if I remember right), 66, or 60. None of these could print more than about 7-1/4” wide with a ribbon, so it makes sense that a wider sheet of stamps would have to have been run through more than once to print on all stamps across the sheet. (I think a Multigraph with a wider print capability was not available until the 1930s.)
The model 36 and 60 could only feed paper up to about 9” in maximum width, so the only way either of those models could have done the job on the 11 x 16.5” sheets would be to fold the sheets. While the model 46 (I think) and 66 could feed an 11” wide sheet through the machine, they could only print on about 7-1/4” of the sheet, or 8-1/2” using a “wide” ribbon. They were also limited to about 13-1/2” long print area.
Because of the misalignment you show on the last two images, these would have had to pass through the Multigraph twice to align (misalign?) they way they are.
Interesting puzzle! Probably hard to tell, but are there any signs of fold marks along any of the perfs?

Dave

AdLibPress
on 22 Jun 24 (15:54)

Based on the misalignment I wonder if the hames might have been printed using the type of system also used for printing address labels for newspapers etc - it used a metal embossed card with the name and and a device that held the paper to be printed, and a handle that made the impression and advanced the mechanism in one movement. The addresses were in a long 1column galley and the device (the name of which I forget!) “walked” down the galley printing the labels. I think it used a ribbon instead of inking the types.

Blame my 85-year-old memory for the lacking info!

Bob

AdLibPress
on 22 Jun 24 (15:54)

Blame my 85-year-old memory for the lacking info!

Bob

am78
on 22 Jun 24 (21:53)

Updated 22 Jun 24 (22:19)

The note re the Multigraph came from old notes done by a now deceased collector, so I went down to Archive myself a couple of days ago to check.
I found the reference from 28 October 1927 which actually reads:
“Proposed provision of Multigraph machine & fittings in Chief Accountant’s office for overprinting station names on freight stamps.”
So it remains unknown what these type I overprints were done on.

However, the October 1927 date fits with a known change in overprinting, with a trial for Auckland with the station name reading up and down, with dated examples known from November 1927 through February 1928.

Assuming this was the Multigraph referred to in the note, what kind could print lines of text up and down - I ask as the ones I seen have cylinders with rows of text horizontally. Are there Multigraphs that worked off a flat stamping plate with a ribbon?

These “type 1a” overprints were not deemed satisfactory and by later in 1928 larger and darker vertical up or down fonts were in use (type II through a ribbon and type III letterpress), I’ll cover those in a later post but note some examples lend credence to Dave’s folding theory…

Auckland 1a 6d pair 7 Dec 1927

Auckland type 1a 3d pair

Auckland type 1a 2s Nov 1927

am78
on 22 Jun 24 (22:18)

Updated 22 Jun 24 (22:21)

The type II overprints which came into use in 1928 were also the first used on the wider sheet size of 12 stamps across and 10 down, so 13”x16.5” sheets.

We can find a lot more overprinting issues with these, such as double and triple overprints, pairs with one reading up and the next reading down, mis-alignment with the stamp, and even mixed up and down on the one stamp! That strongly infers the sheets passing through more than once.

Some typical “correct” multiples following some “problem” ones.

Adam