|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glossary of Terms |
|
Letters to the Editor (2001) | ||
| ||
Dec 4, 2001 |
Dear Sir, The article on Scott #481 with Mail-O-Meter perforations (Specialist, November, 2001, p. 519) was written with two objectives: 1. To notify that small cadre of vending and affixing collectors who read The Specialist that two examples of the #481 with MOM Type IV perforations have been authenticated by one of the major expertizing services and 2. To request notification should one or more of such collectors find another copy so that a Scott listing might reasonably be pursued. The addending of Mr. Belasco's "Comment" essentially renders moot one of these objectives - to document the probable existence of other USED SINGLE COPIES, in that he lays out only two possibilities "to prove clearly the existence of this stamp." His first criterion- "finding an unwatermarked pair of stamps, used or unused"-is invalid in that neither would be evidence of the COMMERCIAL USAGE of the coil, which would be required for Scott's recognition. All of the MOM machines affixed only ONE of its coils at a time in their commercial usage. All pairs were and are "favor" items made by the MOM Company at the request of dealers or collectors who submitted their own stamps for perforating. His second criterion (the finding of a proper commercial usage on cover) is so unlikely in light of the history of surviving private perfs on cover (Baird's studies) as to render the criterion impossible to meet. Mr. Belasco leaves no room for the only likely possibility of further "proof" of its existence, that being the finding of one or more further USED SINGLES. As a result, as far as the reader I was hoping to reach is concerned, locating a used single would likely have little or no significance in light of this criterion. In my opinion, the attaching of Mr. Belasco's "Comment" to my article does not improve it nor further educate the reader, but rather it serves to distort and defeat its intent. Thank you for your interest and consideration. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Having read Dr. Prothero's letter, I am sorry he is unhappy with my comments. I still think that they provide useful additional information about the difficulty of clearly establishing the existence of #481 with Mailometer Type IV perforations based on a few used examples. However, I wholly support this effort to try to located more examples, whether they are used or unused, singles or pairs, on or off cover. One of his comments, however, is simply incorrect. Commercial usage of a vending or affixing machine coil has never been a criterion for listing it in Scott. To quote from the 2001 edition, "Many varieties are suspected or known to have been perforated for philatelic purposes and not actually used in machines. These are indicated by an asterisk" (page 326). So finding pairs or larger multiples of #481 with Mailometer Type IV perforations would enable this variety to be listed in Scott. Sincerely, |
|
Oct 1, 2001 |
Dear Sir, I thoroughly enjoyed your article on Pacific Coast Late Fee markings in the August, 2001, Specialist. I believe it certainly accomplished its goal of summarizing the resources that you have uncovered. Attached is a scan of the August, 1926 notice pertaining to the San Francisco Supplementary Mail. Unfortunately I do not own the item. I scanned a color photocopy of the notice, so it may not be as clear as if the original had been scanned. In any event, if it is reproducible, the readers of The Specialist may enjoy seeing it as an addition to your article [see below]. If the fine print at the lower left corner is not readable, the date is 8-19-26, some two weeks after the date in the upper right corner. The last figure is "5000," presumably from a printing of 5000 copies of the notice. Sincerely, Thanks for your kind words and also for the scan of the form. Since I have this opportunity, I would like to make a point that I didn't make clearly in the article, namely, that Supplementary Mail must have ended December 7, 1941 or a day or two after. Since during the war all foreign mail was censored, all outgoing mail couldn't have made a ship in the last few minutes before sailing, since it would have been held for censorship. An exception to this may have occurred when censorship was lifted betweeen Hawaii and the U.S. mainland late in the war; supplementary/late fee service could have been reinstated, but I have no evidence to suggest that. Leonard Piszkiewicz |
|
| ||
Aug 30, 2001 |
Dear Sir, I very much enjoyed Jay Stotts' article "Recent Sales of Fourth Bureau Issue Archival Material," July, 2001 issue, page 295, on the Fourth Bureau Die Proofs and recent auction results. There was, however, an oversight which puts an entirely different meaning to the price on what was erroneously described in the Siegel catalog of the modern portion from the Falk Finkelburg Collection as the so-called trimmed large die proof of the 3 cent Lincoln, Scott No. 555P1. The item, Lot No. 1039 (Siegel Sale No. 836 on April 11-13, 2001), appeared to be that when taking a quick look at it because it was on the back of the page that featured the full size 555P1. However, it is actually the previously undiscovered and unlisted essay which should now be listed in the Scott's Specialized as 555E1. On the large die proof and the issued stamp, there are no background lines behind the bust of Lincoln. On the essay, there are horizontal lines which fill the area of the vignette. This creates a dark background behind the head and would have given the stamp a very different appearance. That this was the only known copy of a previously unlisted essay similar to the essay of the 8 cent (560E-1) was the cause of the $2,500.00 realization rather than the popularity of Lincoln material. On the issued stamps with portraits, the 1½, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 cent have no horizontal shading lines while all the other values do have them. It is regrettable that the catalog did not state whether all of the die proofs were printed on india or on white wove paper. Some careful comparisons made by James Lee, Gary Weiss and myself have clearly confirmed that the untrimmed large die proofs come on both types of paper. However, since so few have ever been identified as to paper type, we have not been able to develop a clear sense of the relative rarity between the paper types other than the obvious observation which we share with Mr. Stotts that they are all very scarce. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Mr. Landau is correct about Lot No. 1039. The catalog illustration shows the existing horizontal shading lines forming the background which makes this an essay. The Scott Specialized Catalogue currently lists no such item. Kudos to the bidders who picked up on the difference and drove the price up beyond the catalog listing of the die proof. Siegel experts missed this very important detail. I also missed it when preparing my article. For Specialists, it is always good news when we have a new discovery. Fellow Fourth Bureau Issue specialist Jerry Katz wrote to me that, prior to the auction, he solicited a list of the control numbers stamped on the reverse of the 40 Fourth Bureau Proofs offered in the Siegel sale. Siegel provided him with the information and he compared notes with unpublished data compiled by Gary Griffith. Katz reports that seven of the lots (1037, 1040, 1042, 1044, 1049, 1053 and 1073) were last sold in the Franklin D. Roosevelt auction. Eleven lots (1036, 1038, 1041, 1048, 1050, 1052, 1061, 1063, 1066, 1068 and 1072) are from proof printings ordered by Postmaster General Harry New as favors. Readers are referred to Gary Griffith's definitive article on Fourth Bureau Issue proofs in the November, 1994 Specialist for more information on the New favor proofs as well as enlightening insight into the counterfeit control numbers existent on genuine proofs. Griffith reports, "A relatively large number of proofs are known, however, with counterfeit numbers, five-digits in length, stamped in black ink. These black numbers do not correspond to the numbers in the ledgers on file at the Bureau. In addition, on many of these large die proofs with counterfeit numbers, some trace of the genuine number can be seen to have been erased." The Bureau stamped control numbers on the back in blue ink. Griffith goes on to state that the responsible parties are unknown. He speculates that these proofs may have been removed from the Bureau, with alterations made to prevent the tracing of their origin. Katz reports that thirteen of the Fourth Bureau items in the Siegel sale contained these counterfeit control numbers. One of the items turns out to be lot 1039, the aforementioned 3¢ Lincoln essay. Others include lot 1045 - the 8¢ Grant essay, lot 1064 - described by Siegel as an essay of the $5 vignette, and lot 1070 - the black color trial of the 13¢ Harrison. Other lots with counterfeit numbers are 1035, 1043, 1046, 1047, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1069 and 1074. Lots 1065 and 1071 have no control number. Both are trimmed down. Sincerely, |
|
Aug 30, 2001 |
J69 Proof Reported Dear Sir, Yep, I was right, there was "somebody out there" who knew sump'n. And the somebody was Ronald A. Burns of Shelbyville, Indiana, and Ron knew plenty. He very graciously and generously provided me with an answer to the query I posed in an article on page 309 of the July Specialist about the possible existence in philatelic channels of Scott's J69 Postage Due Proof. It seems that in H. R. Harmer's February 4, 5, 1956, sale of "The Postage Stamp Collection of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" lot #88 was listed as follows: "1930-31 1/2 to $5 deep carmine complete set of 10. Only set known, the $1 single value heretofore known is catalogued by Scott at $100, J69P1-J78P1." Then the Proof number of each value is listed. There was no total value or estimate of the lot given, and it realized $525. Where, oh where, are you today, little beauty? Sincerely, |
|
Jul 2, 2001 |
Passports Revisited Dear Sir, I am writing with a couple of technical corrections to non-philatelic information in Bill Waggoner's well done article "Passports, Visas and the Consular Fee Stamps" in the March, 2001 issue of The United States Specialist. Mr. Waggoner states that "A passport is a certificate of nationality and identification." This is not inaccurate, but it is only half the story. A passport is first and foremost a travel document which asks (in the name of the Secretary of State of the United States) the authorities of receiving countries to allow the bearer "to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection." Mr. Waggoner also says, "Wherever issued, its validity is limited to a specific time period that may be extended by the proper authorities. Renewal has generally been possible...." In fact, though passports have had several different maximum validity periods since we began to issue them over 200 years ago, they are now issued valid for ten years for adults and five years for children 16 and under, and they can not be extended beyond those periods. It used to be that passports were issued valid for a period of years and then had to be submitted to be "renewed" or extended to their maximum validity period. But the need to extend a passport has not been a routine requirement since 1968. Finally, Mr. Waggoner talking about visas says that a visa is "an endorsement on a passport [by a foreign country].... It grants the bearer entry into that country and permission to proceed on his journey...." For clarity's sake it needs to be noted that a visa is not permission to enter; it is permission to apply to enter. The border authorities of just about every country reserve the right to examine the applicant, the passport, the status that the visa represents, and materials being carried by the applicant, and to make an independent judgement as to admissibility. For example, an alien coming to the USA with non-immigrant (often called a "tourist") visa (issued abroad by the U.S. Department of State) presents himself for entry to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (of the Justice Department) on arrival. If the INS inspector determines that the alien has brought all his worldly possessions, is carrying a letter offering a job, has immediate relatives in the United States who are themselves persons who didn't leave after their visa ran out, the alien will likely be refused entry. This is in fact a determination that the alien was not truthful when making application for a tourist visa; and is an intending immigrant, a category very strictly regulated by law. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I appreciate the comments and additions Mr. Hotchner made. Coming from one whose everyday business is passports and visas, his information is bound to be pertinent and up to date. I'm pleased that he felt the article was well done. Sincerely, |
|
Jul 2, 2001 |
Federalsburg Precancels Dear Sir, I'd like to clarify a few facts about John W. Stowell, Sr. which appear in Ralph Kimball's article (U.S. Specialist, May, 2001) on Stowell's Federalsburg precancels. The APS Hall of Fame consists of deceased philatelists who have made outstanding contributions to our hobby. Stowell died October 5, 1955. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1957. While Stowell was not an active stamp collector, he took an early interest in the hobby. Born on June 4, 1869, he published and edited his first journal The Youth's Exchange in July 1, 1890. It and its successsor (The National Exchange) continued through 12 issues until June, 1891. There are brief articles about stamp collecting and several ads from stamp dealers (for example, Scott Stamp & Coin Co.). By the mid-1890s, Stowell had a New York City agent through whom he obtained many contracts to publish the important stamp journals of that time. He also published stamp auction catalogs, price lists and other philatelic items. By the time he got the contract to publish the American Philatelist (winning it from George W. Linn) and began to create his precancels, he was already America's leading philatelic publisher. He continued until his death, and his son, John W. Stowell, Jr. continued the business for two more decades. John W. Stowell, Sr. attended the APS Convention in Norfolk, Va. in 1955, just a month before his death. Sincerely, |
|
Jun 2, 2001 |
In the March issue, in the article on "Presidential Issue Usages - 19¢," your Editor stated, "Another possible usage for a 19¢ stamp on postal stationery is an example that once appeared in an auction in the mid-1980s. A single 19¢ was added to a 1¢ postal card (Scott #UX27) to pay the 20¢/½ oz. airmail rate from Hawaii to the U.S. mainland. The present location of that card in not known to this author." Fortunately, one of our readers responded with a copy of the postal card, illustrated below, and a description of the message on the card. 
Dear Sir, Thought you might like a copy of the above. From your description it is most likely the card you once saw. Among other things I am a collector of single U.S. cards with added adhesives. The message is most significant: "Dear Aunt Hilda, Just to let you know we're both O.K. We stood in the back yard & watched. We thought it was target practice. When we found out I evacuated myself to town & I was at work for three straight days. Am back home now. Sent a cable to Ruby & Frank's family. Have a souvenir of a Jap plane & a shell. Tell Eadie we're O.K. Love C." That is what I like about postal cards. Sincerely, |
|
Jun 2, 2001 |
Dear Sir, The April issue of The Specialist contains an excellent article by Anthony Wawrukiewicz regarding post office Forms. The Contemporary Postal History committee of the BIA did a great deal of work in this area during the early 1980s. In the 1980s, The USPS Directives Catalog (Publication 23) listed all Manuals, Publications, Handbooks, Labels, Posters, Notices, and Signs, all of which are numbered and dated. Most collectors are familiar with Labels, which include Express Mail address labels and the older Special Delivery stickers. USPS Forms were listed in an entire book, appropriately titled Forms Catalog, Publication 22. Since then, the two publications have been combined to form Publication 223, Directives and Forms Catalog. The listing which appears in the April Specialist is an abridged version of the official list. Interested readers should be able to obtain or at least view copies of the current catalog at larger post offices. Sincerely, |
|
Apr 3, 2001 |
Dear Sir, On pages 396-8 of the December, 1971 issue of The Specialist, there was an article written by Ed Densen in which he mentioned that contrary to the remarks by eminent specialists of the past (e.g., Dr. Carroll Chase and Mr. J. M. Bartells), the 2¢ value of the 1890 issue does exist with a side imprint, without plate number, on both sides of some sheets.
I have checked subsequent Specialist and Chronicle issues and not noticed a mention of any other articles or reports of other findings. I have a mint block of twelve of Scott 219D with a right margin imprint (photocopy enclosed) and a used single of Scott 220, also with a partial right margin imprint and I also have a photocopy from an unknown auction catalogue of a mint block of twelve of Scott 219DPe (presumably). I am amazed that neither the Scott Specialized nor the Durland Plate Number Catalogue lists or even mentions the existence of these items. Sincerely, Dear Sir, The Durland is primarily a plate number catalog, and thus does not always mention other marginal markings. We do mention that the Columbians had side imprints without plate numbers, so we probably should say something about the 1890 issues as well. The existence of side imprints on the 1890 issue was noted by Luff in his early book. Some earlier issues had side imprints without plate numbers, also. For example, I have xeroxes of full panes of Scott #65 and #93, showing imprints without plate numbers in side and top margins. But the only full panes of the banknote issues that I have seen do not have side imprints. The 1890 plates did have side imprints without plate numbers. The earlier banknote issues did not have side imprints, but the 1861 issue did have one line side and top imprints that were shorter than the ones in the bottom margin that accompanied the plate number. These imprints were white on a colored background and read "NATIONAL BANK NOTE Co. NEW YORK" and were the same as the imprint type B2 illustrated in the Durland. Sincerely, |
|
Mar 4, 2001 |
More on Watermarking Dear Sir, I enjoyed reading Larry Weiss' articles on watermark detection in recent issues of The United States Specialist. In fact, I enjoyed them so much that I rejoined the organization (after a gap of several years), just to get copies of the issues! I am a lifelong collector of U.S. stamps and have found more time to enjoy it since my recent retirement. I was initially motivated to study the subject after I acquired an accumulation of several thousand Washington-Franklins and found that the most troublesome task was to identify watermarks. It seems that we are in close agreement on most points. An additional issue that I wish to discuss is the use of alcohol as a watermarking fluid. I read about this in another publication and decided to try it. It is by no means the preferred method, but sometimes is useful for a "first pass" when I have many stamps to inspect. I did not notice any effect on the stamps themselves, but have since observed that some 19th century stamps (especially red, orange or brown ones) will leave a faint color stain on the paper towels that I use for drying them after dipping in alcohol, so I don't use it on 19th century stamps anymore. I also had a more positive experience with Signoscope than you indicated and regard it as an essential tool for the most difficult stamps. I have very few stamps on which I could not identify the watermark with Signoscope. In fact, I have accumulated and set aside an assortment of stamps on which Signoscope provided the only conclusive identification even when the other methods were used in retrospect. On the other hand, I had little luck with Roll-a-tector and consider it a wasted investment.
I continue to explore other methods for watermark identification. One initially intriguing notion is the possibility of identifying watermarked paper by methods other than visibility of the watermark itself. In fact, a dealer in the New York area told me about a buyer for a larger company who would sometimes buy stamps from him as "watermarked" by the "feel" of the paper, without even checking visually for the watermark itself. Let me know if you have any comments, or further suggestions for me to try. Also, I still have a few dozen "impossibles" from the Washington-Franklin accumulation, if you would care to take a crack at them yourself! Sincerely, Dear Jim: Thanks for your letter. It is most gratifying to hear that you rejoined the USSS to get copies of my article. A few comments on various topics: Alcohol (which is really alcohol and water mixture) is a very poor watermarking fluid from the standpoint of stamp conservation. For just about all the U.S. stamps that have watermarks, the ink formulation includes organic compounds that are soluble in water and alcohol. You are probably doing long-term harm to your stamps - worse than using just water as a watermarking fluid. You are selectively dissolving out organic compounds that can have such effects as changing the color or causing the ink to have different mechanical properties and degrade differently. On the use of Ronsonol: true it is not meant for philatelic use and probably does leave a miniscule residue, but it has been time tested. I know of its use for the past 40 years and believe it has been in general, widespread use for even longer than that. I have personally seen numerous major dealers using this fluid and rarely seen anything else used for wet watermarking. If it leaves a residue, it is not visible. Its purity seems high enough to satisfy philatelic needs. One observation: it does take a considerable time to dry and even then there are odors coming from the stamp indicating that the heavy organics are still not volatilized. Thus, drying well beyond when it appears visually dry is necessary. Your Roll-a-Tector experience is negative probably because the pouch plastic has aged too much. You have given up on this source based on your defective equipment, rather than a fair evaluation of its merits using a new pouch. This device, as noted in my article, does have a limited useful life. I currently have one useful and one useless Roll-a-Tector. Get a new one and try again. I share most of your enthusiasm for the Signoscope, but find it so time consuming to use that it falls in the "confirmation use" category or is reserved only for the toughest stamps. I have heard many stories of people who think they can tell what watermark exists (or does not exist) by the "feel" of the paper or, even one told me, by the "look" of the paper. I find all this either beyond my skill capability or simple "wishful thinking." Few of these people seem willing to be put to the test and those that have been tested by me have flunked. I think many of them are really looking at shades of the stamps and that technique of course is useful but not infallible. Most of these people are dealers who are unwilling to expend the time to actually watermark the stamps. I judge the technique of "feel," "look," and "shades" to be too subjective, inconclusive and therefore of little usefulness. Sorry, just no time to take on the cases of tough watermarking. I leave them to your continued efforts! Best regards, |
|
![[Back]](image/left.jpg){kind=small}
More Past letters . . .
![[More]](image/right.jpg)
|