Dear Sir,

Plates 1 and 2 of the 35¢ Drew (Scott #1865) were sent to press on May 14, 1981 for a total of 472,379 impressions.

Plates 3 and 4 were sent to press on May 22, 1981 for 12,098 impressions each, the lowest number of any of the Great Americans series.

Mint stamps from plates 1 and 2 will, if permitted, curl toward the print side along the vertical axis.  Stamps from plates 3 and 4 do not curl.  In printing the first two plates, the web was moistened prior to the Cottrell press intaglio station.  The web was not moistened when plates 3 and 4 were on press, a watershed of sorts.
Plates 3 and 4 were available briefly from the Philatelic Agency in vertical strips of 20, where I obtained all but the lower right position.  On my upper right strips, only the left half of the left column of stamps is tagged.  That is, the entire sheet was tagged EXCEPT for the right hand selvage, the far right column of stamps and the right half of the adjacent column of stamps.

Members who have UR and LR examples of plates 3 and 4 should check them for the untagged error.  Scott prices the error at $85.00.

Sincerely,
David Stiff

Dear Sir,

In his article on the linerless Flag over Porch coil in the April Specialist, Todd Uebele states that “When the slitting wheels that cut the web into individual coil strips are properly set, the correct configuration for all normal Scott #3133s are in fact 12/12 PV/PV or 12/12 VP/VP.”  While it is possible to use the specifications for the stamp height and die cut gauge to calculate the number of serpentine cycles a normal stamp is supposed to have, it is impossible for us to know what die cut feature they intended the stamps to begin and end with or if they even cared.  This is because the serpentine pattern for this issue ran continuously across all the rows in the web without interruption between rows, giving us no clue what feature they intended the stamps to begin and end with.  If the slitting shifts or if the die cutting shifts, the starting and ending features will change even if the stamp is of a normal height.

This continuous die cut pattern is no different than what is found on a conventional perfed coil issue.  We collect them by perf gauge (and on the Liberty series by hole size), but I’ve never heard of anyone collecting them by whether they start or end with a hole or a perf.  On the other hand, in the case of the private vending coils, which do have distinctive patterns, they are collected by the number of holes or slits.

In contrast to the continuous pattern of the #3133, the serpentine pattern for Scott #2915A (BEP coil of 100) is interrupted by straight line separators that are intended to be split between the tops and bottoms of stamps of adjacent rows.  The pattern is named by the first feature under the separator at the top and the last feature above the separator at the bottom and by counting the number of peaks between the separators.  Even if the slitting shifts or if the die cutting shifts, the convention that has been developed allows the die cut pattern to be positively identified by referencing from the separators (not from the top and bottom of the stamp), something that is not possible on a continuous pattern issue like Scott #3133.

Using the terminology that was developed for a distinctive die cut pattern instead for a continuous die cut pattern only confuses things and adds fuel to Scott’s decision not to list legitimate die cut varieties for issues like the #2915A that were a result of different die cut mats and not a result of minor production freaks.

Sincerely,
Doug Iams

Dear Sir,

Readers of The Specialist have recently been treated to an outstanding series of articles on the Postal and Treasury Savings Systems.  A horde of forms from the Stoyestown, Pennsylvania post office was recently acquired by this writer on ebay, which provides an interesting sidebar to Dr. Charles’ comprehensive series.

Purchasers of War Savings Stamps had the option of presenting their stamps, affixed to a War Savings Certificate, to a post office for registration.  Upon so doing, the certificate could only be cashed by the registered owner and only at the post office where registered.  Registration thus protected an owner against loss.  The Stoyestown post office registered 226 United States War Savings Certificates between January 2, 1918 and November 30, 1921.  “Application for registration” forms representing 171 of those registrations are in the recently acquired cache.  The cache consists of 123 applications to register Certificates for the Series of 1918 stamps, two for Series of 1919, 24 for Series of 1920, and 22 for Series of 1921.  It is noteworthy that the form used to apply for the registration of Series of 1918 stamps (W.S. 110, 2-3983) was also used by the Stoyestown post office as applications to register War Savings Stamps of the Series of 1919, 1920, and 1921.  The year “1918” was stricken out with pen on form W.S. 110, and 1919, 1920, or 1921 was handwritten in order to make the form serviceable for the War Savings Stamps issued in those years.  It is unknown to this writer whether or not specific forms were produced by the Post Office Department for intended use during 1919, 1920 or 1921.

Stoystown (as the name is now spelled), located in Somerset County in rural central Pennsylvania, had a population of 342 according to the 1920 U.S. Census.  According to the USPS, the spelling was changed to Stoystown on June 1, 1935, although that spelling is used in 1920 census data.  The Stoyestown postmaster during the period in question, John Custer, registered 11 certificates in is own name, and used the spelling “Stoystown” on his applications, while most of his customers used “Stoyestown,” perhaps suggesting a division of civic opinion on the correct spelling.

One Certificate was registered to a “Post Office Clerk” and one to a “Rural Carrier.”  Of the first nine certificates to be registered at the Stoyestown post office (between January 2 and January 15, 1918) eight were registered to a man who identified his occupation as “bar tender” and one to a “newsboy” with the same surname as the bar tender.

More »

1½¢ Harding plate block with 7 gum-breaker configuration.

Dear Sir,

In the April, 2007 Specialist, member Rodney Juell reported the discovery of a third copy of U.S. Scott #633, the Fourth Bureau 1½¢ Harding rotary compound perf., with a 7 gum-breaker configuration.  I am writing to report the discovery of a fourth single and also a plate block, #18722, which both show the 7-breaker configuration.  Per the Plate Number Checklist, plate #18722 was at press 6 times between November 2, 1927 and May 16, 1928.  The existence of a 7-breaker configuration on this plate would seem to suggest that creation of this variety coincides with the BEP breaker experimentation in early 1928, which resulted in the 8-breaker variety on the 2¢ value, Scott #634.  This writer welcomes further comment and reports of additional discoveries.

Sincerely,
James Robinson

The Author Responds

Dear Sir,

My thanks to Mr. Robinson for sharing his discovery with the rest of us.  His taking the time to report this discovery and thus expand our collective knowledge is a big part of what our Society and The Specialist are all about!  Mr. Robinson’s discover of this plate block confirms my suspicion that the seven-breaker configuration was used circa early 1928.  I appreciate now knowing for certain.  I challenge our members to continue to watch for unreported breaker configurations.  To the best of my knowledge the table of known ridge and breaker combinations that appears on p. 256 of the June, 2003 issue of The Specialist is still accurate.

Sincerely,
Rodney Juell

Dear Sir,

This letter is to thank Larry Weiss for his contributions to The United States Specialist.  His articles have contributed significantly to the knowledge base of United States philately.

Although I am a relatively old stamp collector, I am a short-term member of the United States Stamp Society.  Having joined the USSS as a trial evaluation, a year ago I was presented with the decision as to whether or not to renew my membership.  That decision was made easier by reading the first installment of his series of articles entitled “Why Collect the U.S. Washington-Franklin Heads?  A 100th Anniversary Tribute.”  My thought at the time was that his articles would certainly be worth the price of membership renewal.  Happily, I can report that my analysis was correct.  With the added bonus of his report, with Gerald Nylander, of the discovery of a forward-stepping watermark pattern, it is my belief that all of our members have been richly rewarded by their membership.

Mr. Weiss has contributed a great deal and no one could fault him for resting on his laurels, but I will look forward to any other articles that he may feel moved to write.

Sincerely,
George W. Edman, IV

Philatelic Covers

Dear Sir,

In response to George Edman’s article “Philatelists Eschew Philatelic Covers” [November Specialist] I want to respond to his perplexity about the use of philatelic covers in exhibits.  First let me say that the general prohibition is a good example of how a guideline becomes a hard and fast rule.  Nowhere is it said that philatelic covers are barred from exhibit; rather it is a fact that philatelic coves are often contrived, generally more available, sometimes did not even go through the mail, and are sometimes not franked with the proper postage.  Thus, commercial covers are preferred as they reflect the intended usage of the stamps on the cover, and the real service(s) they paid for.

This does not mean that philatelic covers can not be used.  Some of the times that they are entirely appropriate include times when they are the only surviving records of events, when they reflect postal operations that were not planned by the cover fabricator, and when they illustrate an authorized postal practice in the face of a temporary problem at the local level.

In the latter class, I have one of the bisected Huguenot-Walloon covers that Edman illustrates in my exhibit on stamp separation.  Since acceptance by the local postmaster is documented, and no other covers are known to illustrate it, it can not be replaced by a commercial cover.  Other covers that would be exhibitable might include first day covers that had been in a plane crash, Roessler and other first flight covers that document flights for which there are few or no commercial covers, pioneer air mail covers created as souvenirs, and a host of other items that might be needed to tell a part of the exhibit’s story.

Because there is no explicit prohibition on philatelic covers in judging, I do not in general deduct for use of the occasional philatelic cover when a commercial cover would be better, only for using a lot of them when commercial covers would be a better representation of the intended use of the stamps.  Remember that putting together a good exhibit is a challenge.  As with all competitions, having more difficult material is rewarded.  Commercial covers are generally more difficult than philatelic covers.  But that does not mean that philatelic covers can never be used.

Sincerely,
John M. Hotchner

The Author Responds

Dear Sir,

I thank Mr. Hotchner for his expert guidance on exhibiting.  However, the article was not intended to be specific to the acceptability, or not, of philatelic covers in exhibits.  The anecdote about the exhibit judge and his comments, while true, was only presented as a means to begin a commentary on a more far-reaching bias against such covers as were illustrated.  I have no knowledge to indicate that the apparent disdain for philatelic covers is rooted in exhibiting.  Even if that is the case, though, it seems to have influenced our hobby well beyond that activity.

Sincerely,
George Edman

Watermark 191 as illustrated in Scott catalogs.

USPS Watermarks

Dear Sir,

I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated the fine article by Larry Weiss on the Catalog Implications of the Existence of Two Patterns of “USPS” Double Line Watermarks in the October United States Specialist.  Larry invites comments, so here is my minor comment regarding the current illustration of the watermark in Scott catalogs.

The illustration on page 438 [October Specialist] of Watermark 191 does have a slight drawback in that the illustration does not correctly represent exactly what an entire sheet will always look like relative to the stamps on that sheet.  But, the illustration is a BIG help in showing what would normally appear on a single stamp, namely portions of a letter.  This was very helpful to me in identifying what I was looking at.  In specific, looking at the 7th column, 9th row, the SINGLE line appearing there is really a double line watermark!

Sincerely,
Robert W. Martin

The Author Responds

Dear Sir,

Thanks, Robert, for the kind words on the article.  The illustration of how the double line watermark falls on a 100-subject sheet deserves more explanation than it is given in the catalog section, and so the suggestion in the article is not to remove it, but to relocate it to the Introduction section and provide that additional explanation.  So, its usefulness in helping to identify stamps with double line watermarks would not be lost.

Stamp position 87 (9th row, 7th column)

Robert notes the strange case of the stamp subject shown in Position 87 (9th row, 7th column) where at first glance it appears the “U” resembles the same letter in a single line watermark pattern.  See the accompanying figure for an enlarged view of that subject.

Indeed it is possible to mistake the double line letter for the single line “U” but the careful observer will note the evidence it really is a double line watermark letter.  The double line “U” will be too narrow, have too much vertical height, have an attached extra line at its bottom, and perhaps show the presence of the serif at the top of the right leg.  But granted – at first glance it can be confusing.  It is an odd case and the use of the double line watermark illustration will be helpful in avoiding such a misidentification.

Sincerely,
Larry Weiss

Philatelic Covers

Dear Sir,

In his article “Philatelists Eschew Philatelic Covers,” George Edman worries that “cover collecting is solely dependent on mail exchanged between people who have no interest in stamps.”  This is certainly not true for all types of cover collecting.  For example, collectors of first day, first flight and commemorative covers, by definition, do not reject philatelic covers.  However, when it comes to postal history collecting, contrived philatelic covers are rightly rejected.  As I have argued elsewhere (Hines, 1983), collectors are just too prone to use pretty and unusual combinations of stamps or stamps out of their actual period of use.  One of the goals of a postal history collection is to show what actually happened – what stamps were used for, when and for which rates, on which routes and so forth.  Made up (philatelic) covers (usually) distort the record of what actually happened.  Including them in a postal history collection or exhibit would be like including a fake Rembrandt in a collection of Rembrandt’s paintings.  Such fake paintings would undoubtedly be pretty and collectable as fakes.  But no one should argue that they are in any way equal in status and value to the real thing.

There are rare exceptions.  For example, the late Henry Beecher pointed out (Hines, 1984) that “some rates, routes and usages are effectively non-existent on non-contrived covers and these must then do.”

Sincerely,
Terence Hines

Hines, T. (1983), “What is a ‘philatelic’ cover?” Modern Postal History Journal, 1 (#4), 39-40.

Hines, T. (1984), “Reactions to ‘What is a “philatelic” cover,’” Modern Postal History Journal, 2 (#1), 10.

Dear Sir,

Based on communications from two readers, the following errata should be made to “Why Collect the U.S. Washington-Franklin Heads?  A 100th Anniversary Tribute” – Part IX (July, 2009 Specialist):

In the caption for Figure 174, it was noted there are 42,000 different varieties of local precancels, with most appearing on the Washington-Franklins.  A closer estimate of those on Washington-Franklin heads by a precancel specialist has the number at about 5,000 to 6,000.  Thus, it is not quite “most” but still a substantial number.

The caption for Figure 175 should have stated that cost reductions were actually first achieved when the Stickney rotary presses were fitted with precanceling equipment in 1923 and then only large precancel print orders were produced by the Bureau.

In the captions for Figures 178 and 179, the Schermack coils were referred to with H capital letter suffixes, e.g., Scott #343H, which would indicate they were government stripped imperforate coils, which is not the case.  The coils were made by Schermack/Mailometer from sheets of imperforate stamps, so they should be treated as varieties of the basic Scott numbers, e.g. Scott #343.

In Figure 184 showing hand-applied cancels, the “LOWELL MASS “ cancel is a hand-applied precancel.

Sincerely,
Larry Weiss

Dear Sir,

Enclosed is a color photocopy of a plate number single of Scott #642 which I found in a collection of precancelled stamps.

The plate number is on the stamp, not the selvedge.  The whole stamp design was moved to the left with the left perforation cutting into the design.

Thought this might be of interest to other members.

Sincerely,
Lee Bastien

Durland Editor Comments

Dear Sir,

The plate number is inside the perfs – an interesting item.  Apparently the outer perf wheels on the perforator came loose and wandered too far to the side.

Sincerely,
Wallace Cleland