|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glossary of Terms |
|
Letters to the Editor (2002) |
||||
| ||||
Dec 15, 2002 |
Dear Sir, In the article, "Jumping the Gun ... And Paying the Price" in the October, 2002 issue of The United States Specialist, the author, Rodney A. Juell, comments on the scarcity of the "star-in-diamond" machine cancel on the post card pictured in the article. The cancel is indeed very scarce. However, Mr. Juell states that the cancel was used at only two post offices in the country. There were, in fact, three post offices that used the star-in-diamond cancel and all three used the same killer die. According to William J. Bomar's Postal Markings of United States Expositions published in 1986, the die was first used in 1901 at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo. There are only six examples of Buffalo usage, one with a good impression postmarked May 8, 1901 and five others with poor impressions all postmarked in August, 1901. The exposition killer contained the inscription "PAN-AMERICAN EXPOSITION 1901" within the double lines of the diamond. The star-in-diamond killer die, with all reference to the Pan-American Exposition gouged out and with new town hubs, appeared from 1902 to 1905 in Silver Creek, N.Y. (home of the Columbia Postal Machine Co.) and later in Little Rock, Arkansas during 1906 and 1907. Fred Baumann tells about my discovery of the sixth known example of a Pan-American Exposition star-in-die Columbia machine cancel in his "Postmark Pursuit" column in the January 2, 1995 issue of Linn's Stamp News. He also provided the above reference in the same article. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I am grateful to Mr. Vance for increasing my knowledge about this fascinating post card. It is one of the more delightful things about our Society that there is almost always someone who can teach us something new! And Mr. Vance has done that for me today. Mr. Vance and other readers might find it interesting to know that I acquired this postcard on eBay, I think for $2, for the picture of the post office on the face. The cancel was an unexpected surprise. Sincerely, | |||
Dec 15, 2002 |
Dear Sir, A funny thing happened, not on the way to the Forum, but at the awards banquet in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, at the 2002 Philadelphia National Stamp Exhibition. The USSS was convening there and so the Southgate and Hopkinson Awards were given. Very happily I was the recipient of the Hopkinson for best 20th century U.S. in the show. I brought that very handsome silver tray back to the table and one of the ladies asked to see it. She examined it very carefully, then offered this comment: "I know you don't need this, so what good is it - you can't even give it away because it's all engraved!" Sincerely, | |||
Nov 4, 2002 |
Dear Sir, I call your attention to a sentence in "A Short History of the Origins of the Posts in England and America," in the September, 2002 issue, page 419, by Calvet Hahn: "The one major quibble I had in reading the book is that it is like a Victorian attic full of useful and curious facts strewn higgly-piggly." Surely the author meant to say "higgledy-piggledy," didn't he? Sincerely, | |||
Oct 8, 2002 |
Dear Sir, Ken Lawrence is to be commended for his article in the August, 2002 U.S. Specialist discussing in detail how the "APS Certifies Unlisted 3¢ Coil of 1910 as Genuine." Too often the expertising process is cloaked in secrecy and only the few individuals included in the process know how the "final" decision was reached. Mr. Lawrence has done the exact opposite; he has revealed most every step of his five year journey to get his pair of 3¢ imperforate stamps certified as an imperforate coil. However, by opening up this process, it also allows others, like myself, who were not privy to the process and have not seen his pair to raise new questions about the conclusions that were reached.
The claim Mr. Lawrence makes for this pair is dramatic: "it now holds pride of place as the rarest regularly issued United States stamp of the 20th century." That type of boast invites scrutiny. Moreover, there is a well-accepted axiom in scientific circles that is applicable here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Well, is there anything wrong with the methodology used for expertising this pair or is there anything else that should have been considered? In my view, some of the methodology was wrong and a lot of necessary analysis was not done. Click here for the rest of this letter and the response from Ken Lawrence. | |||
Oct 8, 2002 |
Re: Transport Airmails Dear Sir, I just finished reading the article "Transport Airmail Usages - 20¢" by Stephen W. Ekstrom and thought you might like a minor "naval" update on Figure 4 and the article's comments regarding it. Although Ekstrom thought the cover "undoubtedly contained information on ongoing repairs" it is unlikely. The cover is addressed to the "Detail Section, Bureau of Navigation" which was the section of the Navy Department responsible for the "detailing" of officers (such as CWO Winter) to duty assignments which are (to this day) critical to a successful naval career. It is more likely that Winter was coming due for transfer from the Arizona to a new assignment and was asking for a particular assignment or for information on available duty stations which might be suitable for an officer of his rank and experience. - Joel A. Miele Sr., P.E. | |||
Sep 1, 2002 |
Dear Sir, I read with considerable interest the article "In Re Grinnell" (by Calvet Hahn, June, 2002 issue), and felt compelled to write in response. As a descendent of Charles B. Shattuck, I represent the Shattuck family, owners of a large collection of the "Grinnells," most of which now are being examined by the expert committee of the Royal Philatelic Society London. I understand in the September issue you will be publishing an article by Vincent and Carol Arrigo defending the Grinnells and therefore I will not cover the same territory here. However, one statement in Mr. Hahn's article so miscast our position that it begged for a response on my part. With regard to the story of the find, Mr. Hahn writes, "In the year 2000, the Grinnell/Shattuck heirs proposed a new line of reasoning. Abandoning the discovery story narrated by Grinnell at the time, they now propose that a Shattuck family friend, Mrs. Ursula Emerson, had a son who worked for the Hawaiian postmaster around the time the stamps were printed and this may be how the Grinnells came to America. Supposedly Mrs. Emerson's handwriting or something similar is found on the back of the 13¢ rate piece." This statement follows several paragraphs after Mr. Hahn's quote of Henry Meyer's question of July 20, 1954 - asking rhetorically if it was reasonable that the Shattucks alone got every known copy of the printing that became known as the Grinnells. We do not "propose" a matter of historical fact. It is a fact, documented by journals and numerous letters, that William S. Emerson was one of a small number of apprentice printers working for Henry Whitney in the Government Printing Office of 1851 Honolulu. It is a fact that his duties around the Post Office grew when Mr. Whitney vacationed. It is also a documented fact that Charles Shattuck's mother corresponded with William's mother in Waialua, Oahu, as far back as 1836, and Mrs. Emerson returned that correspondence. These discoveries, which are now well documented, in no way abandon Mr. Grinnell's story - in fact they quite obviously support the plausibility that he did in fact obtain the stamps from Mr. Shattuck just as he said. In addition, these facts, and the circumstances surrounding young William's last months and death in April, 1852 go quite far in answering how a separate and perhaps very limited printing ended up in the hands of one family. The fact that neither the Shattucks nor Grinnell knew of these connections back in 1922, and indeed only learned of some of them in 2000, should only further add credibility to Mr. Grinnell's original account in all aspects now over 80 years later. Thank you for printing material on both sides of the issue of nature of the Grinnells. I hope your readers will benefit from the discussion and debate, which will no doubt continue for some time. Sincerely, | |||
Aug 3, 2002 |
Dear Sir, Doug D'Avino in the July, 2002 U.S. Specialist has an article titled "An Initial Mystery: Who is 'GL?'" In it he pictures a block of Scott #383 showing these initials and a five fold enlargement of them. One can see several features of interest. First is the unusual distance the two letters are out in the selvage. Compare it to the illustrations of finishers initials in his Figures 2 and 3. If the LR corner block was not imperforate, the letters would have been removed in trimming before the LR pane was issued. Secondly, no periods show up after either letter. Thirdly, the enlargement of the letters show the second letter was entered higher than the letter G. The fourth is the style of the letter L. It does not correspond to the style shown by the two finishers in his Figure 3 nor that of other finisher initials such as ALC, LM, HCL and SWL. All these indicate GL as being a plate printer. There were hundreds of these men. George Brett identified one (if there was not a second man with the same initials). The best documented printer was in Budd W. Dickey's article "Who was AB?" published in the June 1981, U.S. Specialist. He turned out to be Alfred J. Bradford and not Allen W. Brinkley. Most plate printers used only two initials, or more of these workers might be identified. Hence, it is extremely unlikely D'Avino will ever find out who GL was. What he has found is something which is unusual and perhaps unique. I have never seen an example of plate printers initials anywhere in the right selvage of a plate used in the time frame of Scott #383. All seem to have them in the left selvage. An example is shown in Figure 1. It is not easy to locate letters corresponding to those of GL, but I did search a number of old auction catalogues and with a ten power glass was able to see one example of that type of "L." As to the G, a similar one is shown in the Figure 2 picture of a plate certified in 1911 and used to print Scott #O121 with double line and #O125 with single line watermarks. Please note they read downwards. Rotate the initials by 180 degrees and imagine how they would appear in the selvage of a LR pane and you would see they would read upwards as shown in D'Avino's illustration. So, did GL mistake which was the top of the plate and enter them in the wrong position? We will never know that either. Sincerely, | |||
| ||||
Jun 12, 2002 |
Dear Sir, I would like to submit the following regarding the article "Rational and Irrational Bidding on eBay" by Ralph Kimball that appeared in the May, 2002 issue. The author correctly points out that both the irrational bidder (a sniper) and the seller are losers in eBay's auction system which allows sniping (last second bidding) with a fixed auction closing time. I would like to add that the failure of eBay's auction system to allow bidders to confront each other is also a loss to eBay (and its shareholders) because of reduced final value fees. Note that eBay has recently offered a new service which allows eBay members to bid live in floor auctions conducted by auction houses that list their catalog lots with eBay. For more information, see http://www.ebayliveauctions.com. Sincerely, | |||
May 2, 2002 |
Red Mailbox Dummy Coil Dear Sir, In the "New Avery-Dennison Red Mailbox Linerless Test Coil Discovered" article in the March issue, a claim was reported that "just three rolls of 50 Red Mailbox linerless coils were prepared by Avery-Dennison for demonstration to the USPS." According to the person I spoke with at Avery-Dennison, the USPS would require far more than 150 stamps for any kind of a qualification. The red XXXX marking is indeed an enigma. Is it a date or a plate number? I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but I've noticed that in the USA Philatelic Catalog the USPS often illustrates plate numbers as X1111. Doug Iams The Author Responds Dear Sir, The writer is correct that the number of rolls seems small. Certainly the smallest production printing run would produce a larger number of stamps. The phrase the writer cites in the article is essentially an exact quotation from a lengthy discussion I had with the dealer who obtained the stamps and information in 2000 directly from an anonymous Avery-Dennison employee, who I believe was involved with the demonstration. It may be that the number of rolls reported by the employee reflects the quantity specifically prepared for and used at an informal demonstration meeting to show the USPS that Avery had the capability to produce linerless coils. I agree with the writer that any formal qualification procedure would almost certainly require a larger quantity of samples. Yes, it is hard to guess the exact purpose of the XXXX. It appears only on some stamps, as a plate number would appear, yet its location and format are in the form of a date. As the writer points out in the USA Philatelic Catalog, the letter X is often similarly employed as a place holder for information or function to be determined later. John L. Larson | |||
May 2, 2002 |
French Auxiliary Marking Dear Sir, In regard to the cover shown on page 156 of the April 2002 issue, the French auxiliary marking which author Steven M. Roth read as "VOIR AU 308" is actually "VOIR AU DOS." The word "dos" literally means "back," so the phrase translates as "LOOK AT THE BACK." That is where one would presumably find the return address. I have similar cover with a "VOIR AU DOS" marking. It was franked with a 2¢ and a 3¢ Presidential, and mailed from Brooklyn, New York to Vienna, Germany (annexed Austria) on August 29, 1939. It, too, was intercepted by the French, censored, and returned to the sender. I suspect that many more such covers exist. A ship could carry quite a lot of mail! Stephen L. Suffet The Author Responds Dear Sir, I have re-examined the marking. Steve is correct, although the marking is difficult to read even with the knowledge of what it should be! The return address is on the back of the cover as Steve expected. Steven M. Roth | |||
Mar 2, 2002 |
Dear Sir, The last membership roster of the Society was published in 1989. The reason for not publishing additional editions, as given by then Executive Secretary George V. H. Godin, was that it had become a guidebook for philatelic thieves. The membership roster was especially useful because it listed the specialty interests of each member. Using the internet, it is now possible to communicate worldwide without disclosing one's physical location. Those who do not wish their physical addresses published can list only an internet address. The objection to publication of a roster becomes moot. Data on specialties and addresses would most economically be requested with dues notices in the fall. It's likely that a roster could not be distributed until well into next year. Sincerely, | |||
Mar 2, 2002 |
Dear Sir, Thanks for another outstanding issue of The United States Specialist. This has become a premier publication under your able editor's hand, in my opinion. I was, of course, intrigued by your article on calculating weights and supplemental surcharges on registered mail in the February issue. Concerning registered charges on heavy, high value letters, you suggested that assuming the minimum registration fee was the most reasonable assumption. This has been my experience also, and have been verified on covers where the weight, value or postage breakdown are noted on the cover, so that the registration fee can be confirmed. But it only works up to 1 January 1952. Originally, one could select the minimum fee for registration regardless of the value of the contents. For example the July, 1949 Postal Guide, Chapter XIII, Art. 3, tells us, "the fact that a registered article my contain matter valued in excess of $5 does not make it obligatory upon the sender to pay a higher registry fee than the amount of 25 cents unless he desires protection greater that $5." At this time 25¢ covered "indemnity not exceeding $5," that is, a range of values from none to $5.00. This system changed 1 January 1952, when a new category with no indemnity was distinguished from an indemnity of $0.01 to $5.00, per the United States Domestic Postage Rates 1789-1955, page 104. The fees for the lowest three indemnities were changed to 30¢ for no indemnity, 40¢ for indemnity $.01 to $5.00, and 55¢ for indemnity $5.01 to $25.00. A sender of the kind of valuable letter under discussion could no longer have got away with the lowest category, but would have had to pay a minimum registration fee of 55¢. To quote from the December 1, 1954 Postal Manual, Employees Edition, section 161.43, entitled "Registered Matter Having Intrinsic Value:" You must pay a registration fee of at least 40 cents. If the value of the article exceeds $25, a fee of at least 55 cents must be paid. You are not obliged to pay a fee of more that 55 cents for any matter registered, although you may pay any of the higher fees based on the value declared. In 1955, the no-indemnity category was replaced by certified mail, but the requirement to pay 55¢ minimum registration for value over $25 remained in effect. I have seen several covers and parcel tags showing this minimum allowable fee. One example is shown in the accompanying figure, a solo $1.00 usage on a tag, with the postage written under the stamp in a column as "33," "55," "12" with the total "1.00" below them. The breakdown is 33¢ = 11 times 3¢ per ounce first class postage, 55¢ = minimum registration for value over $25, and 12 = 12¢ for $1000 supplementary value, for a total of $1.00. Thanks for putting together such an outstanding magazine. Sincerely, | |||
| ||||
Feb 1, 2002 |
Dear Sir, Regarding the calculation of postage and supplementary registration values in high value mailings: Len Piszkiewicz, in his well-written "Calculating Registry Supplemental Surcharges" article [January, 2002 Specialist] discusses how to arrive at possible combination values of postage and surcharge values using a computer spreadsheet. Looking at his example, as well as other similar examples, it can be seen that the weight increments, which yield even calculations (even $1000 increments in Len's example), occur at regular intervals. In Len's example, every 5 oz. of postage weight yields an even $1000 amount, i.e., 2 oz., 7 oz., 12 oz., etc. This "5" comes from the highest prime number in the supplemental charge per $1000, which in this case is 15¢, or (3x5)¢, 5 being the highest prime number. If the charge were 11¢ per $1000, the highest prime number would be 11, and the weights for even calculations would increment by 11 oz. If the charge were 18¢ per $1000, the highest prime would be 6 and weights would increment by 6 oz., and so forth. The reason these regular intervals occur has to do with the basic nature of arithmetic division where the "remainder" becomes zero every increment of the highest prime in the divisor. This knowledge can shorten the calculation of value combinations between postage and supplemental registry and give the analyst a little better feeling for how the system works. The above comments assume that the amount of total postage is exactly correct to begin with. Sincerely, The Author Responds Thanks to John Grabowski for making the point about the regular repeat intervals of weight increments that give "exact" calculations results. He is exactly correct in his analysis. This behavior of the numbers always shows up, leading to the range of possible solutions. Then it becomes a matter of interpretation and judgement in deciding which is most likely correct. In the example used in the article, the preferred result was $400,000 value because (1) it's a high, round number and (2) the corresponding weight is 7 oz., a reasonable weight for a cover of that size. Sincerely, | |||
Jan 7, 2002 |
Dear Sir, In Robert D. Hohertz' article on the 50¢ Prexie in the November U.S. Specialist, he gives a table of solo usages of this value. I would like to point out some anachronisms and an abiguity in this table. 1. The table lists an airmail letter to "Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast,..." However, the next entry in the table speaks to airmail letters to, among others, Ghana. Gold Coast became Ghana in 1957. Which entry is correct? 2. In this same entry of airmail letters via Europe to "Afghanistan,..." there are several anachronisms: A collector looking for covers during this rate period would be better advised to look for the old names of the countries. Sincerely, The Editor Responds Thanks to Mr. Hall for pointing out these deficiencies. The tables for the Prexie Usages series were assembled several years ago from combined contributions from Presidential Issue Committee members and published in The Prexies newsletter. Apparently we had no members who were geographers who could keep country names straight over the time period covered. Also, the tables predate publication of U.S. International Postal Rates, 1872-1996 by Wawrukiewicz and Beecher, wherein airmail rates are listed by country, with alternate names indicated that can be located via the index. Rates to Gold Coast/Ghana were stated for the period 1939-46, so the name Gold Coast would be correct. The other name changes and dates cited by Mr. Hall are worthy of note. Senegal was not included in the table since it did not fit the 50¢ rate criterion. Collectors who have airmail covers to African destinations can now look up applicable rates in the International rate book mentioned above, and details of country name changes can be tracked by consulting a good encyclopedia or other references in one's local public library. And if a collector wishes to make up a list of destinations as a function of airmail rates, then consulting the rate book is the easiest way to accomplish that goal. Leonard Piszkiewicz | |||
Jan 7, 2002 |
Reference Clarification The Bureau of Engraving and Printing's centennial history published in 1962 was cited twice in the November, 2001 issue of The Specialist. It was reference no. 2 in John Meek's article "Feed Holes and the End of Flat Plate Printing" as History of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing 1862-1962, with the Treasury Department given as author; Washington, D.C. as place of publication; and the U.S. Government Printing Office as the publisher. That is a correct citation. However, in Rodney Juell's article on "Expanding Your Core Philatelic Library" it is incorrectly referenced on p. 487 as Sanford Durst's work. Mr. Durst was (and may still be) a numismatist who reprinted classic and/or out-of-print numismatic books, much as Al Hoch did for philatelic works with his Quarterman Publications. The original BEP history was the work of government employees who were listed on the verso of the title page as "Centennial History Staff." That original book is a beautiful volume with a gold and blue cover and bound-in intaglio engravings in color of four BEP headquarters through the years, a black-and-white engraving of Lincoln, and a color surface print of the U.S. coat of arms. The Durst reprint with a plain olive brown cover is entirely in black and white, and the engraved designs are merely reproduced as illustrations. However, the text is intact. While this information may not be earthshaking, it is important to keep the record straight for those who would like to acquire one of these volumes. Sincerely, | |||
![[Back]](image/left.jpg){kind=small}
More Past letters . . .
![[More]](image/right.jpg)
|