Dear Sir,

The article on recent changes of Scott numbers for the 3¢ 1851 and 1857 issues (June Specialist, pp. 249-53) requires a correction: page 253 lists Scott numbers “for the 1851 issue” to account for recent changes.  An underline was omitted.  The correct entry should be: “…..25, 25A…..”

I apologize for the error.

Sincerely,
Hal Collins

Dear Sir,

Nicholas A. Lombardi’s broadside, “Please Stop the Carnage!” the April, 2008 issue cover story, regarding the senseless slaughter of eight imperf stamps to manufacture one “GEM-100J,” really struck a nerve with me.  It’s like killing elephants to get their tusks so ivory things can be made!  It’s just plain wrong.  It’s the willful, deliberate butchering of our beautiful, defenseless objects of affection, which we philatelists have volunteered to safeguard.

I refuse to buy, sell, or trade these gauche atrocities.  They are an acute embarrassment, source of shame, and a black eye for the grading movement – a movement I otherwise vehemently support – and an affront to the very hobby we all love so much.

It would be wonderful if USSS lobbied PSE and The PF, on behalf of its membership of like-minded members, to stop immediately the practice of awarding grades to stamps that have obviously been manufactured at the expense of other stamps.  Should the PSE and The PF not agree, at that juncture it seems to me that we ought to give serious consideration to calling on our membership, and indeed all U.S. collectors, to boycott the purchase of stamps such as imperf 100Js that have been wantonly fabricated by annihilating other stamps in order to achieve high grades.

Sincerely,
Dave Hull

Dear Sir,

I wholeheartedly agree with Nicholas Lombardi that deliberate destruction of philatelic heritage is a sacrilege.  That being said, it is easy to see why it happens.  It is not new.  In fact, long before the advent of graded stamps, one saw many of these “Jumbos” in philatelic auctions.  I always assumed that they were made while the stamps were current, and the desecrator simply used the mutilated stamps for postage, recouping his face-value expenditure at a time when the stamps were generally available at face.

That it is also a new phenomenon is reflective of the fact that we live in a material world and have a materialistic hobby.  There are not many collectors of large multiples, so a nice block of nine might bring, what, half catalogue, or $315.  If that block were damaged in any way, it might bring perhaps a quarter of that, perhaps 80 or so dollars.  The fact that this jumbo brought $145 more than the block, or significantly more than that if the remaining stamps were defective is a pretty strong incentive to the materialistic defiler.  Carrying the argument further, it would be worthwhile to split up even a complete sheet of perfect stamps in such a way, selling margin pairs, plate blocks, 7 regular pairs, one single, and 9 jumbos, while damaging 40 stamps in the process.  What a shame.  But the perpetrator is smiling all the way to the bank.

As to his final admonishment to hang onto your large blocks of imperfs (or anything else, for that matter), even if they should become as scarce as hen’s teeth, it is probably ill advice from a financial standpoint—unless we collectors change our collecting habits and multiples become the rage.  It hasn’t happened in more than 100 years, so I’m not holding my breath. 

Too bad!

Sincerely,
McClellan G. Blair

I agree wholeheartedly with the article.  I also wanted to point out that the nine stamps the owner started with had a combined retail value of $630, and the one he ended up with sold for $460.  Looks like he lost $130.  So besides being very wrong, I’d call it very dumb!

Sincerely,
Harold Bailey

I could not agree more with Nick’s observations about the “Gem 100 Jumbo” stamp(s) that are being brought to the stamp market lately.  I have not had a problem with the Washington-Franklin and earlier stamps receiving a grading certificate but when I see the 3¢ purple commemoratives with a graded certificate selling in the hundreds of dollars, that’s enough for me.  Your article about the Imperforate is a great point.  If I have a block of 9 of the Scott #314 (or any other of the Imperforate issues) and cut it through the middle of the adjoining stamps, do I get a “jumbo, jumbo 100” certificate?  If I cut it so that I barely clip the designs of the outer 8 stamps, do I get a “super jumbo, jumbo 100” certificate so the stamp is worth tens of thousands?   Or do I leave it as a simple block of 9 that looks terrific but gets a graded certificate that says something like “F-VF 85 grade?”  STOP the madness!

Sincerely,
Terry Scott

Dear Sir,

The May, 2008 issue of The U.S. Specialist (pp. 221-24) carried my article on the 80¢ Mt. McKinley stamp’s use on recent domestic mail.  It reported two sale withdrawals, effective March 31, 2008, given in the USPS sale catalog USA Philatelic, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring, 2008).  Scheduled to go off-sale were the 80¢ McKinley and the 83¢ Edna Ferber stamp.  Now, the Summer, 2008 edition (Vol. 13, No. 2), which I received on April 22, lists both issues for sale without qualification.  So it appears that the 80¢ McKinley will be around a little longer, without a specific rate use.  And the 83¢ Ferber can be used for the new one-ounce “flats” rate effective May 12, 2008.

Sincerely,
Ronald Blanks

Dear Sir,

The American Plate Number Single Society (APNSS) supports collectors of plate number singles as well as other marginal markings.  Some members collect pane position markings, both as single stamps and in larger blocks or multiples.  As with plate numbers, ZIPs and other marginal markings, I am sure some collectors look for one of each issue, while others try to find an example of each possible pane position.

We don’t include Pane Position Singles (PPS) in the Hebert’s Standard Catalog of Plate Number Singles, since the purpose of the work is to list and price PNS for the individual plate numbers that were used on each issue.  However, we do list and price ZIP, ME and Copyright singles.  The Copyright singles are especially important because on more recent issues, USPS sometimes does not include plate numbers at all and the Copyright notice is the only marginal marking of any sort.  Sometimes even that appears only on the back, such as with this year’s Chinese New Year stamp, Scott #4221.  I would be happy to consider adding pane position singles to a future edition of the Hebert’s Catalog, if there is sufficient interest and demand for it, and several reliable contributors for pricing data.

Sincerely,
Rick Burdsall
Secretary, APNSS;
Editor, 2007 Hebert’s;
Member, USSS Marginal Markings Committee

Dear Sir,

I enjoyed the article on the Shanghai overprints in the February, 2008 issue of The United States Specialist.

The 10¢ on 5¢ Offices in China (Scott K5) illustrated below shows another variation.  Look at the "Shanghai" on the LL stamp in relation to the stamps above it - the "S" is almost flush with the edge of the design while the other two stamps the "S" is well to the left of the edge.  Yet all three stamps on the right seem to have the "S" lined up vertically.  So just the single overprint is mis-aligned.  Why is the single overprint is out of line?  This doesn’t seem to match any of the
cases you showed in your article.

Sincerely,
Doug D’Avino

The Author Responds

Dear Sir,

The bottom two overprints are lower on the stamps than the top four, so this is the UL-L position.  You are correct that the lower left overprint is closer than normal to the lower right one; this is simply the way the mini-overprinting plate was made up.

Sincerely,
Wallace Cleland

I enjoyed the series of articles very much regarding marginal markings in The U.S. Specialist.

I was a little surprised at how little attention was given to collecting habits, particularly in the last article with pane position diagrams, probably only because I’m looking for more guidance or a consensus. I’ve perceived that many plate block collectors now opt to collect a plate block that encompasses the pane position diagram, but this wasn’t mentioned in the brief paragraph regarding collecting habits [January, 2008, p. 30]. Any comments or suggestions for further information?

Sincerely,
Jim Isaacson

The Author Responds

Dear Sir,

I’m glad Jim is enjoying the series.  I’ve been considering his comment on the pane position diagrams.  I really can’t add anything to what was in the article.  That’s probably because I don’t know anyone who collects pane position diagrams!!  Additionally, there is very little in the literature about pane position diagrams and what is there does not address the way they are collected.  If anyone can provide information on how pane position diagrams are collected, please contact Jim Isaacson and Doug D’Avino.

Sincerely,
Doug D’Avino

Dear Sir,

In the December, 2007 issue of The United States Specialist, the authors of "A Categorization of Marginal Markings: Plate Number Types, Part IV" listed the Cottrell press, with a plate size of 384 subjects, in Table 1 as a source of Plate Number Coils (PNC).  Alan Thomson has made us aware that this entry is in error.

Alan reports that "Press logs do not support the contention that any PNC was ever printed on the Cottrell press with a plate width of 16 images.  All Cottrell coil printings with a number on the stamp were printed from plates that were 18 x 24 (approximately 20 issues)."

Our thanks to Alan for the corrected information.  We regret the error.

Sincerely,
Hal Collins and Doug D’Avino