|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glossary of Terms |
|
Letters to the Editor (2006) |
||||||
Oct 17, 2006 |
Re: The Grinnells Dear Sir, From what you have described, your position regarding the pronouncements of the Royal Philatelic Society of London is well taken ["Editorial: The Grinnells Controversy," August issue, pp. 352-57]. It would seem that those folks' lack of scientific background and training in logic is more than made up in opinion, of which there was no stint. While you were a Chemist, I was a Physicist, and it seems only logical that a scientific approach might be taken to prove the age and paternity of both the "Missionaries," and the "Grinnells." Certainly if CSI can catch the murderer on the presence of a few grains of pollen, a scientific approach certainly would be in order here: 1. If the Royal takes the position that the Grinnells were produced in about 1900, or about only 2/3 the age they were supposed to be, that might be ascertained qualitatively by carbon dating both the stamp paper and the backing paper. 2. The paper should be examined for other purposeful or inadvertent inclusions, such as pollen from the juju tree which went extinct in 1860, or for the type of cotton fiber used, whose DNA might prove something-or disprove something. 3. Nothing seems to have been done to ascertain the makers of the paper(s) or inks, and their periods of existence, or of their supply to the printers. Or to locate samples of papers or inks from both periods for comparison. These would be additional missing links to those which you postulate. It would seem doubtful that batches of paper were made only for this batch of stamps, and remade again and again as more were needed. It seems surprising to me that none of these more scientific tests have been performed, much less considered, or that an expertizing service would consider lending their name to an opinion without them. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Your points are well made. Regarding C-14 carbon dating, I'm told by Wallace Cleland, former USSS Chairman, who's in the isotope ratio measuring business at the University of Wisconsin, C-14 dating is good enough nowadays so that a date around 1850 can be determined with precision down to about a ten-year span. Also, the sample size required would be very small and could be done on a sliver of paper cut from the margin of a stamp with a wide margin. However, if such a date were to be determined, the naysayers would probably retort that the "faker" found some old paper that looked right. This is a time-honored technique of map and manuscript fakers - to use old paper (e.g, endpapers) from an old, low value book so that the paper of his fake "looked right." Sincerely, | |||||
Oct 17, 2006 |
Grinnells Again Dear Sir, Lately, a lot has been written about the Grinnells, including your article in The Specialist. In all these articles only two possibilities are considered for these: 1) They are genuine stamps. 2) They are forgeries created somewhere around the turn of the 20th Century to defraud collectors. There is a third possibility that I have not seen considered: 3) They are contemporary forgeries meant to defraud the 1850's Hawaiian post office. Does such a supposition merit consideration? Sincerely, Dear Sir, Your suggestion about the origin of the Grinnells seems far-fetched. There weren't very many Americans and Europeans in Hawaii at the time, and if someone had made forgeries, that probably would have been easily noticed. The fact that such a suggestion has not been put forth before suggests that no one has considered the possibility to be plausible. Sincerely, | |||||
Oct 17, 2006 |
Correction Dear Sir, Just to set the record straight, I indexed The Specialist for 25 years (not 15 as stated in the August Specialist p. 340). I began with Volume 52 and stopped last year. I am appreciative of the recognition the Society gave me at Washington 2006, but I just wanted to get the length of my service correct. Sincerely, | |||||
Sep 17, 2006 |
Dear Sir, On page 319 of the July Specialist in the "Known Rudolph sheet varieties" box it lists: "Variety: Added hair on top of head in all five stamps of second row of upper center pane; Ôwhite fang' on fifth stamp." I talked to a collector who examined a pad of panes of this position and he said this added hair was not a constant variety, just a freak. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I was sent pictures of these plate flaws, which I think are the result of offset lithography. Sincerely, | |||||
Aug 19, 2006 |
Re: Dummy Panes Dear Sir, Larry Weiss and Jerry Nylander may have an elegant explanation for the dummy panes described by Joann Lenz and Terry Scott [Specialist, June, 2006, pp. 244-5], but there's a reason why APEX opined that these were a product of the 1950s. The gum breakers on the dummy panes are characteristic of the 1950s. They are not characteristic of the period Messrs. Weiss and Nylander described, and the rates they cited had been superseded in 1932. Sincerely, Dear Sir, While postage rates may have changed in 1932, the colors of the one, two and five cent stamps remained green, red and blue respectively for quite some time afterward. Note that the next two definitive issues, the Presidentials of 1938 and the Liberty of 1954, both continued the same color scheme. There was no change until the Prominent Americans of 1965 and even then the one and five cent stamps remained the same colors. Training of clerks would still be conducted the same way probably through the 1960s and perhaps for some time beyond. Thus, the "period" we describe is up to at least the 1960s. We set ourselves to the task of figuring out the use of the panes based on the photocopies made available to us. We felt no need to examine the actual stamps as their dating turned out to be of little importance to our explanation of their use. The APEX gum breaker dating of these stamps to the 1950s is entirely consistent with our explanation. Without the actual stamps to examine, we did not offer an opinion on their printing date. When presenting Terry and Joann with our comments, we referred them to other USSS committees to date the stamps based on the gum breakers. Thus, our explanation still fits all the details of the stamps. Sincerely, | |||||
Aug 19, 2006 |
Breast Cancer Semi-Postal Dear Sir, In my article, "How Many Breast Cancer Semi-postal Die Cuts Are There?" (June, 2006), I incorrectly stated, "... only plate number V111111 is known for all panes." Member Buzz Jehle informed me that V121111 also exists (with the original die-cut pane type, or "peak-peak" variety). I apologize for the omission. I briefly reviewed online discussions from 1998 and learned collectors found V121111 chiefly in two places: the philatelic window at Langhorne, PA (Sept., Nov., 1998), and the Nashville, TN airport post office (Oct., 1998). The two philatelic clerks most popular with plate number collectors currently do not have it (Renate Fearonce at Tucson, AZ and Donna Rajotte at Providence, RI). Donna confirmed to me, "We have gone through many shipments of the Breast Cancer stamp, but only ever got V111111." I suspect this is true at Tucson as well. Sincerely, | |||||
Aug 19, 2006 |
Encyclopedia Dear Sir, Hats off to the USSS and Messrs. Juell & Rod for an EXCELLENT book Encyclopedia of United States Stamps and Stamp Collecting. My copy arrived today and I've barely put it down. This is by far the best book on general U.S. stamps and collecting I've ever had the pleasure of reading and has more information in the 730 pages than I thought possible. You folks outdid yourselves with it - I'm impressed. I'll be taking it to the next meeting of the two stamp clubs I belong to and promoting it there, it's that good in my humble opinion. Thank you. Sincerely, | |||||
Jun 19, 2006 |
Dear Sir, The article appearing in May, "BEP Dummy Panes: Unusual Defacement Markings," omits a complete explanation of the "mystery panes" we provided to the authors some seven months before the article appeared. We compared good photocopies of the panes to genuine flat and rotary press products of the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing. We noted that the panes are the same in layout and subject size to a pane of Scott #543, the 1¢ Washington issue of 1921. It is apparent that the panes are very likely similar products of the BEP as printed from a Stickney rotary press in the 1920s or 1930s. We also note it is likely the sets of panes acquired at two different auctions come from the same source. It appears to us that, for the purpose of maximizing the sale price, the lot was divided between the two auction houses. In particular, we note the red defacement lines are closely similar on examples from each auction. It appeared to us that a group of 10 panes were provided to a post office clerk for use in training. Blank stamp paper was given so that no accountable paper would be used during training. Note that the U.S. has not issued stamp-like designs for use in training and so blank stamp paper would be the most suitable available material. The most commonly used definitive stamp denominations were 1, 2 and 5¢. During much of the early 20th century, the 1¢ stamp paid the post card rate, the 2¢ the up to 1 ounce first class rate, and the 5¢ paid the Universal Postal Union up to 1 ounce rate to foreign destinations. Universal Postal Union agreements for stamp colors had the U.S. 1, 2 and 5¢ denomination stamps in green, red and blue respectively. The Post Office Department had the BEP, from its beginning of stamp printing in 1894 and continuing until at least approximately the mid-20th century, regularly use those colors for definitive stamps. To simulate 1¢ stamps, the clerk-in-training would therefore use a green pencil to draw lines on the blank stamp paper. Similarly, to simulate 2¢ stamps a red pencil would be used, and to simulate 5¢ stamps, a blue pencil would be used. Stamp paper left blank could simulate all other denominations if desired or just be unused training material. Note that the 10 panes of stamps have the three colored pencils and some panes left blank. These lines look more like colored pencil lines than "crayon" lines. With the lines drawn, a clerk-in-training could now fill a postal drawer with simulated panes of stamps and proceed to learn postal operations. A few stamps may be used in training and that would account for the small amounts of stamps absent from some of the stamp panes. It is expected the official policy would be for trainees to turn in all such paper after training for destruction. But just imagine how easy it would be for a trainee to keep such items - especially if they quit their Post Office Department employment during training. I would expect some sets of such training materials would make it out into private hands, but since this was not accountable paper, no special effort would be made to secure their return. It is also possible a clerk may be allowed to keep these simulated stamps after the training is completed by a lax instructor or due to some favoritism. In any event, it is clear some sets end up in private hands. If others do exist, the colored penciled lines would likely be in a different hand or of a different layout, and some panes may not be defaced. Other small pieces of perforated stamp paper are known to exist. So, while this material is probably not unique, it is uncommon. Once in private hands, they could be released to the stamp market at any time but most post office clerks would not think of them as significant or particularly valuable. Passing into the stamp market might have had to await a long period, perhaps occurring when an estate is being settled. This would account for its sudden appearance in recent times despite probably being used in the first half of the 20th century. This explanation covers all aspects of these panes. It is among the simplest of explanations, but cannot be proved and other explanations may be possible. Since it among the simplest, it is probably among the more likely. This explanation was provided to the authors on October 5, 2005 by email and they acknowledged receiving it. Joanne responded with, "Larry, some very interesting ideas regarding the defacements. It does make sense. Thanks to you and Jerry for your thoughts and time spent on these." Terry responded with, "I too thank you and appreciate all the efforts you have put into this mystery. The explanation does seem to make perfect sense although as you state it can not be proven." The real mystery here is why the authors chose to omit any mention of the above explanation in their article. Sincerely, Dear Sir, We very much appreciated the comments made earlier by Larry and Jerry and even more appreciate their current possible explanation for the markings on these dummy stamps. Those comments were not included in the short article because, while they are logical, they are at least for the moment only one possible explanation. By publishing the article as we did, we hoped to receive additional information and comments such as those provided by Larry and Jerry. The information we received from the Bureau was inconclusive, saying only that crayon markings were sometimes used during testing. Furthermore, when the certificates were issued, the timeframe for printing these dummies was placed in the 1950s by APEX. Perhaps a postal worker who may have been involved in training practices might be able to add information about these stamps. The article was written to find more information about the stamps and their intended purpose. Hopefully we have begun a search that will provide the answers. Larry and Jerry, thanks very much for your input. Sincerely, | |||||
May 12, 2006 |
Dear Sir, Regarding "The China Clay Variety of the 1908-1910 Washington-Franklin Issue" [by Edward M. Liston, The Specialist, January and February, 2006]: Post's Paper Mill Directory of 1906 reports that the Eastern Paper Co. produced both bleached and unbleached pulp. The bleaching process requires extra rinsing in order to remove trace chemicals as well as any impurities, so this article merely confirms that unbleached paper is not as clean or bright as the bleached variety. The manufacture and delivery of unbleached paper stock was no accident, and so far as we know the BEP experimented with two kinds of off-the-shelf paper, one blue and one gray. The gray was rejected, likely, for aesthetic reasons. The blue paper contained rag fiber that enhanced the paper's softness and absorbency, qualities that are highly desirable in flat plate printing. Unfortunately, such rag fibers also introduced a degree of shrinkage in the paper that the BEP found to exceed their tolerance for perforation, so this paper too was rejected. Gray paper has long been recognized as a distinct variety. The only remaining question revolves around the China clay tag. The China clay misnomer had been addressed in the author's [Liston's] AP [American Philatelist] article of 1996, so a catalog listing need only be annotated to reflect the experimental status of both blue and gray papers. The wide variance of gray of unbleached stamp paper is something that experts will have to continue to explore. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I thank Mr. Valente very much for the information on the Eastern Paper Co. Those kinds of data are invaluable and very hard to find. Regarding the "Gray Paper" variety, I recently had the chance to examine a few certified copies of a Gray Paper variety and I found that they are all statistically the same thickness as my "normal" used stamps of that issue. Actually, they were almost exactly the same thickness. Therefore, paper thickness cannot be used to attribute a "variety" status to these stamps. The illustration shows a photomicrograph of one of those stamps. As you can see, the paper is very dirty, with many large particles such as I found on the "China Clay" stamps. Based on these two findings, it is my opinion that the "Gray Paper" stamps are, again, just dirty paper that resulted from insufficient washing at the mill. Sincerely, | |||||
Apr 13, 2006 |
Dear Sir, The Ship Mail cover presented in the last issue by Gerry Farrelly was very interesting, possibly unique, and clearly a challenge in terms of deciphering how it was handled. Having several times gone through the information that Gerry provided, I find I cannot quite agree with his conclusions. Gerry's evaluation of the cover hinges on a long-stretch proposition, specifically that the War Rate increases on first class mail that became effective on November 2, 1917, were in fact taxes as opposed to increases in postage rates. This is a premise that I cannot accept for several reasons. First, bear in mind that in the law that raised postal costs, Congress acted on three of the four classes of domestic mail, first, second, and fourth. We all know about the first class increases, from 1¢ to 2¢ for postcards and postal cards, and from 2¢ to 3¢ for first class letters. Second class is a mystery to most for the simple reason that so few examples of it exist, but the key to the increase was that the Congress added a zone system so that material was charged by the mile. Further, these increases have stuck to the present time if I am not mistaken. Finally, Congress raised the costs of fourth class, parcel post, by adding a tax on all parcels that cost more than 24¢ to mail. If we stipulate that the first class increases were a tax that was rescinded on June 30, 1919, why not the same for second class? Phrased differently, were the second class increases taxes that have stuck around for 90 years? And, most significantly, since the fourth class/parcel post rates were specifically subjected to taxes that had to be paid by Documentary stamps, why wasn't first class mail treated similarly? Phrased differently, why don't we see zillions of 1¢ Documentary stamps affixed to surviving postcards and letters to pay the extra War Rate charges? My opinion of the piece, assuming that we withdraw our stipulation about taxes on first class mail, is that this was Paquebot mail that was misinterpreted by a postal clerk. It came from a ship so the clerk marked it Ship Mail, and since the clerk had seen any number of incoming and outgoing letters franked with 5¢ or the foreign equivalent, he kicked the rate on this cover up by 2¢ to pay the deficiency. This explanation works for me and I know it won't work for everyone but until I see specific evidence that the War rate increases on first and second class matter were taxes, I'm sticking to my guns. Thanks. Sincerely, Dear Sir, I have great respect for Mr. Bourke's writings and his study of Washington/Franklin era postal history, and I am open to other opinions on this cover. However, for me, the conjecture that a clerk in the Port Arthur P.O. did not recognize the difference between Ship Mail and Paquebot mail is a bit of a stretch. A very good case can be made that the increase in first class postage rates was indeed a tax since 100% of the rate increase went to the government for war payments. Nothing was kept by the P.O. for salaries, equipment or overheads. A good case for the Ship Mail fee being just that, a fee, can also be made, and when the war tax on domestic first class, second class and parcel post went into effect no fees were increased. I do not know what was in the heads of Congress when the second class mail rate was increased and not reduced after the war. But I do not think that one can conclude that because the rate was not dropped it was not a tax. When publishers of magazines and other periodicals won discounted second class rates, many mailers who used regular first class felt that their higher costs were subsidizing the mailings of magazine publishers. Booksellers were clamoring for the reduced rates enjoyed by their major competitors, magazines and newspapers. And members of Congress were probably sensitive to those constituents. Maybe that had something to do with the failure to rescind. Historically many taxes were put in and not rescinded when they outlived their usefulness. A current example, the alternative minimum tax, comes to mind. Nor can I explain the use of revenue stamps for the fourth class war tax. Perhaps it was just the easiest way to administer the tax. The tax was less than 10% of the pre-war rate while the tax on postcards was 100% and the tax on first class letters 50% of the pre-war rates. Perhaps taxing the complex fourth class rates and correctly collecting the tax was a challenge, perhaps met by the use of existing revenue stamps, self applied. This Ship Mail cover is a commercial cover to a big company. Perhaps it was part of a correspondence and is not the only survivor. My hope is that someone will recognize a similar cover buried in his or her material, perhaps from the same sender, or to the same recipient, and contact the author or the editor of this magazine. I am certain there is more to learn. Sincerely, | |||||
Jan 7, 2006 |
Orange Barcodes Dear Sir, Regarding the questions on "Mail Class" code and USPS cooperation with Canada Post I raised in my article, "Do Fluorescent Orange Barcodes 'Date Mail?'" in the December, 2005 issue, I recently received some answers from a USPS contact. It is copied verbatim here: The USPS uses the Fluorescent "National ID Tag" the same way as Canada Post in that there is a Machine number, Day of the month, Time in 30 minute intervals and a sequential number unique to the piece within the 30 minute interval. The USPS and other countries using the "National ID Tag" have allocated machine numbers so as not to duplicate the number. The other item is a flag bit after the start bit that you mentioned in your letter. This bit is called a Mail Class code which was its original intent but its use has become ambiguous since it has not been used in the USPS at all. It is normally set to 1 (no bar) by USPS and left that way but, since it was never used it is ignored. In the early days of the code, it may have been flipped for testing etc. We have a number of US mailers who apply ID tags and they have reserved Machine numbers. Some of these mailers have elected to have this bit zeroed (a bar) but again, since the flag isn't used, it varies and the USPS has never kept track. Likewise, Canadian mail normally has the bar set (a zero) for no apparent reason that we are aware. I trust readers find this, as well as the article, most interesting. Sincerely, | |||||
Jan 7, 2006 |
Plate Flaws? Dear Sir, I recently purchased 20 sheets of the American Advances in Aviation issue for a mailing I was doing. As the clerks didn't have sufficient numbers in their drawers, the 20 sheets were taken from the vault and in all probability were taken in sequence from the stock. All sheets are the same plate position, 3rd sheet in the 2nd row. In putting the stamps on the mailing I noticed that there were some black spots in the margins between the P-47 and B-24 stamps in the second row of the sheet. Upon examining all 20 sheets I found the same black spots (see below). The question is: are the spots constant over the printing and therefore a plate flaw or are they the result of some dirt that got caught on the black cylinder that disappeared later? Examine your copies from the same plate position and let me know if your copies have the same spots. Sincerely,
| |||||
Jan 7, 2006 |
Re: Andrew Black Dear Sir, Regarding the question of paycuts and furloughs [November Letters, pp. 486-7], FDR campaigned for President the first time on a platform of cutting the federal budget. Right after his inauguration, he ordered substantial cuts in payrolls in the Post Office, War and Treasury departments. This initiative lasted until the administration realized that the cuts exacerbated the hardships of the depression. However, the cuts already made were not restored until the mid-1930s. Sincerely, | |||||
![[Image]](image/hall-aviation-flaw.jpg)
![[Image]](image/hall-aviation-flaw-detail.jpg)
More Past letters . . .
![[Past Letters...]](image/right.jpg)
|