alainfang

QUOTE:

以下是引用麦国培在2008-7-20 8:22:36的发言：
这个看不懂。

下次吧,等我将水路和铁路的搞定,再来搞这个军邮部分.

麦国培

这个看不懂。

心怡永在

QUOTE:

以下是引用alainfang在2008-7-19 20:57:29的发言：

这现在我也不确信大清邮票一定没有用.根据下面的文献好像中国邮局和德国军邮局之间也有互换邮件.我觉得有两种可能
1)德国军人到中国邮局去销了戳,然后交给德国军邮局寄出.(KDT FILD是德国军邮戳)
2)寄信人交中国邮政,销天津戳,然后中国邮政转交德国军邮局.

文献内容如下(摘自"The stamps and cancels of the german colonies and the german post offices abroad German post in China",德文原版的书名是"Die Postwertzeichen und Entwertungen der deutschen postanstlten in den Schutzgebieten und im Ausland")

Fieldpost 1900-1901
According to the regulations, mail originating from army units was to be forwarded exclusively through the fieldpost. The dispatch of mail through the German post or the postal agencies of foreign countries was forbidden for security reasons. In East Asia during the Boxer rebellion, however, there were no such restrictions. The members of the army and navy units there had the following means available for the forwarding of their private mail:
1)all German and foreign civilian mail establishments;
2)the chinese offices for the forwarding of mail to nearest German or foreign post office;
3)the German postal steamers and foreign postal ships in harbours;
4)the German naval post offices;
5) the German fieldpost.

Of these, the naval postal offices, with their privieges, were available only to the crew members of the ships; but this stipulation was not strictly adhered to during the campaign. The free postage and the reduced postage for the German fieldpost applied only to some types of mail, as was the case for the naval post offices. Other mail, not falling into these categories, had to be franked at the regular rates.
Members of German military units could send mail through the fieldpost offices of other foreign powers and vice versa. In such cases, however, no reduction in rates could be claimedd, so that full franking was required. Only the Austrian military contigent is said to have enjoyed the postage-free privileges of the German fieldpost.
In addition, mail of German and foreign civilans was forwared by the fieldpost offices as long as such mail was franked at the normal postage rates.

On 13 July 1900 The Reich Post Office made the following announcement:
"For the mail traffic of the mobile troops of the army and navy dispatched to East Asia, the changes below are effective as the day of embarkation at the home-base harbour. Private matters of the members of these military units will be forwared as fieldpost articles as follows:
* Ordinary letters up to and including 250 grams, and ordinary postcards.
* The forwarding of letters up to and including 50 grams, and postcards, will be postage-free.
* For letters weighing more than 50 grams, a rate of 20 pfennig will be chared, as long as they can be forwared with the fieldpost in East Asia.
* No changes will be made concerning the forwarding of mail for military personnel on board German warships through the navy postal administration in Berlin, or in the ordinary regulations pertaining thereto."

谢谢方兄指点，非常好的资料。

卢长春

谢谢！英文不了解，继续学习。

alainfang

QUOTE:

以下是引用心怡永在在2008-7-19 17:04:02的发言：

请教方兄，此件的ＫＤＴ　ＦＩＬＤ是德国军邮戳吗？记得看过一些销此戳的封和片都无需贴资费而直接寄出的。此片加贴了大清邮票，因此可以判断为集邮品，这样说法正确吗？

这现在我也不确信大清邮票一定没有用.根据下面的文献好像中国邮局和德国军邮局之间也有互换邮件.我觉得有两种可能
1)德国军人到中国邮局去销了戳,然后交给德国军邮局寄出.(KDT FILD是德国军邮戳)
2)寄信人交中国邮政,销天津戳,然后中国邮政转交德国军邮局.

文献内容如下(摘自"The stamps and cancels of the german colonies and the german post offices abroad German post in China",德文原版的书名是"Die Postwertzeichen und Entwertungen der deutschen postanstlten in den Schutzgebieten und im Ausland")

Fieldpost 1900-1901
According to the regulations, mail originating from army units was to be forwarded exclusively through the fieldpost. The dispatch of mail through the German post or the postal agencies of foreign countries was forbidden for security reasons. In East Asia during the Boxer rebellion, however, there were no such restrictions. The members of the army and navy units there had the following means available for the forwarding of their private mail:
1)all German and foreign civilian mail establishments;
2)the chinese offices for the forwarding of mail to nearest German or foreign post office;
3)the German postal steamers and foreign postal ships in harbours;
4)the German naval post offices;
5) the German fieldpost.

Of these, the naval postal offices, with their privieges, were available only to the crew members of the ships; but this stipulation was not strictly adhered to during the campaign. The free postage and the reduced postage for the German fieldpost applied only to some types of mail, as was the case for the naval post offices. Other mail, not falling into these categories, had to be franked at the regular rates.
Members of German military units could send mail through the fieldpost offices of other foreign powers and vice versa. In such cases, however, no reduction in rates could be claimedd, so that full franking was required. Only the Austrian military contigent is said to have enjoyed the postage-free privileges of the German fieldpost.
In addition, mail of German and foreign civilans was forwared by the fieldpost offices as long as such mail was franked at the normal postage rates.

On 13 July 1900 The Reich Post Office made the following announcement:
"For the mail traffic of the mobile troops of the army and navy dispatched to East Asia, the changes below are effective as the day of embarkation at the home-base harbour. Private matters of the members of these military units will be forwared as fieldpost articles as follows:
* Ordinary letters up to and including 250 grams, and ordinary postcards.
* The forwarding of letters up to and including 50 grams, and postcards, will be postage-free.
* For letters weighing more than 50 grams, a rate of 20 pfennig will be chared, as long as they can be forwared with the fieldpost in East Asia.
* No changes will be made concerning the forwarding of mail for military personnel on board German warships through the navy postal administration in Berlin, or in the ordinary regulations pertaining thereto."

麦国培

这个多贴可以理解为寄件人忽略了明信片上的邮资。

心怡永在

http://www.p1878.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=43&Id=6103　　此贴除去挂号邮资，也属于５分邮资。似乎１９０７年以前的邮资所贴不是非常规范，有贴过１Ｃ的，１Ｃ半的和５Ｃ的。

心怡永在

QUOTE:

以下是引用alainfang在2008-7-19 9:24:17的发言：

我来给一个4分半的.但是我这个应该是明显的集邮品.

此主题相关图片如下清二次片正面small.jpg：


此主题相关图片如下清二次片被面.jpg：

后面还是写的满满的.所以是否写字并不能说明是否是集邮品

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-19 9:40:01编辑过]

请教方兄，此件的ＫＤＴ　ＦＩＬＤ是德国军邮戳吗？记得看过一些销此戳的封和片都无需贴资费而直接寄出的。此片加贴了大清邮票，因此可以判断为集邮品，这样说法正确吗？

麦国培

欢迎多贴些图来探讨，这样更容易了解和认识。
因为小马哥太能说了，两三件也会说很多很多！

alainfang

QUOTE:

以下是引用謝明書在2008-7-19 9:24:07的发言：

一般判斷是不是冬季陸路郵班的方法除了看郵資外，還要看郵程所花的時間，
從天津到上海大約是11-13日，而走海路則是7-8日，

亞太這片的路程是
清一次片加貼蟠龍1分2枚,2分1枚(下緣票損),計5分郵資(國內郵資4分＋1分冬季郵資),銷天津00.NOV.15,經上海00.NOV.23,加貼法國客郵10分1枚,銷00.11.23寄德國,銷德國00.12.27手填戳

從天津到上海只走了7天，走海路合理，走陸路太短了，所以比較像是郵資溢貼。
不知道這片有拍出嗎？

没有拍出.谢谢先生指点.我当时觉得邮资有趣,还想拍来着.

alainfang

QUOTE:

以下是引用麦国培在2008-7-19 9:13:21的发言：
还有一个是：请小马哥多贴图举例说明。
因为你老兄通常都是蚯蚓说是大蟒蛇！
讨论半天都是空的，请以实物来讨论，不然浪费我们的时间和表情。

我来给一个4分半的.但是我这个应该是明显的集邮品.

下载 (84.84 KB)
讨论一下:大清邮政时期是否有五分邮资的国际明信片邮资?

2008-7-19 09:24

下载 (64.33 KB)

2008-7-19 09:39

后面还是写的满满的.所以是否写字并不能说明是否是集邮品

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-19 9:40:01编辑过]

謝明書

QUOTE:

以下是引用alainfang在2008-7-18 21:43:48的发言：

亚太上有个片（1767），然后解释中写多一分是由于冬季邮费

一般判斷是不是冬季陸路郵班的方法除了看郵資外，還要看郵程所花的時間，
從天津到上海大約是11-13日，而走海路則是7-8日，

亞太這片的路程是
清一次片加貼蟠龍1分2枚,2分1枚(下緣票損),計5分郵資(國內郵資4分＋1分冬季郵資),銷天津00.NOV.15,經上海00.NOV.23,加貼法國客郵10分1枚,銷00.11.23寄德國,銷德國00.12.27手填戳

從天津到上海只走了7天，走海路合理，走陸路太短了，所以比較像是郵資溢貼。
不知道這片有拍出嗎？

麦国培

还有一个是：请小马哥多贴图举例说明。
因为你老兄通常都是蚯蚓说是大蟒蛇！
讨论半天都是空的，请以实物来讨论，不然浪费我们的时间和表情。

卢长春

各位继续探讨，我旁听学习。

小马哥

<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder"><b>以下是引用<i>alainfang</i>在2008-7-18 22:11:14的发言：</b><br/>
<p><span lang="ZH-CN" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times new=" AR-SA mso-bidi-language: ZH-CN; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-ansi-language: Roman; new="New" Times mso-bidi-font-family: mso-hansi-font-family: New>我只是说可能</span>.我也想了解冬季邮资的标准<br/>如果是贴2张2分的话，可能是由于手边没有1分的邮票，这是有一次我发贴的时候，麦会给的解释</p></div>
<p>如果贴两张二分那就符资了.<br/>现在要探讨的是五分这个邮资到底是怎么回事.<br/>我是一点都不明白,只是见过不少,所以感觉这个邮资应该是有些说道.<br/>还想听听大家的意思.</p>

麦国培

其实外国人也不计较，能寄出去就对了！

alainfang

<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder"><b>以下是引用<i>小马哥</i>在2008-7-18 21:49:21的发言：</b><br/>
<p>未必.<br/>不能让人信服.<br/>现在需要的是相关的一些资料来佐证.<br/>这是比较难的.</p></div>
<p><span lang="ZH-CN" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New="New"  Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New="New"  Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New="New"  Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">我只是说可能</span>.我也想了解冬季邮资的标准<br/>如果是贴2张2分的话，可能是由于手边没有1分的邮票，这是有一次我发贴的时候，麦会给的解释</p>

edward

<div class=quote><b>以下是引用<i>卢长春</i>在2008-7-18 21:57:32的发言：</b><br>
       
       
        <p>那就弄点复印的书读。我就买不起，才弄点复印的书读的。</p>
       
</div><p></p>
人多??，成本便?下降，??自然?平宜。若果人人都要?印本，那有人?意出?。大家不妨看看?????行量少得可?，起?的?作??了大部份，其???的是以?情?作推?力。越多人??，起?的?作?仍?，生?成本便相??低。

卢长春

<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder"><b>以下是引用<i>小马哥</i>在2008-7-18 21:51:06的发言：</b><br/>
<p>回头要狠很心买上一本读读了.<br/>台湾的书真贵!</p></div>
<p>那就弄点复印的书读。我就买不起，才弄点复印的书读的。</p>

小马哥

<div class="msgheader">QUOTE:</div><div class="msgborder"><b>以下是引用<i>edward</i>在2008-7-18 21:40:27的发言：</b><br/>早期寄?外?片的??是比?混?的，反而????就很有??。可?考海??岸?史研究?第十期《?史研究》，由蔡明峰先生?的「大清官片早期??的探?（上）」。 </div>
<p>回头要狠很心买上一本读读了.<br/>台湾的书真贵!</p>