Scott Catalog - Earliest Documented Use

The Scott Specialized Catalog provides the Earliest Documented Use for
many stamps.

What should a collector do if they have a cover or postcard showing a
date earlier than the Earliest Documented Use?

Are these dates constantly being revised, or would this indicate some
special availability or mailing that would be valued higher?

Thanks, Kent

On 18 Jun, 06:54, Kent wrote:
The Scott Specialized Catalog provides the Earliest Documented Use for
many stamps.

What should a collector do if they have a cover or postcard showing a
date earlier than the Earliest Documented Use?

Are these dates constantly being revised, or would this indicate some
special availability or mailing that would be valued higher?

Thanks, *Kent

1) Be sure in your own mind that you're right and haven't misread
smudged digits, have allowed for d/m/y versus m/d/y, and haven't
misidentified the stamp from an earlier set of similar design.

2) Post a pic here (via cjoint.com or somesuch) so that we can see if
we agree and also look it up in other cats.

3) If we do all agree, you can probably send it to Scott for their
experts to have a go -- at least you can with SG. But I should think
they'll need more than one example to rule out forgeries, date stamp
setup errors, etc.

Chris

On Jun 18, 12:54*am, Kent wrote:
The Scott Specialized Catalog provides the Earliest Documented Use for
many stamps.

What should a collector do if they have a cover or postcard showing a
date earlier than the Earliest Documented Use?

Are these dates constantly being revised, or would this indicate some
special availability or mailing that would be valued higher?

Thanks, *Kent

There are cases where postal clerks sold stamps before the issue date
so why not letters mailed bearing the early release stamps?
Beware of the guy that had his own post office dater.
I have one, given to me by a postal clerk as an out of use item.

Ralphael, the OLD one

On Jun 18, 7:36 am, Ralphael1 wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:54 am, Kent wrote:

The Scott Specialized Catalog provides the Earliest Documented Use for
many stamps.

What should a collector do if they have a cover or postcard showing a
date earlier than the Earliest Documented Use?

Are these dates constantly being revised, or would this indicate some
special availability or mailing that would be valued higher?

Thanks, Kent

There are cases where postal clerks sold stamps before the issue date
so why not letters mailed bearing the early release stamps?
Beware of the guy that had his own post office dater.
I have one, given to me by a postal clerk as an out of use item.

Ralphael, the OLD one

Yes, but Ralph you NEEDED one. You are Window Clerk #1
are you not? 8*)

Cheers

Blair

On Jun 18, 5:39*am, "Blair (TC)" wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:36 am, Ralphael1 wrote:



On Jun 18, 12:54 am, Kent wrote:

The Scott Specialized Catalog provides the Earliest Documented Use for
many stamps.

What should a collector do if they have a cover or postcard showing a
date earlier than the Earliest Documented Use?

Are these dates constantly being revised, or would this indicate some
special availability or mailing that would be valued higher?

Thanks, *Kent

There are cases where postal clerks sold stamps before the issue date
so why not letters mailed bearing the early release stamps?
Beware of the guy that had his own post office dater.
I have one, given to me by a postal clerk as an out of use item.

Ralphael, the OLD one

Yes, but Ralph you NEEDED one. *You are Window Clerk #1
are you not? * 8*)

Cheers

Blair

Thanks all for the help.

Here is one example that I posted in an earlier thread.

The stamp is Scott #311.

http://cjoint.com/data/gphEKni8u5.htm

The date is very clear as 7/22/02, and I can't imagine a forgery as my
Grandfather collected these covers many years ago.

Scott Specialized shows 9/30/03 as the Earliest Documented Use.

Thanks, Kent

"Kent" wrote in message
...
The Scott Specialized Catalog provides the Earliest Documented Use for
many stamps.

What should a collector do if they have a cover or postcard showing a
date earlier than the Earliest Documented Use?

Are these dates constantly being revised, or would this indicate some
special availability or mailing that would be valued higher?

Thanks, Kent

Kent--I'm not a specialist in U.S. covers, but I'd suggest being skeptical
about the cover. Then look for simple and practical explanations.

Scott's U.S. Specialized doesn't list any stamp in the 1902-1903 issue as
having been used before November 18, 1902. A July 22, 1902 date is so much
sooner that I suspect the stamps may not even have existed at that time. A
simple explanation then is that the postal clerk inadvertently used a 02
year slug when he/she should have used 03 or 04. (Or, if cancel devices
with date wheels existed at that point, the clerk turned the wheel such that
the 02 date appeared by mistake.) You might contact APS and see if there is
an Indiana branch of the U.S. Postal History Society. If there is, see if
APS has contact information and ask IPHS if someone in the society can
identify the years that different cancel devices were used in Winona Lake,
Indiana.

While APS won't give value estimates, if the cover has a reasonable chance
to be a July 22, 1903 usage, ask the Expertizing Dept at APS if they have
someone available who could give an expert opinion (for a fee) on the cover.
As an alternative, contact Linn's (Amos Publishing in Sidney, OH), and send
them an image of the cover. They may or may not be interested if you are
not a subscriber.

More skepticism--what was being mailed in a normal envelope, with no
registration or special delivery marking, that required a $1 stamp? With
the sender being a church organization, casual over-payment seems unlikely.
Perhaps the cover as mailed had a stamp from the 1894 issue and someone
replaced it with the $1 stamp from the 1902-03 issue to create a more
valuable item. (The detached stamp lists at $55, while the on-cover price
is $1,500. This gives folks a $1,445 incentive to find an envelope onto
which to stick a detached stamp--especially if the stamp has a damaged back
that won't be seen on a cover.)

Stan

"Stan Fairchild" wrote in message
...
"Kent" wrote in message
...
The Scott Specialized Catalog provides the Earliest Documented Use for
many stamps.

What should a collector do if they have a cover or postcard showing a
date earlier than the Earliest Documented Use?

Are these dates constantly being revised, or would this indicate some
special availability or mailing that would be valued higher?

Thanks, Kent

Kent--I'm not a specialist in U.S. covers, but I'd suggest being skeptical
about the cover. Then look for simple and practical explanations.

Scott's U.S. Specialized doesn't list any stamp in the 1902-1903 issue as
having been used before November 18, 1902. A July 22, 1902 date is so
much sooner that I suspect the stamps may not even have existed at that
time. A simple explanation then is that the postal clerk inadvertently
used a 02 year slug when he/she should have used 03 or 04. (Or, if cancel
devices with date wheels existed at that point, the clerk turned the wheel
such that the 02 date appeared by mistake.) You might contact APS and see
if there is an Indiana branch of the U.S. Postal History Society. If
there is, see if APS has contact information and ask IPHS if someone in
the society can identify the years that different cancel devices were used
in Winona Lake, Indiana.

While APS won't give value estimates, if the cover has a reasonable chance
to be a July 22, 1903 usage, ask the Expertizing Dept at APS if they have
someone available who could give an expert opinion (for a fee) on the
cover. As an alternative, contact Linn's (Amos Publishing in Sidney, OH),
and send them an image of the cover. They may or may not be interested if
you are not a subscriber.

More skepticism--what was being mailed in a normal envelope, with no
registration or special delivery marking, that required a $1 stamp? With
the sender being a church organization, casual over-payment seems
unlikely. Perhaps the cover as mailed had a stamp from the 1894 issue and
someone replaced it with the $1 stamp from the 1902-03 issue to create a
more valuable item. (The detached stamp lists at $55, while the on-cover
price is $1,500. This gives folks a $1,445 incentive to find an envelope
onto which to stick a detached stamp--especially if the stamp has a
damaged back that won't be seen on a cover.)

Stan

Kent--here is the APS information on the Indiana Postal History Society:

Indiana Postal History Society (APS# AF0241)
Journal: Indiana Postal History Society Newsletter: quarter
Dues: $10.
Services: handbooks, exhibition awards, special awards, library, annual
convention.
Purpose: To obtain, preserve information, books, document and tangibles
pertinent of post office operations in state and territory of Indiana.
Contact Person: Ms. Marge Faber, P. O. Box 1875 , Bloomington , IN 47402
E-mail:
Website: indianapostalhistorysociety.org

Stan

Kent wrote:

The stamp is Scott #311.

http://cjoint.com/data/gphEKni8u5.htm
The date is very clear as 7/22/02,

That dated cancel does not touch the stamp. Nor does it have associated
bars that do. It is possible that all or part of the partial cancel
that does touch the stamp was added, but I would not speculate either
way without seeing a hi-res scan (or photo taken directly above the
stamp with better light) of just the corner area (about twice as wide as
the stamp. If you get one too big for cjoint, feel free to email directly.

and I can't imagine a forgery as my
Grandfather collected these covers many years ago.

Unless your Grandfather is the recipient Rev Rhodes, I can.
I believe philatelic forgeries were more common then than now.

tjr

On Jun 18, 6:49 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
Kent wrote:

The stamp is Scott #311.

http://cjoint.com/data/gphEKni8u5.htm
The date is very clear as 7/22/02,


I agree with Stan and Terry.

In my opimion and given the poor image quality,
I would go with the reasoning that $1 was a
GROSS overpayment of the rate.

Also, as stated the dated cancel does not
touch the stamp, and I think that a used
stamp was used after removing the original.

The tying cancel was faked.
This should be taken to a dealer for confirmation.

Blair

On Jun 18, 6:32*pm, "Blair (TC)" wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:49 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:

Kent wrote:

The stamp is Scott #311.

http://cjoint.com/data/gphEKni8u5.htm
The date is very clear as 7/22/02,

I agree with Stan and Terry.

In my opimion and given the poor image quality,
I would go with the reasoning that $1 was a
GROSS overpayment of the rate.

Also, as stated the dated cancel does not
touch the stamp, and I think that a used
stamp was used after removing the original.

The tying cancel was faked.
This should be taken to a dealer for confirmation.

Blair

Stan, Terry, Blair,

Thanks for your analysis and I think you are all absolutely correct.

Here are closeups of the cover in question and three others. They
were all mailed to the same address. That fellow seems to have been
quite a collector as I have many others but all the rest appear
legitimate.

The stamps below are Scott 298, 310, 311, and 327.

In all four cases the cover has a date earlier than the Earliest
Documented Use in the Scott Catalog.

298 1-29-01 vs 5-01-01
310 7-11-02 vs 10-06-03
311 7-22-02 vs 9-30-03
327 3-01-04 vs 4-30-04

http://cjoint.com/data/gtf54wFjAS.htm

http://cjoint.com/data/gtf6YZRwXQ.htm

http://cjoint.com/data/gtf7MbAPEr.htm

http://cjoint.com/data/gtgaIMmAdO.htm

I believe I see stains from glue or some chemical, damage to paper
where a stamp was likely removed, and other telltale signs.

Do you agree on all four?

It's too bad as these covers would have had significant value.

I have to sell these as part of an estate sale and now wonder if I
should even send them to a dealer. I suppose the stamps could be
removed and still have some value assuming they come off cleanly.

Kent