|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Official Miscellany |
|||
|
Alan Campbell |
|||
|
Chronicle, Vol. ??, No. ?, ??, ?? |
|||
|
Since the demise of the short-lived Official Mail Study Group (1986-1989) and the discontinuance (hopefully temporary) of Rollin C. Huggins' house organ, "Official Chatter" in November, 1994, this section of the Chronicle represents the only active forum for collectors in this field. As much as we may wish for the authors published here to have the final, definitive say on any given subject, more often than not new information comes to light. In this miscellany, I would like to present some data pertaining to four articles that previously appeared in this section. |
|||
|
In Lester C. Lanphear's article of the same title, for which he ultimately received the Neinken Award, his survey results totaled 229 used blocks of 55 different departmental stamps.1 In the spring of 1996, a holding of fifteen additional blocks appeared in a Robert A. Siegel auction.2 Used blocks have long been avidly collected in Europe, so it was not surprising to learn that these came from a large specialized United States collection formed in Switzerland. The most important and heretofore unreported blocks in this group were a 12¢ Interior soft paper (O101) horizontal block of six, illustrated in Figure 1, and a 3¢ Agriculture soft paper (O95) block of four, illustrated in Figure 2. Except for a pen-cancelled 3¢ hard paper (O3) block and an improbable 15¢ (O7) block listed in the catalogue but not located, this is the first postally used block encountered from the Department of Agriculture. Although almost all of these fifteen used blocks were purchased by the few endlessly patient collectors in this rarefied field, the prices realized were unexpectedly high, perhaps reflecting a newfound appreciation for the true rarity of this material based on Mr. Lanphear's original research. This is the price we must all pay, when we write enthusiastically about the material we collect, and in the aftermath find we can barely afford to continue collecting it ourselves. |
|||
|
In the summer of 1996, a dealer reported having bought privately a collection of official blocks which contained many rare pieces, including several that had not previously been known to exist. Collectors waited with bated breath, hoping that items of interest would be offered to them first. Time passed, and we were devastated to learn that the collection of used blocks had either been misplaced or more probably stolen. This was cruel news indeed for collectors masochistic enough to persist in chasing material so rare that they are often forced to wait years before being able to add anything. |
|||
|
Another recent Siegel auction contained a small holding of five official used blocks, somewhat unusual in that three of them - 10¢ War (O88), 24¢ War (O91), and 90¢ War (O93) - are to the best of our current knowledge unique.1 They were included in Mr. Lanphear's original survey because although their whereabouts were unknown, Philatelic Foundation certificates for all three had been issued back in 1993. One buyer confided that since the certificates had been issued prior to the unexpectedly high realizations in 1996, he felt confident in bidding aggressively, an admission that it would be neither difficult nor expensive for someone to add deceptively non-descript cut cork cancellations to off-center unused blocks in response to a perceived demand and be able to fool even experienced specialists. The auction house's estimates for these used blocks were typically low, but at least two of them were illustrated in color. |
|||
|
In a postscript to my article "The Design Evolution of United States Official Stamps," I reprinted evidence that the official stamps were first intended to be printed in the same colors as the regular issues. At a loss to explain the Post Office Department large die trial color essays printed on white ivory in orange red, blue, gray black, and brownish black, I concluded that they must have been printed later for display purposes, like the Goodall set in five colors of 1879. I have since received confirmation of this theory from Ronald A. Burns, Route Agent #1308. Citing Brazer, he states that these were printed along with the 1847 stamps and the 1851-1890 unadopted essays for books of proofs given to the directors of the American Bank Note Company.1 Mr. Burns believes that they date from the mid-1890's, and that at least four sets existed at one time. Therefore, while these four portrait head dies were surely engraved in late April, 1873, none of the surviving proofs were printed until many years later. The date of the decision to change the colors of all the official stamps can be narrowed down to between April l2, when the 1¢ State die was approved and a large die proof taken in ultramarine, and April 15, when Third Assistant Postmaster E. W. Barber announced the new colors for the official stamps. |
|||
|
Prior to this, proofs of these four dies must have been printed in the same colors as the regular issues. But since the so-called "large die trial color proofs" were intended as working proofs, and were not meant for external distribution, it is not surprising that what survives today is incomplete, and does not include the rejected portrait head dies. The 6¢ incomplete die essay (Scott 050E1), of which only two copies are known, is probably the only surviving true working proof taken from the Post Office portrait head dies prior to the issuance of the stamps. |
|||
|
In the summer of 1995, shortly after Lester C. Lanphear's article "Department of the Interior First Day Usage" appeared, a remarkably similar cover was discovered.1 In Figure 3, we illustrate another 3¢, 6¢ Interior combination usage, this one from the Office of Indian Affairs, courtesy of Robert L. Markovits. On this cover, severely reduced at the left, the stamps were affixed over the space for the clerk's signature on an obsolete free frank envelope. The postmark is the characteristic 24 millimeter diameter size utilized only in 1873, and the cut cork obliterator perfectly matches the strikes on the Lanphear cover and the 3¢ State cover sold in the Crystal sale. Of particular interest is the second partial strike of the postmark, indicating that was in fact a duplex canceler. The distance between postmark and obliterator is identical on both the Lanphear and Markovits covers. Reexamining the Lanphear cover, we now find a very faint second strike of the postmark, crossing the numeral of value on the 3¢ stamp. |
|||
|
Yet another purported first day usage appeared in the marketplace, just as Mr. Lanphear's article was going to press. This item, illustrated in Figure 4, a 3¢ Treasury cover from the legendary Fisher collection auctioned by Shreve Galleries on x,x, l996, unfortunately proved not to be as represented.1 The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. This cover was examined by Mr. Lanphear via postal viewing prior to the sale. The original basis for assigning an 1873 year date to the cover seems to have been some partially erased pencil docketing on the reverse. It was instantly apparent to Mr. Lanphear from the 26 mm. diameter of the postmark that this was in fact a July 1, 1874 usage. Mr. Lanphear promptly communicated his concerns about the cover to the auction house, which, as with other controversial items in the sale, decided not to withdraw the lot, but instead announced on the floor that the buyer should seek expertization. The cover was sold for $1800, excluding the 10% buyer's commission, against a pre-sale estimate of $2500. |
|||
|
Pencil notes on the back of the cover indicate it was purchased by Mr. Fisher in 1964. At that time, it is extremely unlikely that anyone was aware yet how to date the problematic Washington, D. C. postmarks of this era. As late as January, 1986, when Rollin C. Huggins Jr. first sketched out the evolution of these postmarks, the distinctive 24 millimeter datestamp of 1873 had still not been identified. On the day of the sale, the May issue of the Chronicle had not been mailed out yet. Despite the auctioneer's warning, as of this date the cover has not yet been submitted to the Philatelic Foundation, which suggests, somewhat surprisingly, that the buyer may not be a member of the Classics Society. On the remote chance that someone who reads this journal knows the buyer personally, please urge him to submit this cover to the Foundation immediately. On the basis of Mr. Lanphear's well-researched conclusions, it will not be authenticated as a genuine first day usage. |
|||
|
Figure Captions |
|||
|
1. 12¢ Interior soft paper block, courtesy Robert A. Siegel. |
|||
|
2. 3¢ Agriculture soft paper block, courtesy Robert A. Siegel. |
|||
|
3. 3¢, 6¢ Interior first day usage, courtesy Robert L. Markovits. |
|||
|
4. 3¢ Treasury cover, July 1, (1874), courtesy Shreve Galleries. |
|||
|
e-mail: alan campbell |
||
|
copyright © 2000-04 fran adams |
||