|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glossary of Terms |
|
Letters to the Editor (2005) |
||||
Dec 10, 2005 |
Booklet Advertising Dear Sir, Perhaps this is quibbling, but the cover of the Stamp Collecting USA booklet of 1986 was surely a commercial advertisement [see September Specialist, p. 420]. It included a free ticket to the Ameripex international stamp exhibition at Chicago, which sold many non-government commercial products and foreign stamp issues in addition to products of the United States Postal Service. Sincerely, Dear Sir, The copy on the Ameripex '86 booklet cover simply states, "The International Stamp Show at Chicago May 22-June 1, 1986, will admit the bearer of this booklet cover free of charge." See illustration below. This is not a commercial advertisement. In almost every commercial advertisement a product is specifically named and promoted to benefit a commercial establishment. There is no product specified in this message. Was "free admission" to the show intended as an incentive to people to buy the "stamp collecting" booklet, to achieve a higher show attendance, or to encourage consumers to collect stamps?
I doubt that the food and non-stamp product vendors, or foreign governments paid the USPS to print this message offering free admission to the show on the chance that more people would come and might boost their sales. That's too nebulous a link and I haven't seen such subtle advertising anyplace. Just because commercial products are sold at the show doesn't mean that the message on the booklet cover is an advertisement for them. Without a named product and an identified commercial sponsor, I cannot consider this booklet cover message to be an advertisement. Sincerely, | |||
Dec 10, 2005 |
Re: Andrew Black Dear Sir, I liked the article on Andrew Black [June Specialist, p. 266]. It gives us an idea of what the employee was like. It would be interesting if you could also do the same for a pre-automobile era employee. Two points about your article: My mother worked for the War Dept. during the Depression and had a 25% pay cut. Did this happen to Mr. Black? May I suggest that you add in the median wage for Americans, so we could compare his wages. Sincerely,
Dear Sir, On August 16, 1929, Andrew Black, with 7 years experience as a siderographer following a 5 year apprenticeship at siderography, received a pay raise to $11.52 per diem for a 48 hour work week. Minnie Warren of the BEP Historical Research Center provided some additional data for the succeeding years. In 1930, his salary was raised to $11.84 per diem and he earned $3,706 for the year 1930/31. In 1931 his per diem rate did not change and he earned $3,718 for 1931/32, the difference probably being overtime pay. His salary remained at $3,706 in 1932 (1932/33). There were no records for 1933 and 1934 but his salary starts rising again in 1935 ($3,857) and 1936 ($3,959). In 1937, it remained at $3,959. To provide some context, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum work week at 44 hours, or $572 per year. So while he didn't take a pay cut, his wages were frozen from 1931 through at least 1933. Keep in mind that Andy Black belonged to a union, The International Association of Siderographers. Based on several documents received from Jennie Levine at the Hornbake Library (University of Maryland) archives, the Union's role can be partially recounted. A May 23, 1930 letter from the Union to Mr. E.E. Myers, Superintendent, Engraving Division, BEP, states, "In as much as the intent of Congress ... seems to be that persons not under the Reclassification Act be paid in accordance to the prevailing outside rate, the [Union Executive] Committee proceeded to gather such data as was available." On May 14, 1930, the Union had sent Mr. Myers a letter, shown nearby, comparing BEP wages to outside printing companies. The May 23 letter reinforces the perceived disparity in wages and benefits, in particular, vacation time. They obviously were not successful in making their case, since wages were not increased but frozen. The minutes of a Washington local meeting on January 2, 1932 reports, "During the year we saw adoption of Saturday half-holidays; the bi-annual convention; no furloughs given; no raises received." It goes on to report that "Printers in Bureau asked for furlough instead of dismissals." The furlough issue was also a threat to the siderographers. George Black recalls his father Andy being furloughed although George doesn't recall the dates. It could have been in 1933-1934, since the BEP Historical Research Center was unable to find salary records for Andrew Black during that time. One additional piece of information came out of the meeting minutes - Andrew Black was elected Treasurer of The International Association of Siderographers at that January 2 meeting. Any article on a pre-automobile era employee would be contingent on finding a source of information on the individual. I was able to write the article on Andy Black due to the memories and mementos kept by his son George. For an employee who worked in the late 1800s, such personal information would have to be found in letters, diaries and, perhaps, newspapers. Sincerely, | |||
Oct 28, 2005 |
Dear Sir, I enjoyed Paul Bourke's article "Special Delivery Service To and From Foreign Countries Before January 1, 1923" in the August issue of The Specialist. The background and information on "Expres" service between countries was most informative. The covers in the article were excellent illustrations of special delivery service afforded to mail originating abroad. It is important, however, to understand that those covers were properly handled under Post Office Department (POD) regulations. As Bourke points out, prior to January 1, 1923, the U.S. did not allow special delivery service for incoming letters from foreign countries, franked with the foreign countries' special delivery stamps. He states, "a certain amount of postal 'Jerry-rigging' was undertaken by compliant postal officials, thereby giving legs to the service to and from the U.S." That may very well be the case where foreign special delivery stamps franked the cover; however, the covers illustrated in the article fall under a different category of regulated special delivery service. In early March of 1907 regulations were codified for special delivery service on incoming foreign mail. The POD Daily Bulletin No. 8221, February 16, 1907, contained the following Order of the Postmaster General: "Office of the Postmaster General, Washington, D.C. Feb 14, 1907. Order No. 94: "Amend Section 774, Postal Laws and Regulations, by adding (part 3) thereto as follows: "3. Special delivery stamps attached to articles mailed abroad and contained in mails for the United States, shall be canceled in the sea post office or the United States exchange post office which opens the mails and distributes the articles therein contained. In case said stamps were canceled in the foreign mailing office, the articles shall nevertheless be delivered by special messenger. "F.H. Hitchcock, Acting Postmaster General." Order No. 94 was modified in the POD Daily Bulletin No. 8233, March 4, 1907 by Order No. 158: "Order No. 94, dated Feb. 14th, 1907, is hereby modified so as to read: "3. United States special delivery stamps attached to articles mailed abroad and contained in mails for the United States, shall be canceled in the sea post office or the United States exchange post office which opens the mails and distributes the articles therein contained. In case said stamps were canceled in the foreign mailing office, the articles shall nevertheless be delivered by special messenger. "Geo. B. Cortelyou, Postmaster General" It was under this clarified regulation that mail bearing only U.S. special delivery stamps originating from a foreign country would be accorded special delivery service. When, on March 1, 1907 regulations under PMG Order No. 340 amended the PL&R permitting the use of ordinary postage stamps to effect special delivery, provisions of Section 774-3 were likewise covered. Covers in Bourke's article are excellent illustrations of usages with both special delivery and ordinary postage stamps under the regulation. This use of U.S. stamps was no longer a requisite when, as Bourke noted, on January 1, 1923, the United States honored the convention reciprocating the acceptance of special delivery fees paid in the originating country. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Thanks to Roger Brody for his letter and augmentations to the Special Delivery article I wrote that was published in the August issue. I hold myself solely responsible for using the somewhat less-than-surgically precise term "jerry-rigging" when I wrote the article, but I think that the nomenclature has a certain amount of value in this context. Roger's references to the Daily Bulletins are helpful in this context first for what they don't say and then for what they do say. The first of them, #8221, indicates that "special delivery stamps" must be affixed to mail incoming from a foreign country in order to receive that service in the U.S. The second reference, #8233, specifies that the Special Delivery stamps sent into the U.S. must be "United States special delivery stamps." This clarification is useful because it validates the usages I showed in the article - all incoming covers with foreign postage and U.S. stamps affixed to pay for special delivery. By way of an aside, we should remember that the fee for special delivery could be paid in the U.S. with any postage stamps, not just special delivery stamps, and that the language of Roger's citations is not quite the whole truth. Perhaps the notion of "jerry-rigging" is much more appropriate if seen in the light of the cover to Mexico that I illustrated. In this case, the cover originated in the U.S. with proper postage to Mexico and a U.S. Special Delivery stamp that seems to have been accepted in Mexico. The point is, especially in view of Roger's citations, that it seems very unlikely that a foreign postal service would have accepted U.S. stamps to pay for special delivery when the U.S. would not return the favor. As I pointed out in the article, a prominent authority on the subject of special delivery service has told me that local postmasters on opposite sides of the international border had personal "arrangements" with other, surely a sign of "jerry-rigging," a term that I may continue to use until I see better evidence, one way or the other, concerning these "arrangements." By way of validating much of what has been stated so far, in the original article, in Roger's letter, and in this letter, I want to add that since my article appeared, two collectors have sent me scans of covers they have, both to Canada, one a 2¢ PSE and the other franked with a 2¢ Washington head, and both bearing Canadian Special Delivery stamps. This seems to be at least anecdotal proof that U.S. special delivery stamps may not have been valid to purchase special delivery service in other countries (prior to January 1, 1923, of course) thus rendering the item to Mexico curiouser and curiouser. Finally, my sincere thanks to Roger Brody for the amplifications, to the collectors who took time to send scans (and I would love to see any other similar items that members may have) and to anyone and everyone who may have read the article and felt the resonance of a responsive chord. Sincerely, | |||
Oct 28, 2005 |
Scott #461 EDU Dear Sir, At the request of C. Edward Wright in 1916, the Third Assistant Postmaster General "caused an investigation to be made into the dates of issue of United States adhesive postage stamps emitted during the current [20th] century." Wright published the results of that investigation in the January 20, 1917, issue of Mekeel's Weekly Stamp News. "Effort has been made to give dates of issue in each case, but it is possible that in a few instances the date of sale is given. The date of sale is usually one or two days later than the date of issue." Until the publication of Wright's list, some issued stamps were unknown to collectors, most famously the 1914 "June 30-Rotary press 2c coil sidewise, imperf," the stamp we know today as Scott 459. After reading the report in Mekeel's, Philadelphia stamp dealer Philip H. Ward Jr. searched for it and found a partial roll. Wright's list is incomplete and some of its dates are wrong, notably many dates for unwatermarked gauge 10 stamps, but it is a remarkably useful resource for anyone who chronicles Bureau Issues from the period before prior announcements became routine. An entry in the year 1915 is "June 17-Regular, perf 11 2c (388)." The number in parentheses was the Scott catalog number at that time. Today it is Scott 461. Beverly S. King and Max G. Johl reproduced the same dates as Wright's as issue dates for pre-1917 Bureau Issues in their book The United States Postage Stamps of the Twentieth Century, but they failed to credit a source. Perhaps they had access to the original investigative records. The Scott catalog also uses these dates, probably taken from King and Johl. In the case of the newly certified June 24, 1915, Scott 461 cover [see September Specialist, p. 404], I personally would have been reluctant to give an opinion of genuine without that documentation. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I wish to thank Ken Lawrence for sharing the source of the June 17, 1915, issue date for Scott no. 461. That information is key to the history of this stamp, but I could not find anything written about that date, except its mysterious listing in the Scott catalog. Again, the stamp world has benefited from his uncanny ability to dig out important bits of critical data buried in a single, remote source from philately's days of yore. Sincerely, | |||
Oct 6, 2005 |
Dear Sir, In the July issue of the Specialist, Wallace Cleland pictures a 2¢ Harding imperf. bottom 15028 plate block. It has a strong unsmeared mirror-image plate number 15027 on the reverse, which is displaced relative to the faint setoff stamp images also on the reverse. An alternative explanation to the double setoff advanced by Dr. Cleland would be that a blank moist sheet was placed so high on plate 15027 that a bottom plate number was not covered. As the plate passed under the impression roller (platen), the number would have been picked up by the impression roller, to be offset upon the back of the following sheet printed from plate #15028. Sincerely, Dear Sir, While this is a possibility, most ghost plate numbers are more weakly printed. The image in this case suggests direct contact of the paper with the plate. Sincerely, | |||
Aug 31, 2005 |
Dear Sir, In the April, 2005 Specialist article on Samuel and Clyde De Binder by Rod Juell and Doug D'Avino, the authors felt that "Samuel evidently spent at least seven of those years on other projects within the BEP, making it possible that he was only a part-time contributor to stamp production throughout his BEP career." This is a very true statement, as the following item was found in a recent Stacks auction. It shows the initials S. DeB. (Samuel DeBinder) in the top margin of a 1902 series National bank note. [see below] The note is for the Dunbar N.B. of New York and is dated August 17, 1928. The note also shows the initials of two other siderographers, Samuel S. Ludlum (S.S.L.) and on the back those of Charles A. Hall (C.A.H.). Since the BEP also printed our nation's currency, siderographers were also engaged in making plates for printing other products, and this bank note shows the evidence of their work. It is interesting to note that I found another very similar item for sale on the web site of Smythe, another New York auction house. Sincerely,
| |||
Jul 23, 2005 |
Dear Sir, In the process of recently reviewing some draft material, I discovered two discrepancies in the May, 2005 article on "Categorization of Marginal Markings" which I wish to correct. On page 232 under Huck Experimental press, it is stated that the press "was installed in 1952." This same date is presented in both Tables 1 and 2, pages 230 and 234. The date should be 1950 on page 232, as stated in reference 1 (Linn's Almanac). However, Tables 1 and 2, showing 1952, are consistent with the time the press was in use printing stamps, and should be left as is. There was a two year period of installation and testing before the Red Cross issue was produced. Also, on page 232 under Cottrell press, it states that it was first used in 1954 to print Scott #1035. One has to look carefully at the Scott Catalogue to see that this is in error. Under the listing for #1035, it states in parentheses that this stamp was printed on "P#25253 and up." No date is given except the overall dates of 1954-68 for the Liberty Issue. Looking up plate number 25325 in the B.I.A. Plate Number Checklist, it states that it went to press on 9/11/56. So, the "first used" date on page 232 should be 1956. And this time the date given in Tables 1 and 2, page 230 and 234, should also be changed to 1956. My apologies to the readers for my errors. Sincerely, | |||
Jun 25, 2005 |
Dear Sir, The article about plate numbers by Rick Burdsall in the April, 2005 Specialist is extensive, well done, and will be a nice addition to the Encyclopedia of United States Stamp Collecting. I would like to point out, however, an error that appears in his table of plate number prefixes on page 182. The letter "T" is included and is attributed to the 22¢ Flag over Capitol test stamp printing by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The Bureau has never used a letter prefix on any of its modern coil stamps. Although the "T" appears to the left of the plate number 1 on every 48th stamp, it also appears on every other stamp in the roll. If one compares the location of the letter on the numbered stamp with it position on the other stamps, it is in the exact same location. The "T" is part of the stamp design and not part of the sleeve number. The sleeve record on BEP Form 9087 for this stamp lists the full number as 177777-1 T and not 177777- T 1. Just why the "T" was added is uncertain because a suffix of 1 (alone) would have been within the Bureau's numbering guidelines. The design had been altered from the original sleeve 1 and reuse of that digit was legitimate. For years collectors have referred to this plate number as T 1 but that's not correct. It's simply 1. Since private contract printers came on the modern scene, they have had to sign their work with a letter prefix, but the BEP's hallmark is no prefix at all. I would also like to suggest to Mr. Burdsall that a line be added to the Almanac for the year 1981, the date when plate number suffixes first appeared on the face of U.S. coil stamps. That event is mentioned in the text but is absent in the Almanac. Sincerely, Dear Sir, The editors of the Encyclopedia of United States Stamp Collecting are extremely grateful to all those who, like Mr. Thomson, have made corrections and offered comments that will improve the quality of the forthcoming work. Part of the reason we have serialized chapters in The Specialist is to allow for precisely this kind of feedback. Our thanks goes to all who have given it. While it would probably be unreasonable to expect that the Encyclopedia will be totally error free, Steven Rod and I are dedicating our energy to make errors as few and as inconsequential as possible. We anticipate that the membership will be very pleased with the finishing product. Sincerely, | |||
Jun 25, 2005 |
Dear Sir, In the August, 2004 issue we showed tables of the known plate combinations on the Pan-American stamps of 1901. Since then, it has come to our attention that two more combinations have been reported. These are 2¢ frame plates 1114 and 1126 with vignette plate 1093. These combinations were first reported as part of the BIA plate number survey (April, 1958 Bureau Specialist, p. 98). Please add these combinations to the table on p. 343 of your August, 2004 Specialist. We thank Harold Nogle for bringing these to our attention. Sincerely, | |||
Jun 25, 2005 |
Prexie Cover Interpretation Revisited* Dear Sir, Dan Pagter had the correct distance and zone (Letters, May, 2005) in rating the 10¢ Prexie coil cover, Figure 1 in Bob Schlesinger's "Usage of 10¢ Prexie Coils." The map Ken used made Westfield, New Jersey, appear to be in New York, so Ken did not look further for the location of Westfield, New York. That established, we reconsidered the cover in detail as Dan admits to trying to do it from a seven-year-old memory and took Bob's printed explanation at face value. Upon review, Dan noted that there never has been a third zone rate of 9¢ for the first pound and 3¢ for each additional pound as quoted by Bob. Also, Dan offers the date of usage for the item as July 22, 1948. The last digit in the year date is unreadable in the article. Additional information includes that the envelope was never sealed before being taped to a larger item and there is no indication from wrinkles or wear that anything was ever contained within the envelope. That said, the original rating Dan determined in 1997 was for a one pound zone three parcel, at 9¢ plus the 3% parcel postage surcharge, rounded up to the next cent, at 1¢ plus 10¢ insurance for $5.01-$25.00 indemnity: 9¢ +1¢ +10¢ or 20¢ total. It this example, the contents must have intrinsic value to be insured. Dan, who's parcel post interests are focused on early 20th century rates, failed to notice that bound printed matter rates, as noted by Ken, returned to having a separate fourth class postage rate in 1939. Thus Ken was correct that the 20¢ could also pay for "bulk paperwork" (no intrinsic value). For this 7/22/48 usage, 20¢ paid for papers weighing more than 7.5 lbs. and not more than 8.5 lbs. So much for Dan's and Bob's "only" rate analysis, as Ken correctly points out. Dan notes that Bob's exhibit page with the cover in question does not reference "bulk paperwork" as in the article. Here the story could end. But we wish to continue this discussion for educational purposes a bit further. In reality, we rarely, if ever, really know the contents of an envelope or package once the envelope or wrapper reaches a collector's hands. Also, clear dating is important to determine possible rates. AND that is what this game is. Starting primarily among Prexie collectors, now spreading to other areas, collectors try to find a rating to explain the amount of postage affixed - especially "SOLO Usages." This can be quite creative for Prexie stamps, which were not denominated by postal need. When Ken rated this cover (Letters, March, 2005), he had to infer a date of use. He selected the early 1940s. Given the quality of the cancellation strike on this cover, it could almost be read as 1943. If that was the case, the cover rates three possible ways as a third zone item: (1) 4 pound parcel (9¢ first lb., 2¢ each additional lb. ö for 15¢) plus 5¢ insurance for $5 or less indemnity, a slight correction/adjustment of Bob's description; (2) a 5 pound parcel at 17¢ plus 3¢ for a first class letter enclosed; and (3) bound printed matter over 6.5 and not exceeding 7.5 pounds at 17¢ plus 3¢ for a first class letter enclosed. The last possible date for rating purposes could be 1949 if the cancellation was less clear. Then it rates as Zone 3 bound printed matter weighing over 4 pounds and not over 5 pounds at 17¢ plus 3¢ for a first class letter enclosed. In 1949, no other combinations of parcel post, insurance or first class enclosed equals 20¢ exactly. The unanswerable question for covers such as Bob's is, what is the most plausible of several rating choices? That will always make for lively debate. Dan likes an insured rate. Ken prefers, if the cover had an exact rate franking - a big "if" when you're writing about stamps that were not sold over post office counters to travelers needing to mail parcels home, that it is probably either a 17¢ five pound Zone 3 parcel with a first class letter attached (which would not have required a separate endorsement as an enclosure would or insured mail would) if mailed before 3/26/1944, or a 20¢ single 7.5 to 8-pound parcel of bound printed matter if mailed between 3/27/44 and 12/31/48. Sincerely, | |||
May 26, 2005 |
Dear Sir, I read with a great deal of interest Barbara Mueller's tribute to George Brett in the March, 2005, issue of The U.S. Specialist. George was a very good friend for more than 50 years and I can vouch for his avid and dedicated devotion to production of U.S. stamps. A number of years ago, I'd say between about 1970 and 1975, he called me and said he had learned that I had Philatelic Foundation approved copies of Scott's numbers 594 and 596 and could he come study them, as he had at that time never had the chance to see both at the same time. So I, of course, said to come right on. In about two weeks he arrived, having driven from Iowa in his vintage Oldsmobile (heaven only knew how "vintage"!). I kidded him about the tires alleging they were so worn the air was showing through! So he was my house guest for the next two days and nights, during which time he completed charmed Fran. He spent the next two days with those two stamps in front of him - plus tongs, mm scale, water-mark fluid, and one of those gadgets one measures the thickness of paper (what the heck are they called, can't remember at the moment). Before he left he told me he agreed with the Foundation, they were both genuine, all right, and thanked me because he said he had never at that time ever been able to have both examples in front of him at the same time. One great gentleman. Sincerely, | |||
May 26, 2005 |
Dear Sir, I enjoyed the article in the April, 2005 Specialist by Nick Lombardi on the new EDU of the Washington Shield horizontal imperforate coil stamp. I concur with the recommendation to make the imperf coils more visible in Scott's catalog. Right now they are "out of sight-out of mind" to the casual collector. Regarding the lack of a listing for Scott 315 as an imperf coil, I believe that there is evidence adequate enough to convince the Scott editors to list it. I have copies of correspondence from the papers of Arthur M. Travers, who served as Chief Clerk in the office of the Third Assistant Postmaster General, that provide information on the number of unperforated postage stamps issued as of January, 1909. They document the number of specific stamps issued as unperforated by denomination and by date for the one, two, four, and five cent stamps of the 1902 Series. They further break the information down to indicate production/shipping details for unperforated stamps that were produced and shipped in sheets and in rolls - by denomination and number of stamps in the roll. In the case of the five cent Lincoln, it appears that one roll of 1000 copies was produced unperforated lengthwise and was shipped on March 4, 1908. The letters also indicate that the one and two cent 1902s were produced unperforated both lengthwise and sidewise. Sincerely, | |||
May 26, 2005 |
Dear Sir, I am writing to defend Bob Schlesinger and his January, 2005 article, "Usages of 10¢ Prexie Coils," from Ken Lawrence's misstatements in his Letter to the Editor in the March Specialist. Bob's 10¢ coil pair (Figure 1 in the article) was mailed from Westfield, N.Y., on the shore of Lake Erie. Per the contemporary USPOD Postal Guide, it is in Unit 1314 of the Parcel Post map. The item was addressed to Philadelphia, Pa., Unit 869 of the Parcel Post map per the Postal Guide. I confirmed these units with the master guide, POD Parcel Post Guide of 1912. I then found units 869 and 1314 on the USPOD Parcel Post map, checked the distance and compared that to the zone guide in the map legend. Per the official map, the distance is for Zone 3 as stated in Bob's article, not Zone 2 as claimed by Ken. This Parcel Post map can be found in the endpapers of Beecher and Wawrukiewicz's U.S. Domestic Postal Rates, 1872-1999, Revised Second Edition. However, I used an original wall-sized map, which is easier to read. Lastly, my National Geographic Atlas measures the distance from Philadelphia, Pa. to Westfield, N.Y. as 280 miles, well within the general 300 mile outer boundary of Zone 3 and far outside the Zone 2 outer boundary of 150 miles. Ken states that the two cities were "about 100 miles from origin to destination." They are not. I located this cover in the stock of dealer Douglas Gary after it was seen by many of the Prexie movers and shakers of exhibiting. But no one had rated it correctly. When I found it, I had been chasing Parcel Post material for nearly 20 years. I noted the taped down indications and calculated the zone, exactly as described above. I then purchased the item for Bob. Bob's prior exhibit, on U.S. Parcel Post, won a Vermeil in the 1986 international stamp show Ameripex. Thus Bob knows Parcel Post rating nuances. He then confirmed my (our) rating of the cover and we chuckled over the fact that his prior experience paid off for his Prexie exhibit. Sincerely, | |||
Apr 7, 2005 |
Dear Sir, It's always a pleasure to see rare and unusual usages of the Prexies. Bob Schlesinger's examples of 10¢ coils on cover in the January, 2005 issue are visual treats. I commend him for finding so many different rates on cover. However, I think Bob's "only rate interpretation" for his Figure 1 cover is unlikely. If fourth class, it was a Zone 2 piece (about 100 miles from origin to destination), not Zone 3. The cancellation date is indistinct, but if it's a 1940 to 1944 cover, and if it has an exact-rate franking, I'd guess it was a first-class letter (3¢) fastened to a parcel that weighed up to nine pounds (17¢). If 1945 to 1948, up to eight pounds. Sincerely, | |||
Apr 7, 2005 |
Dear Sir, Re: The United States Specialist, Vol. 76, No. 2 (February), p. 52 - the explanation of tagged Sea Coast issue. The tagged stamps in question are in fact Scott #3693, self-adhesive coil, die cut 8.5 vertical (or at least the ones I have are). If all of them were mistakenly printed on prephosphored paper, then that would be the number. However, if some of them were NOT printed on prephosphored paper, then I suppose the minor number would have to be 3693a (depending on Scott Publishing's judgement). The number 3785a, belongs to the self-adhesive coil, die cut (4 sides) 9.25x10 with black 2003 date in lower left corner, according to Scott Stamp Monthly, March, 2005, p. 14. Sincerely, | |||
Apr 7, 2005 |
Dear Sir, I believe the answer to Mr. Bates (p. 52) is incorrect. Actually the 2002 printed self-adhesive Sea Coast was printed by BCA and for whatever reason (I imagine it was in error), phosphored paper was used. All the BCA material bearing plate number B1111 and a 2002 date is tagged. What Ron Blanks reported on was a discovery that the 2003 version, printed by Ashton Potter, was discovered with tagged as well. However, this is not the norm and aside from a few covers, no tagged rolls have been found. Aston-Potter has gone to press several times using plates P1111 and P2222. It is the latter plate that the tagging was found with. To complicate matters even further, this printer used two different die cutting mats with plate P2222. One produced stamps with wavy die cuts on all four sides while the other produced such die cuts only on the left and right side with the top and bottom having straight cuts. Apparently these weren't produced simultaneously. Only the P2222 with wavy (perf-type) die cuts on all four sides exists tagged in error. Sincerely, | |||
Apr 7, 2005 |
Dear Sir, I thought I'd pass this information along for whomever may be interested. A brief discussion with Greg Vaupotic* leads me to believe there is some confusion about the origins of the plate proofs on card of the First Bureau Issue. Information peripheral to my research into the ABNC card proofs may shed some light on this subject. In a letter "Stamps at the Atlanta Exposition," published in The American Journal of Philately, December, 1895, page 602, Joseph S. Rich states, "Contrary to the usual custom the Treasury department has a rather fine exhibit of both Postage and Revenue stamps, ... which, I believe, have never been on view before. In a set of swinging frames are full sheets of unperforated cardboard proofs of the: Periodical Stamps of 1894 1, 2, 5, 10, 25 and 50c $2, 5, 10, 20, 50, and $100 Postage Stamps, series of 1894. Sheet of 200, 1c Sheet of 400, 2c (third type) Sheets of 200, 8c, 10, 15, 50c, and $1.00, $2.00, and $5.00 Sheets of 200, 5, 6, 3, 4c Sheets of 400, 10c Sheets of 200, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 30 and 50c Postage Due. Sheet of 200, Special Delivery." It is reasonable to believe these were printed specifically for the Exposition. Mr. Rich apparently was a prominent philatelist, having donated 1,400 bound volumes to the Collectors Club N.Y. library. It is worth noting that after the Civil War, the Post Office Department required its stamp printing contractors to supply the 3rd Asst. Postmaster Genl. with publicity sets of india proofs for distribution to the press, and in 1879 additionally required preparation of sets of card proofs for distribution to the politically connected general public. The Treasury Dept. upon assumption of the printing contract in 1894 simply refused to supply publicity plate proofs. Note that if the 2¢ (third type) described in 1895 is the modern type 1, the above list accounts for every known B.E.P. plate proof on card (and quite a few never seen) except the Trans-Mississippi 2¢ and $2.00 of 1898. It is reasonable to conclude that these two were probably printed for one of the subsequent expositions. I am continuing to search the contemporary literature for descriptions of later exhibits. From the above list, one may conclude that the printing of the card proofs was probably done no earlier than April-May, 1895, and no later than the beginning of the Exposition in September, 1895. The Post Office Department, the Smithsonian and the Treasury Department are known to have received the assistance of prominent philatelists, some of whom were stamp dealers, in the preparation of various exhibits during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among them are C.F. Rothfuchs, Bartels and Henry G. Mandel. In some circumstances they are believed to have been compensated in part with proofs, which were not recognized to have "accountable" value, which may explain the presence of these proofs in private collections. I hope this information is of use. Sincerely, | |||
Feb 22, 2005 |
Dear Sir, In his presentation in the December, 2004 Specialist ["The Encyclopedia of United States Stamp Collecting: Luminescence"], Mr. Paquette states that "Stamps with face values below 8¢ have not been tagged since January 1, 1991." This statement may need to be modified. I recently purchased plate number strips of 25 of the various nonprofit Sea Coast coils (stated value 5¢). Somewhat to my surprise I found that two strips were tagged. They are the 2002 design issued as "separated" coil stamps on backing material. I don't recall finding such tagging before, so perhaps this is a production error. But it is also possible that I didn't check prior acquisitions with my trusty 40 year old "mineral light" first acquired to identify minerals. Sincerely, |
![[Image]](image/ameripex-booklet.jpg)
![[Image]](image/siderographer-letter-1930.jpg)
![[Image]](image/nylander-banknote.jpg)
More Past letters . . .
![[Past Letters...]](image/right.jpg)
|