|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glossary of Terms |
|
Letters to the Editor (2000) | |
| |
Dec 1, 2000 |
Dear Sir, I wrote an article in The United States Specialist entitled "How To Make Rotary Perforating Wheels" in the July, 1999 issue on pages 328 to 331 (Volume 70, Number 7, Whole Number 833) for which I would like to make the following changes and/or corrections: On page 330, starting on line 15 through to line 25, it should read... For reference wheel (#1 in Figure 1), a x b = c a = 1/8" between holes or pins (standard constant in paragraph 4); b = 176 holes or pins (same as required wheels) 1/8" x 176 = 176 / 8" = 22" circumference c / p = d c = 22"; p = 22 / 7 22" / (22 / 7) = 22" x 7 / 22 = 7" diameter d / 2 = r d = 7" 7"/2 = 3.5" radius The simplicity of the above calculations adds support that this method of first constructing a reference wheel (#1) was used by the manufacturer. Sincerely, |
Dec 1, 2000 |
Dear Sir, Your article on watermark detection is a most helpful contribution for collectors (and dealers, too). You've done a great job. May I add a few comments based on my experience. The two perf. 10 issues are most readily differentiated by their shades; comparison based on copies of the watermarked stamps which are more easily identified is, in my opinion, a better and more accurate one. The absence of a watermark is too difficult to prove since some of the earlier (watermarked) stamps have such small traces or even no visible watermarks. My other comment is about double dipping when checking stamps for faults. One of the most tricky problems is with regard to creases which very often fail to show up on an initial exposure in the watermarking process. If the stamp is dipped a second time, once the initial immersion has dried out completely, I first dry the stamp on a sheet of clean paper and then expose it to the heat of a desk lamp. It should be dipped again and examined carefully while drying normally. More often than not, a stamp that passes as sound may show up a crease on this second pass. If you have any suspicions about the stamp on the first immersion, it will, if present, show up on the second. I've learned these things over the years and the matter of the shades was taught to me 30 or 40 years ago by the late Mike Karen who was, without a doubt, one of the most knowledgeable professionals in examining and identifying U.S. stamps, both for their classification and condition. Sincerely, Dear Lou, Thanks for your kind comments on the usefulness of the article. I think no matter how specialized our knowledge and how great our experience, occasionally reviewing the basics can be beneficial. On separating the perf. 10 single line from the no watermark issues: the use of shades as a means of making the distinction is a technique I am aware of and use regularly, but it works well mostly for the two cent issues (Scott 425 vs. 463). On other denominations, the shade differences are not consistent enough. For example, the technique is much less useful for distinguishing the one cent issues (Scott 424 vs. 462). Even after making an initial guess based on the shades, one must still go through the watermarking process to confirm the determination. A few will turn out to be surprises. For most examiners, the use of shades to determine watermark will be much too difficult a technique to utilize with sufficient precision. Each single line watermarked issue stamp will bear some portion of the watermark pattern, even if just a small part of one letter. True, that may be very difficult to detect, but it is there to be found. I do agree that is very difficult if not impossible to declare a stamp unwatermarked with absolute certainty. Despite that, after an experienced person applies sound techniques to a stamp and finds no hint of a watermark, it is reasonable to consider the stamp unwatermarked. Thanks for bringing the technique of "double dipping" for defect detection to my attention. I am not sure what might cause a crease to show more prominently upon a second examination, but I do know that, when watermarking, multiple dippings are beneficial as the examiner often learns where to look for a suspected watermark. Perhaps there is some element of that at play with double dipping for defects. Again, thanks for your letter and additional insights into the techniques for detecting watermarks. Best regards, |
Sep 5, 2000 |
Dear Sir, The 11¢ Prexy cover illustrated at the bottom of page 371 in the August 2000 issue is endorsed "Contents: Book." Author John Grabowski describes it as follows: "Figure 4. Undated cover apparently mailed in the 1950's with the probable rate being 2¢ for the first 2 oz. + 1 ½¢ /2 oz. for the next 12 oz., total weight up to 14 oz." That's a reasonable hypothesis, but it's wrong. Why? Because the rate John cites was a special THIRD-CLASS rate for books and catalogues in effect from 1952 to 1958, and from 1925 to 1958 the weight limit on any third-class mailpiece was 8 ounces. During that time, heavier articles were considered fourth-class mail. Effective August 1, 1958, the Post Office Department raised the weight limit for third-class mail up to, but not including, 16 ounces. At the same time, however, the POD abolished the special rate described above. Books and catalogues were made subject to the new basic third-class rate of 3¢ for the first 2 ounces + 1 ½¢ for each additional ounce. This new rate remained in effect through January 6, 1963. It is my best guess that the cover under discussion was mailed during this 1958-1963 period. The third-class postage for 7 ounces came to 10 ½¢, and it is possible the mailer used an 11¢ stamp for convenience because it was available. I have tried to calculate various third-class and fourth-class rates from the Prexy era, and nothing else makes as much sense. By the way, the special third-class rate of 1952-1958 erroneously appears as 2¢ for the first 2 ounces + 1 ½¢ per additional ounce in both the first and second editions of the Domestic Beecher Book. This is one of the very few instances in which an error from the first edition was not subsequently corrected. Consequently, when the cover recently came up for auction on eBay, the seller honestly believed that it fell within the 8-ounce limit for third-class mail, and so described it as "Rare 11c Prexie Solo Use Third Class Book." That was an innocent error on the seller's part. An examination of the original POD documents, however, confirms that the rate was in fact 2¢ for the first 2 ounces + 1 ½¢ per additional 2 ounces, as John Grabowski states. John merely overlooked the 8-ounce weight limit. Stephen L. Suffet The author agrees with Mr. Suffet and thanks him for his clarification. |
May 29, 2000 |
Dear Sir, Anthony S. Wawrukiewicz's excellent article, "The Liberty Series: Collecting Tagged Printings on Cover" (The United States Specialist, May, 2000) had an unexpected bonus for me. In 1971 while a graduate student, I retrieved a legal-sized registered envelope from the trash. It was franked with the $1 O'Neill (Scott #1294) from the Prominent Americans series as well as with a 3¢ Statue of Liberty sheet stamp. The cover was canceled with several mute double-oval cancellations and backstamped Lafayette, Louisiana, September 13, 1971, and it apparently paid the 95¢ registration fee and 8¢ first-class postage. It was a good non-philatelic usage of the $1 O'Neill (although of no particular value at the time), but I thought it odd at the time that the 3¢ Liberty was used rather than the then-current 3¢ Parkman, which, like the $1 O'Neill, had been in use for almost four years. Nearly three decades later, the author's words "The 3¢ and 4¢ seem less easy to find" prompted me to check that cover again. The 3¢ tagged Liberty sheet stamp had been printed only the year before the Parkman stamp was first issued, and it was certainly possible that the Lafayette post office still had a supply at the time the cover was mailed. One glance with the UV lamp and voilà - it was the tagged printing of the Liberty stamp. (N.B.: The tagged version of the $1 O'Neill was not issued until April 3, 1973.) No doubt other examples of the tagged 3¢ Liberty sheet stamp on cover are in collections or in unchecked correspondence in attics. The moral of the story: even advanced collectors do not always know the full significance of what they have in their collections. John Grosvenor |
July 11, 2000 |
Dear Sir, The 1¢ rate George Wagner discusses [March Specialist, p. 113] for postcards with simple messages on them is merely the 1¢/2 oz. circular third class rate that existed from May, 1879 to April 15, 1925, and then became 1 ½¢ per 2 oz. until January 1, 1949. Check Tables on p. 114 of his reference 5 [U.S. Domestic Postal Rates, 1872-1999, Revised Second Edition], or p. 111, Figure 22-7 for an example. You could also mail a folder of postcards at the same rates, or a Christmas greeting simply signed and not sealed. The third class mailings of 1925 and on were often called Christmas card rates, and eventually displaced the use of postcards in favor of the card and envelope combinations. The disadvantage of using the third class mailings was that they were not favorable or returnable without an added fee. His reference 3 - United States Official Postal Guide - is quite helpful on pages 10 and 11 as to details. The Post Office expected such third class mailings to be in groups of 20 identical, unsealed copies, but this was not always enforced. There was no "local" rate for such mailings, but unpaid mailings were subject only to dues at a single rate, vs. double rates for those out of town. Mr. Wagner's Figures 4, 6 and 7 are good examples of third class mailings, assuming they were mailing qualifying quantities. Figure 5 is just a mistake by a Post Office dealing with the massive Christmas mailing they had in WW I. I dislike "nitpicking" an author, but this one suggests a special unlisted rate that was only one portion of a long existing rate. Warren Bower The Author RespondsI appreciate the comments by Mr. Bower, and I certainly don't believe he is "nitpicking." One of the reasons that I wrote the article was to promote discussion on the subject and to try to produce evidence for or against a postulated one cent rate for post cards. In addition to this letter to the Editor, I have received several others directly. It is my intention to summarize their discussion points, as well as those from Mr. Bower, in a follow-up article. Section 33 of the 1918 Postal Guide does list cards as included in articles of the third class; but cards are also included in articles of the first class. In Sections 11 to 16 that discuss post cards under first class matter, references to post cards that are more properly third class also include the words "entirely in print" and do not include exceptions or provisions for manuscript inscriptions. But it is also true that Section 35(b) under third class matter describes, as permissible, manuscript dedications or inscriptions of the nature described in my article. The bottom line seems to be that the regulations were not exactly clear; and perhaps the Postmaster at Washington, D.C. was trying to simplify it for his staff and for the public. It certainly would have been a welcome financial relief to the public to know that they could legally continue to mail greeting cards at one cent. It just appears that almost no one understood it. I still welcome additional correspondence on this subject. George P. Wagner |
Mar 8, 2000 |
Dear Sir: I do not know Paul Bourke, but I did enjoy his article in the January issue. However, I believe he has an error in his story. On page 40 he states, "...and the War Emergency rates passed into history the following July 31." My information shows the rates were ended on July 1, 1919, and Henry Beecher's book, Second Edition, backs me up at the top of page 8. Best regards, |
Mar 8, 2000 |
Dear Sir: Caution is advised to both buyers and sellers of philatelic material illustrated using scanning or photocopy methods (e.g., eBay auctions). The Curator of our local historical society has repeatedly warned us that use of the higher intensity light of scanners and photocopiers greatly accelerates the deterioration process, including fading, of paper documents and photographs. Thus a particularly delicate stamp or other philatelic item should only be illustrated using low intensity photographic methods. Sincerely, |
![[Back]](image/left.jpg){kind=small}
|