|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glossary of Terms |
|
Letters to the Editor (2003) |
||||
| ||||
Dec 9, 2003 |
Dear Sir, In Steven Rod's September article "The Liberty Series" he comments that the various marginal markings can be used to distinguish the various electric eye perforating machines used to perforate the Liberties. That's incorrect. The bicolor Liberties and the $5 Hamilton were dry printed on pregummed paper using sheet-fed presses. They were perforated on L-type perforators and had no electric eye markings. All other Liberty sheet stamps were printed on web-fed presses and perforated on electric eye controlled equipment. In 1954, available bar and wheel equipment would have included the five contract machines obtained from the Harris-Seybold-Potter Company in early 1941, the pilot model built by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing as a guide to the contract machines and possibly the experimental machine developed in the early 1930s. Three different formats of electric eye markings were utilized for web-fed press Liberty sheet production. The dashes in the vertical interpane gutter of each were the same. The type III layout had 18 frame bars and a gutter bar in the left sheet margin and a single margin line in the right. All wet printed Liberty sheet stamps were produced on large Stickney presses using this format. The Stickney electric eye formats locked the Bureau into mounting plates to print stamps feet-first so that the printed web would enter the perforators head-first. The type IV layout had 20 bars in each sheet margin such that the space between bars on the printed web is 250 mm. This permitted the printed web to enter the perforator feet-first or head-first. Type V is similar to type IV but lacks bars in the left sheet margin. Unlike the Stickney presses, the Huck experimental press had on press electric eye controls, two of which were mounted after the water fountains but prior to the intaglio station. The type IV format was used for the wet printed 1952 Red Cross issue, the first stamp printed on that press. It was thought it might be possible to run the printed roll through the press a second time to print a second color at the intaglio station. That didn't work because of longitudinal paper shrinkage. The Red Cross plates were mounted to print head-first and the web entered the perforators feet-first. All products of the Huck and Cottrells other than the Red Cross issue were dry printed. The type V format was used only on the Huck. For sheet stamps it was used for the early 2¢ Jefferson plates, the first seven dry printed 3¢ Liberty, the first four 5¢ Monroe, the Lewis and Clark and Pennsylvania Academy issues and the six 20¢ special delivery (E20) plates. The Cottrell plates were mounted to print feet-first and could not use the type V plates prepared for the Huck. With reversion to type IV, the plates could be used on either the Huck or the Cottrells. The type IV format was used for the 3¢ Andrew Mellon issue. This was printed on the Huck press and perforated on the pilot model perforator, first placed in service in 1939. I believe that some of these perforators remained in service at least until the last Cottrell press was retired in November, 1985. I can't recall any obituary in the philatelic press. Perhaps these old soldiers never died, but just faded away. Sincerely, | |||
Nov 8, 2003 |
R. Ostrander Smith Drawings Dear Sir, I am writing regarding Roger Brody's intriguing series on the R. Ostrander Smith sketches. When the first part was published, I called Roger to tell him that I had made a blowup of the published sketch of the 5 cent value and compared it with blowups of the two large die essay proofs and the large die proof that I have as well as the original rough pen and ink sketch by Smith of the frame design. On Smith's rough sketch of the frame, he drew the women as if they were nude and then using the hips, waist and bust line as reference points gave an indication in few lines of partial draping with loose togas. It is important to remember that these were U.S. definitives being designed in the Victorian Era. While artists may have created bare breasted sculptures of women, they were not well received by those of Victorian sensitivities. Even today, American Puritanism would not permit the depiction of a line sketch of a woman's breast on current breast cancer semi-postal issue. Consider also Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision to drape the bare breasted art deco statues of Justice in the Justice Department auditorium. In the rough sketch, the figure on the left appears to be bare breasted while the one on the right has her left breast bared. In the large die proof of the first essay, were it not for the suggestion of a sleeve over her left shoulder, the left figure would appear to be bare breasted while the one on the right (as in the sketch) has her left breast bare and the nipple showing. In the large die proof of the second essay, the figure on the right is very obviously fully draped in a toga, while some further shading has been added to the one on the left. The large die proof of the finished design has added shading on both figures totally obscuring almost any suggestion of the breast underneath. Other shading around the head and hair creates a much less bright appearance for the stamp than that of the second essay. All of these changes were requested by the Post Office in order to make the frame design less revealing or "provocative." The draping of the figures on the pencil drawing of the 5 cent shows all the modifications that were requested. It appears to be based on the final issued stamp rather than being a concept piece for the stamp. Another parallel can be seen in the distinction between the development frame sketch for the 2 cent flag design shown as Figure 7 on page 397 of the September 2003 Specialist especially the leaves around the numerals versus the frame-only portion shown on the following page. Again, the changes seem to indicate that the pencil drawing is made from the completed stamp design and not any earlier stage. I think it would be helpful if other copies of the rough drawings or development drawings and any existing intermediate essays could be compared with the issued stamps and then with the pencil drawings to see if all of them follow that same pattern. If they all follow hat same pattern, then it would be clear that all of the pencil drawings were made after the final designs were completed and that these drawings played no role in the development of the stamps themselves. Finally, whether or not the pencil drawings are by R. Ostrander Smith, there are enough differences in the vignettes to almost consider some of the portraits to be more caricatures rather than attempts to carefully reproduce the actual subject. Whoever created them did not consider himself to be bound to closely reproduce the essays or the stamps given the differences noted by Brody in his Table 1 on page 395 on seven of the drawings and the differences between the concept sketches and first essays on the 2 cent flag and the 5 cent Lincoln. From the degree of artistry required to produce the drawings, it is clear that they are the work of an accomplished individual. They very well may be caricatures of the issued set which Smith made to please himself. The additional $3 and $4 drawings could well represent a suggestion that he made which was turned down. While the engravers of classical subjects had virtually no discretion, the designers did have some. It would not be the first time that a designer recommended something which was rejected. I would hope that other members of the Society can weigh in on this question. At least we ought to be able to determine whether there is anything to indicate that any one or more of the drawings may have been made prior to the issuance of the set or if it is clear that they were all made afterwards. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I appreciate the detailed information Eliot Landau has shared regarding the 5¢ Lincoln essay material in his collection. His observations are supportive in clarifying that the R. Ostrander Smith drawing of the 5¢ stamp was undoubtedly created post the approval date as it replicates the final stamp design. It is my assumption that comparisons of similar essay material for the 13¢, 4¢, 2¢, 8¢, 1¢ and 3¢ values would suggest a similar conclusion. Sincerely, | |||
Nov 8, 2003 |
The 2¢ 1890 Issue Dear Sir, The following is a comment on Richard M. Morris' letter on pages 388-90 of The United States Specialist for September, 2003. He made reference to Linn's U.S. Stamp Facts Nineteenth Century regarding the earliest known use of the 2 cent 1890 carmine. It was shown as February 21, 1890. A typesetter's error attributed the 1890 date to the cover shown below when it is clearly 1894 and it is only coincidental that the dates happen to be February 21. In my notes for a second edition for the book, I am now showing the February 21, 1890 date as "doubted." As Michael Laurence noted in his introduction to the book: "We fully recognize that the facts on these pages aren't the last word.... We want the opportunity to publish revised editions..., updating the information with each new edition." My first revising note showed that the Bennett auction of January 20, 2001 had an earliest known use of May 31, 1890 for the carmine and for Scott's 220a with the "cap" an EKU date of October 2, 1892. I also note that Alan Berkun reported to me on May 16, 2003 a new EDU date of April 29, 1890 for the carmine. Part of the problem with these older reported dates is that some of them were taken from historical documentation widely believed to be correct. However, with the change from "earliest known use" to "earliest documented use" there is a very small group of informants who are being relied on who have actually seen the particular items being recorded and their color sense and identification is considered to be very reliable. I have relied on my own examination of material and on that by Alan Berkun and Ken Lawrence. One well known student who was traditionally relied on for the colors of the First Bureau 1 and 2 cent issues (Scott Nos. 246-252) sent me a mass of his material feeling that his ability to identify colors "was not what it used to be." I regrettably had to confirm that for him and, with Alan Berkun's and Ken Lawrence's concurrence, we actually removed certain claimed earlier dates because the covers on which they were based had been misidentified as to color. If I were preparing a second edition of the Linn's U.S. Stamp Facts today, I would use Berkun's date of April 29, 1890 rather than the earlier date. I hope this can assist Mr. Morris in his work. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Eliot Landau's letter raises or perhaps sharpens the issues around shades and dates for the 2¢ Small Bank Note Issue of 1890. I fully recognize that it must have been a typesetter's error in identifying the illustrated cover with the date shown for the EKU date of February 21, 1890. My question was the date and not the cover shown. Since the designated First Day of issue was February 22, 1890, which was met by the printer, we could hardly have a Carmine appear prior to the First Day date. I believe, as I reflect on Eliot Landau's letter, that our disagreements may well be in the realm of nomenclature and not differences in shade identification. A good example of this is the shade of the First Day Demonstrated Usage. I have not seen the sole existing cover dated February 22, 1890. Perhaps others have. But I have been privileged to examine Dr. William Johnson's cover dated February 24, 1890, and my own cover dated February 26, 1890, both of which contain stamps I identify as a medium to light shade of Lake Red. Now the catalogs and most dealers would call it "Lake" regardless of shade. I do not know what Michael Laurence or Eliot Landau would call it now, but in fact, some in the past could possibly confuse it as a dark shade of Carmine. Calvet Hahn in his letter to you questioned why I didn't include the shade of Violet Rose (which is identified in the Scott Catalog of 1900)? I don't know what shade that is when it is identified by someone 100 years ago. Looking at my color guide, which is included in my book, The Two Cent Stamp of the Small Bank Note Issue of 1890, I would suggest that it is probably the color chip listed as Pale Lake, which has a strong Violet appearance. In my monograph I was concerned to simplify color identification for those collectors interested in this aspect of philately, not complicate it. However, to the point of the Earliest Demonstrated Usage of the Carmine shade which is the issue at hand: I believe it too may be a question of nomenclature. Eliot Landau says "I have relied on my own examination of material and on that by Alan Berkun and Ken Lawrence." I too have relied on my own examination of material, which is an extensive calendar collection of covers from 1890 to 1895. All collections are subject to growth and change. That said, however, all of my covers in the period of late April, 1890 to June 1st carry stamps which in my judgment are a pale or light Carmine Lake which could be called by some Carmine. It would be helpful, where many people are identifying shades, if covers could be exchanged so that we have a common language. I am prepared to send samples of my covers and nomenclature for EDU shades by date. Thanks. Sincerely, | |||
Sep 6, 2003 |
Dear Sir, I enjoyed Nicholas A. Lombardi's article on "The 2¢ Washington Shield Black 'Trial Color' Proof" which appeared in the July, 2003 issue of The United States Specialist (pp. 305-308) and agree with his conclusions. I have a similar article (and conclusion) appearing in the third quarter 2003 Canal Zone Philatelist1 raising questions about whether some unlisted Canal Zone proofs were trial color proofs or engraver's proofs in unissued colors. This problem of determining whether a proof in a non-issued color is an engraver's proof or a trial color proof unfortunately is often indeterminate as the definition of trial color requires knowledge of intent. All of the U.S. possession trial color proofs need to be reevaluated. There are three Scott-listed trial color proofs for the Canal Zone: 106TC in black, C13TC in orange and C15TC in scarlet. Ammons has discussed C13TC and argued that it was a trial color proof.2 The arguments used by Lombardi certainly pertain to Canal Zone Scott #106, a 2¢ stamp which was issued in carmine. Perhaps new terms/definitions are needed. The (arbitrary) separation of proofs in the Scott catalog could not handle a third section of engraver's proofs in unissued colors. A fourth section for indeterminate proofs would be even more confusing. Omission of the word "trial" would eliminate any need for information about why a proof was prepared. A color proof would be any proof in a color other than the issued color. For the many proofs listed as trial colors where information is not available about their production, incomplete descriptions may be better than wrong descriptions. For the possessions, Scott combines trial color proofs with proofs; it may be necessary to do this for all U.S. proofs. References 1. Gary B. Weiss, "Newly Recorded Large Die Proofs," Canal Zone Philatelist, Vol. 39 (2003), p. 28. 2. Paul F. Ammons, "C13 Trial Color Die Proof," Canal Zone Philatelist, Vol. 29 (1993), p. 29. Sincerely, | |||
Sep 6, 2003 |
Dear Sir, Regarding the recent letter from Calvet M. Hahn that appeared in the August Specialist, p. 341, regarding my monograph, The Two Cent Stamp of the Small Bank Note Issue of 1890, published in March of 2003, I would like to express my appreciation to him for adding from his expertise specifics regarding plate numbers, specifically in terms of the most common of the Relief Breaks, the Caps on Left 2 and on both 2s. Hahn's references to color and plates especially interests me for there is not a lot of agreement in terms of terminology or nomenclature. Like most people, Hahn lumps everything under the category of either Lake or Carmine shades whereas both groupings come in multiple shades. The third and fifth day covers, dated February 24 and 26, both bear stamps which are clearly moderate shades of Lake Red. A true Lake shade does not appear until March of 1890. It should also be noted that in Eliot Landau's U.S. Stamp Facts 19th Century, he states that the earliest known use of the Carmine is February 21, 1890. The cover illustrating that stamp on the same page is clearly postmarked February 21, 1894. We do in fact find a true Carmine in June of 1890. I do not agree therefore, that the carmine shades reported from early plates are probably the result of insufficient laking as Hahn suggests. In producing my Monograph I did not intend to identify plate numbers, because that is not my forte, but also I was more concerned to help collectors who might be interested in being introduced to the speciality of discovering Relief Breaks beyond the very common reaks known by everyone as the Caps on the 2s but not understood as Relief Breaks. Transfer Flaws It must be remembered that Relief Breaks are progressive, and therefore may cover an expanded period of time. Hahn rightly identifies Relief C as early as 2/16/92 and I have in my collection a cover with the single Break A in Relief C dated 2/16/92. But since there is a series of 48 progressive breaks in this Relief, I also have on cover, near the end of the progression, one dated 7/25/92. So we can safely say that the breaks in this Relief happened over a period of about 5 months. I would have to rely on those more informed than I am as to how many plates that progression represents. I am absolutely certain it is more than one plate. Hahn does not mention one of the most common Reliefs (the D Relief) which is found on Plates H1/306-309. We have four strips of 6 showing D/E on 306, D/D on 307, D/C on 308, and D/E on 309. There are 8 progressive breaks in the Relief from A to H representing 1 to 8 breaks. This probably tells us the order in which the plates were put down, for C has 3 breaks, D four, E five. I have a strip of stamps showing breaks G and H in the proper order which tells us that the last two breaks in Relief D happened on the same plate. All of the D Relief are found on white trial paper with white glue, and they are predominately in the Scarlet shade which is the last shade in which the stamp was printed. Someone will have to tell us when those H1 plates were used but I have on cover a stamp with six of the breaks and it is dated 11/18/93. All of my D covers are dated from late 1893 to June of 1894 and in the scarlet shades. Hahn rightly identifies Relief E appearing on plate TT239, and by describing the break in the shoulder line and the baby cap on left 2, he describes the final stages in a progression of 13 combination of breaks starting with a simple break in the right end of the 5th shoulder line. My earliest known cover for the completion of Relief E is 4/13/92, so we agree on date, but it also means that the breaks started earlier than April, 1892. However, the vulnerability of the fifth shoulder line, which is predominate in Relief E, shows signs of breaking as early as 12/21/91 of which we have multiple copies. Very briefly, Relief J is found on Plate NN207 on regular paper with brown glue, and on Plate OO210 with the same paper but with white glue. Relief K is found on Plate A1/207 on trial paper with white glue, and on Plate A1/272 with the same paper; but it does not appear on Plate A1/271 which probably tells us the order in which they were laid down. In producing my Monograph I hoped that it would encourage this kind of dialogue. I encourage others to join the discussion, and again I am grateful to Calvet Hahn for expanding our understanding. Sincerely, | |||
Aug 14, 2003 |
Dear Sir, Regarding my review of The Two Cent Stamp of the Small Bank Note Issue of 1890 by Richard Morris that appeared in the June Specialist, p. 281: Transfer Rolls Mr. Morris has stated that to make the 272 plates it required 86,800 applications of a relief roll and that he believed as many as five rolls may have been used. This may not be true. One or two properly hardened rolls would have sufficed. The Perkins Bacon records of the British penny red indicated that a properly prepared roll could produce up to 100,000 impressions before needing reentry. The Boston Revenue Book discussion of the Butler Carpenter production stated production of 50,000 impressions was standard. Both of these sources were cited in my discussion of Black Jack production in Stamp Collector July 25, 1987. Consequently only one or two transfer rolls would have been needed if properly hardened to make all the 2¢ red plates. Of course one or more of the 2¢ red small banknote transfers was not properly hardened, which is why Morris was able to write a monograph. Click here for the rest of this letter. | |||
July 7, 2003 |
Dear Sir, As a member of the Liberty Series Study Group, I offer my compliments to Roland Austin for his article in the April issue reviving the issue of "multiple" precancel varieties for the ½¢ Franklin of the Liberty Series. Although he states that "the lack of knowledge about line spacing has led to" misidentified stamps in advanced collections and award winning exhibitions, this information has been readily available for almost 25 years in the Specialists' Guide to Bureau Print Precancels, Third Edition, 1980 by Horace Q. Trout. This work in slow progress (it has not been updated since), lists numerous other spacing varieties, errors, shifts, breaks and repairs. From the Liberty Series, just from Des Moines (pp. 235-236), the 3¢ denomination is found with three different overprints just as the ½¢ stamp, and the 1¼¢, 2¢ and 2½¢ are all found with the 10 and 10½ mm spacing varieties. Additional information found within this work is that the 10 mm spacing varieties (VR - Variety Rubber Plate) had the word DES MOINES at 12² mm long, while the 10½ mm variety (VR-11 - Second Rubber Plate) was 12½ mm long. There are scads of other varieties for the Liberty Series included and many that have been found since its publication that are not listed, i.e., the 4¢ Lincoln from Paterson, N.J. with a 10½ mm line spacing. For the serious student of Liberty Series stamps and/or precancels, this is a wide open field of research. Sincerely, | |||
May 6, 2003 |
Dear Sir, Roland Austin's article on the Des Moines, Iowa Bureau Precancels on the ½¢ Liberty stamps prompts me to add to his exposition. The latest reference on Bureau precancels is the Precancel Stamp Society Catalog of United States Bureau Precancels; this Fourth Edition was published in October, 1997. But even so, it would not have altered Roland Austin's comments on "three types" of the Des Moines, Iowa ½¢ Liberty (Scott #1030) precancel. The 2003 Scott U.S. Specialized Catalog (p. 100) gives an explanation of "wet" vs. "dry" printings of the 1954 Liberty Series of stamps. Roland states "it has been accepted" by most collectors the spacing of the line above and below the town-state name on Bureau precancels determine whether a stamp is a wet printing or a dry printing. Not so! Never once have I used this measurement for such a determination. The wet printing is definitely a "dull" printed stamp and on thinner paper than a dry printing. Another obvious assurance of the wet printing is looking at the back of the stamp. Here you will note the precancel lines (not bars) show through the thin paper. This is as noted in Scott's catalog. The thicker paper used on dry printings was necessary in the inking process and, as a result, the printing is much sharper, or clearer, if you will. Roland points out the PSS Bureau catalog makes no distinctions for the different production varieties of this one style. True, because the catalog is not a "specialized" catalog. For such varieties as plate breaks, hand set and machine set plates, missing letters, repairs, etc., one needs to reference the Specialized Guide to Bureau Print Precancels, Third Edition, Horace Q. Trout, Editor. This compilation has listings through April 21, 1980. It was printed by Gilbert W. Noble, Winter Park, Fla., and is now out of print. If you find a copy available - BUY IT! The Specialized Guide lists Des Moines' first rubber plate was made from machine set masters, lines are 10 mm apart; city name is 12² mm long. The second rubber plate has lines 10½ mm apart; city name 12½ mm long. These distinctions are unmistakable, although pressure on the rubber plates can give slight variations. The Specialized Guide does not list a third rubber plate. Roland points out his "Type 3 precancels are known on LOOK 2½¢ bulk rate envelopes." It is possible a third rubber plate was prepared and the entire shipment went to LOOK. Such a procedure has been known on other occasions. The stamps never went through a post office - just directly to the user. (Would you call this a "private printing," not available to the public?) Printed on the Stickney press, the first Des Moines ½¢ Liberty sheet stamp went to press in January, 1956. It was reported in use on March 23, 1956, the 145th Liberty Series Bureau precancel so noted. This January order was followed in August and again in November, 1956. Orders were also processed in February and June, 1957. Then, May, 1958 was the first Des Moines dry printing on the Huck press (BEP utilized plate #25980 and #25981). The same plates were used in October and December, 1958; March, 1959; and June, August and December, 1959. Subsequent printings in February and August, 1960, and January, 1961 were printed from plates #26002 and #26003. Plates #26906 and #26907 came into use for Des Moines in March and July, 1961, and again in January, 1962. Eighteen printings were made of (approximately) a half-million each - you do the math. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing required the United States Post Office and later the United States Postal Service to order precancels in lots of not less than 500,000 sheet stamps or 250,000 coil stamps. Even while these Bureau precancels were being printed, other denominations also went to press and the precancel plates could be the same as used on the ½¢. The ½¢ Liberty Bureau precancel is also known with both wet and dry printings from Birmingham, Ala.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Amsterdam, N.Y; and Portland, Oreg. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I would like to thank Mr. Postlewait for responding with information that has filled gaps in my article. I have already been called on my broad "it has been accepted by most collectors" statement, and in retrospect I see my error. My intention was not to criticize or imply that all collectors assumed this "rule" about line spacing, especially; it was not meant for anybody to take personally. That statement came from my encounters with general collectors of varying levels (I might note here that none were precancel specialists) with this assumption about determining wet and dry printing precancels. I realize now I should have used objective statements rather than subjective, and I have rewritten the article in that manner and posted the updated version on the Liberty Series website. Dilmond may have misunderstood my three types, as I never said there was a third rubber plate. I believe he is assuming my Type 3 is a third rubber plate, when it is the second rubber plate on the dry print (see my compilation of characteristics on page 183). I would also like to thank Ken Lawrence for supplying the information concerning the change in line spacing on wet-printed sheet stamps. The July 1, 1938, POD order that precancels must be dated by the user created the need to change the line spacing format from 13 mm to 10.5 mm on sheet stamps. Regarding the dated precancel rule, The Lure and Lore of United States Bureau Precancels (second edition, August, 1958) by George Klein says on page 23, "In any event, the Bureau Precancels in use at the time the regulation was issued, left hardly enough space for the added insignia. The obvious, and adopted, solution was to bring the two horizontal lines closer together. Beginning in late 1940, new plates were made in this manner (for sheet stamps only) and replacement of plates in use was started. Within less than two years, all plates needing to be replaced by those in the new narrow spacing, had been removed from service." I realize these different precancel plates exist on other denominations, too, but the scope of my article was limited to the ½¢ Liberty use by LOOK magazine. From that aspect, I believe I succeeded in bringing to light the three major collectable varieties on this stamp. Again, thanks for all the information. Sincerely, | |||
May 6, 2003 |
Additional Observations Dear Sir, I happened to discover the three types of Bureau Precancel Style 71 on "DES MOINES IOWA" ½¢ Liberty on off-cover stamps two weeks prior to receiving the April, 2003 Specialist. So it was exciting to see Roland Austin's article regarding them (page 182). However, he did not describe attributes that would allow one to determine the type when viewing just one stamp. For Type 1, in addition to the 10.5 mm line spacing, the "A" is below the center of "OI." "DES MOINES" is about 12.7 mm wide. The spacing between the city and state text is about 2.5 mm. For Type 2, in addition to the 10.0 mm line spacing, the "A" is below the letter "I." Also, "DES MOINES" is exactly 13 mm wide. For Type 3, it has 10.5 mm line spacing. But unlike Type 1, the "A" is below the letter "I" and the spacing between city and state is just 2.0 mm. Unlike Type 2, "DES MOINES" is about 12.7 mm wide. I think these tips are more definitive than the subjective ink impressions described. I thank Mr. Austin for explaining the origins of the three types. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I did not mention the settings because they were not the major contention in the confusion - it was the line spacing "rule" being misused for identification of the wet and dry prints. Where the line spacing was 10.5 mm on a wet print and dry print (Types 1 and 3), the uneven application (splotchiness) is the determining characteristic of the wet print (as well as the normal appearance of a regular wet printed stamp). I have had no problem discerning single stamps using only this criterion. But, I agree that the type setting attributes are important and should be added to the defining characteristics that were compiled. I am thrilled that a number of collectors are looking at these stamps and giving them serious consideration. Sincerely, | |||
Apr 3, 2003 |
Dear Sir, I enjoyed the Washington-Franklin article in the February Specialist. Regarding Figure 1 (page 60), I believe that the item was rated 1¢ due (paid by JQ1, a Parcel Post Due) due to weighing 2 oz. rather than 1 oz. I base this upon the fact that the top flap was not folded on the "natural crease." Additionally, the cover shows much wear and wrinkling on the edges of the envelope, especially the top and right. By the 1930s, Farmington had grown to a population of 2,000 folks. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Mr. Pagter thinks this is a two ounce letter at a non-carrier office, and he helps buttress the argument by saying the envelope is slightly stretched. Three points: First, the stretching is minute when viewed close up, certainly within the limits of filling it with a one ounce letter. Second, I identified Farmington as a carrier office after consulting with a friend, Bruce Hazelton, who is a Maine expert; also the 1916 Postal Guide lists Farmington as a carrier office. Third, Farmington's population of 2000 in the 1930s makes me believe that there surely could have been some sort of carrier service there a few years earlier. Sincerely, | |||
Feb 3, 2003 |
Dear Sir, I enjoyed Gene Paquette's article revisiting the tagging anomaly on the 11¢ red Caboose coil stamp of 1984, Scott #1905. However, he's wrong about one thing. The first monocolor rotary press coil stamp printed from a seamless sleeve on BEP's intaglio B press was not that stamp, it was the 16¢ ultramarine Statue of Liberty Head coil of 1978 in the Americana series, Scott #1619a. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Ken Lawrence is correct. The 16¢ Statue of Liberty coil (Scott #1619a) was the first monocolor coil printed on the Giori "B" press. I appreciate his bringing this mistake to the attention of The U.S. Specialist readers and myself. Fortunately, the error stands alone, and has no bearing on the article's main theme about ghost tagging of the 20¢ Flag appearing in the tagging of the 11¢ Caboose. Sincerely, | |||
Jan 5, 2003 |
IRCs Revisited Dear Sir, I received a letter from Jason Granger who read my article on the new IRCs in the November, 2002 Specialist. He's figured out at least some of the numbers on the backs of the new coupons. Jason thinks that the first string of 8 digits ("20011102") represents the date of printing of the new coupons - Nov. 2, 2001 - or at least the date on which the black text (front and back) was added to the basic coupon. This digit string is the same on all the coupons he and I have seen, which were purchased in different parts of the country. If this does represent the printing date, new dates should appear over the years. The next string ("20061231") represents the expiration date of Dec. 31, 2006 and is also the same on all coupons we've seen. The next string of 7 digits is different on all coupons and appears to be a serial number of some sort. Jason and I have both purchased pairs of coupons and these digit strings are sequential on both pairs. We have no idea what the "074" stands for but it is the same on all the coupons we've seen. The two letter group does vary. Mine, purchased in New Hampshire, read "CP," two I purchased in Michigan have "DM," and two Jason purchased in the Washington, DC area have "AW." Perhaps this is some sort of geographic code? I purchased an example of the new coupon type at London's Heathfow Airport this past August. The numbers on the back of this coupon support our interpretation. The first digit string is "20011108," suggesting that the Brits printed their coupons six days later than we did. On the British coupon the second digit string is also "20061231" and the mysterious "074" is present. The two letters at the end of the digit sequence are "AE." While the digit string on the U.S. coupons is preceeded by the "US" country abbreviation, it is "GB," logically enough, on the British coupon. I hope this will provide an interesting follow-up for USS readers. Sincerely, | |||
Jan 5, 2003 |
Certifications Reversed Dear Sir, I published "An Initial Mystery: #461 or Not #461?" in the August, 2002 issue of The Specialist, page 351. This letter is a follow-up to that article. A Scott #461 lower left corner block of four with sideographer initials J.P.P. (John P. Perry) in the left margin was certified by APS Certificate #20318 dated December 6, 1974, which stated "Scott No. 461, unused corner block, o.g., genuine in all respects." This block was broken up into four stamps and disbursed in June, 2002 in four eBay auctions.
The lower left corner stamp (shown below) broken from the block of four was sent to the PSE to be expertized. It was returned with an expert opinion which stated it was a re-perfed fake. The successful bidder did get his money refunded from the eBay dealer. Caveat emptor, caveat venditor. Sincerely, | |||
![[Back]](image/left.jpg){kind=small}
![[Image]](image/not461.jpg)
More Past letters . . .
![[Past Letters...]](image/right.jpg)
|