Philatelic Study Group:
Hong Kong Security Markings and Perfins

C.J / T / E. C

Following are discussions on the T/ E.C/ Co. perfin.

Email from Philippe Orsetti  30th June 2001

T / E.C/Co.

 In the initial master, T/E.C/Co. perfin was recorded as # 60 as well as T/E.C and as well as C.J/T/E.C.

The reason for it was that, at that time, the authors knew only one poorly centered copy of C.J/T/E.C from Tilles and a report of T/EC. It was then assumed that CJ was in fact a misperforated C0, mis-centered having the bottom C0 appearing at the top of T/E.C. Those three markings were thus recorded as one # 60. It was a mistake.

Since then, very clear T/E.C have surfaced with no room for C0 underneath. T/E.C exist as such.

Moreover, Rod Sell has illustrated very clear C.J/T/E.C confirming its existence and nullifying the assumed existence of a T/E.C/C0.

In the Addendum 2 sent on June 15 2001 to the HKSC for publishing, the following corrections were made:

# 17 A, C.J/T/E.C (new number)

# 60 remains T/E.C

# 60 T/E.C/C0 is cancelled

Email from Dick Scheper  30th June 2001

Why is it that #60 remains T/E.C ? Isn't it a partial of perfin C.J/T/E.C?
I have a complete perfin C.J/T/E.C and once had a perfin E.C. with a leg of the letter T above it. This partial I/E.C was exactly the same as this part of C.J/T/E.C.
Or has someone a perfin T/E.C which is shaped different from (C.J/)T/E.C?

Email from Philippe Orsetti  30th June 2001

T/E.C is a distinct marking from C.J/T/E.C. While the T/E.C parts seem to be identical in the two markings, in a centered T/E.C, there is enough blank space between the T and the top perforation to accomodate C.J if it was there. I assume that the C.J part was either added or removed from the initial perfin following a corporate merger or split. (Most probably removed). We still have to find out.

Return to PSG:HKSM&P Home Page

Last Modified  30th June 2001