Editor: Alastair Nixon, 7 Bramblegate, Edgcumbe Park, Crowthorne, Berks, RG45 6JA. Tel: +44 (0) 1344 775378
Email: Web site: http://www.nixon48.freeserve.co.uk
Meter of the Month
There’s no other way to say it, “First impressions count” !
It’s a long story how I came to have this item in my possession, but I was very lucky! It is the very first frank produced by PB504001, indicated by item number 0000001. Wonderful!
Pitney Bowes
Your Editor has just acquired this new meter, PB800435.
The security code block incorporates a 7-digit item count and a 7-character code. Note that the 3rd digit in the code is an ‘F’, so at least part of the code uses Hexadecimal characters. It is also worth noting that, for the first time with ‘Design H’, the words ‘GREAT BRITAIN’ / ‘POSTAGE PAID’ do not fully extend to the corners of the box in the Value Die.
The Pitney Bowes web site is currently introducing the 'DM100i™ Digital Franking System with IntelliLink®.
It seems likely, therefore, the PB8 series is being used with this system.
Acknowledgements
My thanks to Alan Godfrey, David Aspinwall, Ole Constantine, John Fowler, Peter Mantell, and Peter Wood, for their reports / communications this month.
Latest Numbers
Below is a list of ‘Latest Numbers’ as at 27th June 2004.
Please could I have updates for the next issue by 25th July, thanks.
Frama (UK)
EPSTSF251 FSC 224992 01.06.04 [AN]
Sensonic 2000 FSC 279161 14.06.04 [DA]
Mailspirit FSC 701048 30.03.04 Static for 2 months
Sensonic 2000? FSC 901882 23.02.04 Static for 4 months
Francotyp-Postalia
EFS 2000/3000 EFS 569252 01.04.04 Static for 2 months
Optimail T 568082 02.06.04 [AN]
JetMail FJ0568154 25.03.04 Static for 2 months
MyMail FM2111633 14.04.04
Ultimail FM2500071 14.04.04 Static for 2 months
Neopost
8500, 8550/8750 8NE 44164 05.12.03 Static for 5 months
IJ25 N1137394 26.05.04 [AN]
IJ65, 75 N1205491 25.05.04 [AN]
IJ35, 45 N1310311 28.05.04 [AN]
Pitney Bowes
Paragon PBP83123 07.06.04 [PM]
DP200? PB127798 24.05.04
DP400? PB140403 28.04.04
Personal Post PB262257 01.04.04 Static for 2 months
DM 200? PB310258 04.03.04 Static for 3 months
DM 250? PB324547 18.05.04
DM 225, 300 PB379356 14.06.04 First for 15 months!
Personal Post PB427497 28.04.04
DM 400 etc PB504100 10.05.04
Post Perfect PB756414 20.11.03 Static for 5 months
DM100? PB800435 17.06.04 New - See Page 44-1
B921 PB980489 30.10.03 Static for 5 months
SECAP
DP200 ST227189 20.04.04
DP400 ST424533 17.11.03 Static for 7 months
An update to the ‘Dead Series’ is given on Page 44-5.
Postage Meter Licences
Further to Page 40-3, I have a copy of the registration letter from Royal Mail that accompanies my Meter of the Month (customer name withheld), see extract below. By some stroke of luck, I also have a copy of a similar letter for machine PBP83044 (see second illustration).
Putting all three Postage Meter Licence letters together, we now can form the following table:
Machine number
/Supplied by
/Die number
/Model
224486
/Frama (UK) Ltd
/FSC224486
/EPSTSF251
4583044
/Pitney Bowes Ltd
/PBP83044
/E121
5504001
/Pitney Bowes Ltd
/PB504001
/1A20
When I received the information on the Frama machine I didn’t take much notice of the Machine Number quoted. It appeared to be the same as the Die Number without the prefix letters. We can now see that is not the case and the following questions now come to mind:
Question 1: When did Royal Mail start using this machine numbering allocation?
Question 2: What system is employed for the allocation of Machine Numbers? For example, do all Pitney Bowes machines start with 4 or 5 million numbers?
Question 3: Do Royal Mail allocate new blocks of numbers before a manufacturer is allowed to allocate the Die Numbers?
Question 4: Does this explain some of the jumps in series that have previously been put down to ‘overseas allocation’?
Postage Meter Licences ….Continued
For example the gap in the N11 series between N1109999 and N1121000 – could it be that Machine Numbers between 1110000 and 1120999 had already been allocated within the Royal Mail system?
Question 5: How do the Model numbers map onto ‘System Names’ and ‘Bases’ found in manufacturers’ literature?
Question 6: What is the best way to refer to franking machines (in the ‘Latest Numbers’ list, for example) – by the marketing System name or by the Model or both?
For example, should I refer to the Paragon franking machine or the Model that it incorporates, i.e. Model E121? The problem is that, in some cases, I don’t have the complete picture.
The situation becomes even more complicated in cases where the meters can be combined with different ‘Bases’. An example of this is the Pitney Bowes Digital Mailing System where the DM200, DM225, DM250 and DM300 systems incorporate Models F821 and F921 into the Bases ‘F8MM’ and ‘F9MM’ – see the following section on Models, Bases and Systems.
I would be pleased to have your thoughts on the above and any other related questions that you may have. It goes without saying that I would be most grateful for any more examples of these authorisation letters. I think it is important to capture this information.
Models, Bases and Systems
The information on Postage Meter Licences above, reminds me of a section in Part 8 of Jack Peach’s GSM articles from 2001 in which Jack wrote:
“In May 2000 came the Pitney Bowes Digital Mailing System. Within this there were two meters F821 and F921 and two bases F8MM and F9MM. These combined to make four systems DM200, DM225, DM250 and DM300.
The F821 meter has a two-line display and can deal with 10 accounting departments. The Frank Number comprises Prefix PB3 followed by a five digit number initially beginning with '0'.
The F921 meter has an eight-line display and can deal with 100 accounting departments. The Frank Number again uses the Prefix PB3 but followed by a five-digit number initially beginning with '7'.
Base F8MM has a maximum (IJP) printing speed of 40 items/min and does not have a tape dispenser.
Base F9MM has a maximum (IJP) printing speed of 65 items/min and has an automatic tape dispenser (up to 50 tapes).
Model DM200 uses F8MM base and F821 meter.
Model DM225 uses F8MM base and F921 meter.
Model DM250 uses F9MM base and F821 meter.
Model DM300 uses F9MM base and F921 meter.”
Phase-out of Machines
In order to meet new regulations, the Royal Mail web site lists the following machines as being phased out by the end of this year:
‘Dead’ Series
I have received several updates to the ‘Dead Series’ table (see Page 43-5). The relevant entries are extracted and the changes highlighted:
Manufacturer
/Series
/LRN
/EKD
/HRN
/HRN Date
Francotyp Postalia
/FM (2003-1)
/FM 0008059
/08.05.03
/FM 0008083
/08.05.03
Ascom Hasler
/HT (2000-2)
/HT 18195R
/20.02.01
/HT 18938R
/21.06.01
Neopost
/3NE (1994)
/3NE 40003
/16.03.94
/3NE 41123
/22.08.01
Neopost
/4NE (1996)
/4NE 10075
/24.09.96
/4NE 21064
/26.03.04
Neopost
/5NE (1991)
/5NE 00018
/04.04.91
/5NE 19565
/12.03.04
Neopost
/9NE (1998)
/9NE 50031
/28.01.99
/9NE 50900
/20.05.04
Pitney Bowes
/PB7 (1995)
/PB700419
/20.09.95
/PB729910
/18.09.00
Meter of the Month – Issue 43
With reference to the May issue meter of the month, Peter Wood kindly sends another example of the meter in question, this time it is dated 6.5.77 – some 3 years after John Fowler’s example with the blocked out licence number.
The prefix letters confirm that the machine is, indeed, an F88 model. It also shows that the machine had not been converted to upper case ‘FML’. Unfortunately, the right-hand half of the licence number is unclear but it now looks like it was ‘fml 5003’ rather than ‘FML 5002’.
One question remains – “Why was the licence number blocked out in the first place”?.
Recent Interesting Marks
Peter Mantell sends three scans from PB140120. You might think that the first two examples show a name change for the company. However, both web sites are active and the contact details show that both companies operate from the same address. Presumably there is really only one business but the two company names exist so that different markets can be targeted. The third example shows the inclusion of a First Class die between the slogan and security block. Presumably the design is fixed for this type of machine. Any others seen?
Meter Thematics
Just room for a rather nice hummingbird from 25 years ago:
Meter News Page 44-1 of 6 June 2004