The standard postmarks of Latvia 1919 - 1945

The post offices where the postmarks were used

 opening and ev. closing dates


The different standard postmarks


The period of usage for the standard postmarks

Earliest and latest seen date


References to Jakimovs and v. Hofmanns listenings


To see this information, please click on the pdf.-file below

Latest update 2018-02-12

Doubtful standard postmarks

Several more or less doubtful postmarks are mentioned in the literature.
I have here tried to make a list about those postmarks with comments why they are doubtful or why they couldn't exist.
Until there are no proofs of existence they will be kept outside the standard postmark listing.
If you in your collection have some of these I really will appreciate to get information with a scan about it.


To see the pdf-file with the doubtful list please click below!

About the numbering of the post offices / postmarks

I have in my listings a different numbering of the post offices compared with the von Hofmann Handbook (Die Stempel und Postanstalten 1918 – 1940 / The Postmarks and Post Offices 1918 – 1940 – Harry v. Hofmann Verlag, Hamburg 1999). Also it differs from the numbering in N. Jakimovs’ book from 1988 (Die Postämter und Poststempel von Lettland 1918 bis 1945 / The Post Offices and Postmarks of Latvia 1918 to 1945).

The main reason of this is that after the edition of above mentioned books several new findings in the archives clarifies earlier not known data. Mostly it is about that some post offices were renamed of one or another reason but still the operations took place at the same premises. I have chosen to put such post offices together under the latest name of the office. The result of this is that my list shows less numberings than von Hofmann’s book.

One example is Aderkaši (#0007 according von Hofmann) that in 1925 was renamed Taurupe (#1452 according von Hofmann). These postmarks are in my list shown under Taurupe (#1406).

Some post offices, and also separate postmarks, mentioned by von Hofmann also doesn’t exist at all as “ILUKSTE-STACIJA” (#0450 according von Hofmann). These are withdrawn in my list but as it has appeared in the literature you can find such post offices / postmarks in my list “Doubtful standard postmarks” with a comment about why they are withdrawn.

In the “doubtful list” there are several postmarks of type 10 (without segment bars) mentioned as doubtful or very doubtful. The reason is mostly that they are seen as type 6 (with segment bars) late in the 1940ies during the German Occupation and it was very unlikely that they were engraved during this period. But still, there are some exceptions.

Another main difference in the numbering of the different postmarks from offices where cancels with more than one index letter were used is that von Hofmann numbers them by showing them in order by the types first and the index letter secondary.

For instance (von Hofmann):                   0011.1           AGLONA        6   A   9
                                                          0011.2           AGLONA        6   B   9
                                                          0011.3           AGLONA       10  A   -
                                                          0011.4           AGLONA       10  B   -

 But in my list the index letter comes first and the type are secondary.
                                                          0010.3           AGLONA        6   A  9
                                                          0010.4           AGLONA       10   A  -
                                                          0010.5           AGLONA        6   B  9
                                                          0010.6           AGLONA       10  B  -

(in this case the first Aglona number is .3 because Aglona was named Kapiņi until 01.06.1927).

The reason of why I am showing the postmarks in this order (also shown in N. Jakomovs’ book) is that it is easier and more logical to follow how the postmarks were changed / engraved (when you also have, as in my list the earliest and latest seen dates for every postmark) from type 6 to type 10. In many cases there also are two type 6 postmarks existing where only accentuation marks are added (mostly in late 1935 or beginning of 1936) in the cancel. Some of them later were engraved once more by removing the segment bars. So, in most cases it is the same cancel (with the same index letter) that has been engraved once or twice.

However some “duplicates” exists but then it is a question of new produced cancels with clear differences from the earlier produced ones.