Inverted Overprint (True Error) or Inverted Envelope (Freak)?

Here is an example of an envelope I picked up in a lot of EFO (Errors,
Freaks, Oddities). The lot contained nothing but US postal stationery
examples with albinos, overinking, miscut and misfolded items.

http://www.georgestamps.org/images/gp_u468k_1.jpg

My question is: Is this the listed Scott error of an "inverted
overprint? Or is is simply a "freak" caused by the envelope being fed
into the surcharging device the wrong way?

The Scott catalog notes that in the case of multiple surcharges the
surcharge must touch part of the indicia. The only way the inverted
surcharge could 'touch' the indicia is if the slug were inserted into
the canceller inverted. These surcharges were applied by cancelling
machine.

Thanks for any info or opinions you can provide.

George

--
I've found an inverted ovpt mention in the Scott Specialised. It's for the
2c on 3c dark violet and is Scott # U468k with a CV of $75.
Hope this helps.

Mark.


"George" wrote in message
...
Here is an example of an envelope I picked up in a lot of EFO (Errors,
Freaks, Oddities). The lot contained nothing but US postal stationery
examples with albinos, overinking, miscut and misfolded items.

http://www.georgestamps.org/images/gp_u468k_1.jpg

My question is: Is this the listed Scott error of an "inverted
overprint? Or is is simply a "freak" caused by the envelope being fed
into the surcharging device the wrong way?

The Scott catalog notes that in the case of multiple surcharges the
surcharge must touch part of the indicia. The only way the inverted
surcharge could 'touch' the indicia is if the slug were inserted into
the canceller inverted. These surcharges were applied by cancelling
machine.

Thanks for any info or opinions you can provide.

George

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:14:55 +0000, Mark Bardell wrote:

I've found an inverted ovpt mention in the Scott Specialised. It's for
the 2c on 3c dark violet and is Scott # U468k with a CV of $75. Hope
this helps.

Mark.


"George" wrote in message
news:4b9b1a4b-fb77-4066-
...
http://www.georgestamps.org/images/gp_u468k_1.jpg

My question is: Is this the listed Scott error of an "inverted
overprint? Or is is simply a "freak" caused by the envelope being fed
into the surcharging device the wrong way?

Mr. Bardell,

No, unfortunately, I don't believe that helps George. He is asking
whether this is the Scott-listed error, or whether he has a freak.

Can anyone attest to whether the inverted overprint on U468 is an
inverted slug (inverted overprint touching indicium), or whether normal
examples of U468k appear as does George's?

I, for one, would be curious to know.

--
Joshua McGee ‹(•¿•)›
APS, ATA, ISWSC, AFDCS, MBPC, MCC, BPS
Pasadena, California, USA
http://www.mcgees.org/stamp-offers/

Yes, this should be the Scott listed error. Although inverted surcharge on
stamp is possible I have found no reports of such for this issue and
surcharge. Editors of the UPSS 20th Century envelope catalog consider all
misplaced and all multiple surcharges as freaks (I disagree with the choice
of freak) with multiple surcharges on the stamp bringing the most value and
with all others only a minimal increase in value .

--
Bill Lehr
JOBI Philatelic Services
specializing in US postal stationery
APEX, APS, NSDA, SDI, IFSDA, IPDA, UPSS, PSS
312 Lower Coleville RD
Bellefonte, PA 16823-8726
814-355-8871
http://jobi.bizhosting.com

"George" wrote in message
...
Here is an example of an envelope I picked up in a lot of EFO (Errors,
Freaks, Oddities). The lot contained nothing but US postal stationery
examples with albinos, overinking, miscut and misfolded items.

http://www.georgestamps.org/images/gp_u468k_1.jpg

My question is: Is this the listed Scott error of an "inverted
overprint? Or is is simply a "freak" caused by the envelope being fed
into the surcharging device the wrong way?

The Scott catalog notes that in the case of multiple surcharges the
surcharge must touch part of the indicia. The only way the inverted
surcharge could 'touch' the indicia is if the slug were inserted into
the canceller inverted. These surcharges were applied by cancelling
machine.

Thanks for any info or opinions you can provide.

George

Mark, Joshua and Bill,

Thank you for your input. I have three of these covers and will
probably put one on a well know site for sale. Either someone will
buy it or they will tell me it is "wrong." I am of the opinon that it
is probably the "inverted" error, since most cancellers have "slugs"
that are impossible to put it upside down.

I'll keep you informed of any differing opinions that come up.

Thank you,

George

In a recent message George wrote:

Mark, Joshua and Bill,

Thank you for your input. I have three of these covers and will
probably put one on a well know site for sale. Either someone will
buy it or they will tell me it is "wrong." I am of the opinon that it
is probably the "inverted" error, since most cancellers have "slugs"
that are impossible to put it upside down.

I'll keep you informed of any differing opinions that come up.

Thank you,

George

I suggest that it would be most unlikely that an inverted overprint
would end up on the stamp when overprinting postal staionery
such as this.

Inverted overprints usually result when the item being overprinted is fed
in upside down.

With sheets of stamps this may result in all the stamps having the overprint,
assuming the sheet margins are uniform on each side.

With an envelope the effect seen will result.

Another possibility is an inverted cliche. This is so unlikely with envelopes
that it could be considered a deliberate act to gain an item of philatelic
interest, on a par with some unperforated Italian stamps that were actually
printers' waste removed illegally from the print shop.



--
Tony Clayton
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
.... If you want something done properly, kill Baldrick first.