Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Stamp Community Forum
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Very scarce illegal usage of postage as revenue: #295 Pan American  
 

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
2709 Posts
Posted 12/23/2016   2:51 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this topic Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Message
When I purchased this a year ago, I didn't realize just how scarce an item it actually is; it just happened to fit into my collection of illegal usages. It turns out it's much more scarce than I initially thought.

The 2-cent Trans Missippi (Scott 286) can be found used illegally as revenues, usually ranging from $100-250 on document. They're not common, but can be found. I have 5 examples on documents and another single not on document. They're out there...

... and yet the 2-cent Pan American (Scott 295) isn't. I spoke with Eric Jackson at CHICAGOPEX last month about the one I purchased, and he was surprised I had one. He said he's never seen one.

I think there are several reasons why these are so scarce (in this case I should probably use the word "rare", which IMO should be reserved for special occasions):

1. The vast majority of illegal usages occur in the first 6 months of the tax (July-December 1898) when supplies of revenue stamps were still making their way out into the field, where certain municipalities may not have yet received their allotment or ran out due to incorrectly estimating demand/need. The 2-cent Trans Missippi was issued prior to the tax and thus was available throughout the entire period of the tax.

Yes, there are later illegal usages, but those tend to be isolated and/or regional in nature and are fewer in number.

2. The Pan American series was issued on May 1, 1901 and the last day of the tax was June 30, 1901. That's a 61-day window during which an illegal usage of a stamp from the Pan American series could possibly occur. That's an awfully small time period, compounded by the fact that by that point, revenue stamps were hardly in short supply. The example below is dated 4 days before the end of the tax.

I've not seen reference to or image of another example.

Send note to Staff


Edited by revenuecollector - 12/23/2016 2:57 pm

Pillar Of The Community
United States
537 Posts
Posted 12/23/2016   3:32 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add billw2 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
That's a fantastic item. When I saw the title of this thread I thought "What the?" as I had my dates mixed up and thought it impossible. That's got to be a once in a lifetime find.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
91 Posts
Posted 12/24/2016   7:31 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add amccleaf1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Amazing item! Not only rare, but very attractive cancellation and markings.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
2709 Posts
Posted 12/24/2016   10:04 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Follow-up. I asked Richard Friedberg whether he had seen any Pan Americans illegally used as revenues. His reply:


Quote:
Have not seen any. By the time this stamp was issued there were plenty of R164's available so I would be skeptical of such a use. Years ago someone "discovered" one-cent Pan Ams used as a revenues, but they proved to be fakes on inspection.


I then sent him the above image. His reply:


Quote:
Interesting in that the fake one-cent stamps were also used in Michigan. The 2-cent usage is almost too good, in that most items are not so well-tied. Possibly someone obtained the bank handstamp, or maybe they really ran out of one and two cent stamps in Michigan in mid-1901? Or did not re-order once their supply was depleted. I am not sure what to think of this item.


My response:


Quote:
Michigan, for some reason, seems to have had a lot of illegal usages. I don't know if there were distribution problems or something else.

I have a 10-cent Trans-Mississippi used as revenue on a marriage certificate from Huron County in June 1899. At Chicagopex this year, when Mike Morrissey, Bart, Bill Halstead and I were trading material, Mike had another identical marriage certificate with a 2.5-cent Proprietary block of 4 used to pay the 10-cent tax - same county dated 8 days after the one I had.

That block of 4 of #273 second day usage document I bought from you 2 years ago was from Port Huron, Michigan.

One of my 2-cent Trans-Mississippi illegal usages is also from Michigan.

I have a 279B on a check from Eaton Rapids, Michigan dated August 24, 1900 and two #267 on checks from Port Austin, MI in 1898.

The only other geographic "cluster" of sorts for illegal usages from the 1898 era I have been able to identify is rural central and western PA, but that pales in numbers compared to Michigan. Pretty small samples to draw conclusions from without a real census, but MI leads all other states in my collection in terms of numbers.


There does appear to be some stamp residue to the upper left of the 295. If I were going to manufacture an item like this, however, I would not leave the residue at upper left...

I disagree with the implication that the fact that it is well tied is a possible indicator that it is not legitimate.

The vast majority of illegal usages (within the Civil War tax era, the check tax only period of the mid-1870s through 1880s, and the Spanish American War era) are manuscript cancels, which as a general rule are not tied. However, I do have several Spanish American War-era illegal usages that are handstamped, tying the stamps to the document. There are also other high-profile/high-scarcity illegal usages from the Civil War era that are handstamp canceled, and I've never heard it posited that they might be spurious based upon having a socked-on-the-nose handstamp.

Here is a higher resolution image including a closeup of the stamp.

The one thing I have not done is to try and find out if this cancel is appropriate for 1901, as opposed to a later one that someone used to "manufacture" the item.

Thoughts?

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page


Edited by revenuecollector - 12/24/2016 10:18 pm
Valued Member
United States
228 Posts
Posted 12/25/2016   08:31 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add 1typesetter to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
What would concern me is the upper left corner where it looks like a stamp may have been removed.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
165 Posts
Posted 12/25/2016   10:37 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rwoodennickel to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The 3 purple hand-stamps are of the same ink and date. So I would think it was not a forged cancellation. Perhaps the wrong tax amount was applied to the document, then removed for the correct rate.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Moderator
Learn More...
3134 Posts
Posted 12/25/2016   11:02 am  Show Profile Check 51studebaker's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add 51studebaker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
My opinion...
The adhesive causes pause. And the challenge with extraordinary items is that they need extraordinary provenance or evidence. A unique item is an item that needs to be verified beyond reproach. So I agree that further discovery needs to be done on the cancel type and usage period. Turning up another document from this period with the same cancel would be a strong indication that this is not faked. Without it, questions and speculation would always remain.
Don
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
898 Posts
Posted 12/25/2016   11:10 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add bookbndrbob to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
There appears to be 2 areas of concern: 1.) a stamp has been removed where a revenue stamp would typically appear, and 2.) the purple ink of the Wm. Hayden Milling Co. appears to be the same as the purple ink of the Lilley State Bank.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
2709 Posts
Posted 12/25/2016   1:59 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'm not sure exactly what the variance (or lack thereof) in the shade of purple cancel tells us. By the turn of the century (compared to the Civil War era material), there was far more consistency in color mixing, IMO.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page


Valued Member
Turkey
68 Posts
Posted 12/25/2016   2:46 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add mdroth to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The fact that the ink is the same for all 3 hand stamps is not odd at all. My guess - only a guess - is that all 3 hand-stamps were applied at the same time, at the same place (the bank!), from the same ink/stamp pad - likely by the same person.

I don't think the fact that the 'milling company' ink & the bank ink are the same tells us much in this case - other than they were probably done at the same time with the same ink.

The old stamp remnant is certainly the strangest aspect of this to me - I like the explanation that the wrong amount was initially applied. But I see nothing that would say that this is a 'forged' "illegal" use - (if there is such a thing?!)

Great find & a very interesting case. We need a turn-of-the-century local bank/hand-stamp expert from Michigan...

If someone knows the proper amount of 'tax' required on a $69.02 check in June 1901, that would also shed some additional light on the case...
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
276 Posts
Posted 12/25/2016   4:40 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add revenuermd to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The correct amount is 2. The tax was the same on all bank checks regardless of the amount of the check.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page


Ron Lesher
Pillar Of The Community
United States
3554 Posts
Posted 12/28/2016   08:57 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add revcollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
R156-R158 were also used in Michigan, in 1898. The obvious remains of another stamp makes this highly suspicious, by 1901 the tax was 3 years old and no one is likely to have not known the tax rate. Purple ink was in very common usage at the time, so matching it would probably have presented no real difficulty.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by revcollector - 12/28/2016 08:59 am
Valued Member
United States
165 Posts
Posted 12/28/2016   09:43 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rwoodennickel to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
While I have to agree that suspicious is accurate, why would someone leave remnants of another stamp if trying to create a philatelic curiosity? If one would go through the trouble of matching ink, obtaining a cancel device,then why not soak the stamp off? Maybe to spark debate in 2017. Still a great item to discuss, maybe another like usage will surface in the future.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
3554 Posts
Posted 12/28/2016   10:08 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add revcollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Who knows? Perhaps they didn't notice. But I have seen many dozens of altered stamps that are obvious in 5 seconds or less; remains of perfs, or remains of cancels, or some other obvious giveaway.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
2709 Posts
Posted 12/28/2016   10:19 am  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Barring a corroborating example (highly unlikely) or at the very least some sort of confirming or negating example of when that cancel was used, we'll likely never know for certain.

The person selling it was doing so for an animal rescue shelter benefit, so even if bogus the money went to a good cause. I won't be upsset if not legit. If nothing else, it's an interesting discussion piece.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page


Moderator
Learn More...
3134 Posts
Posted 12/28/2016   10:44 am  Show Profile Check 51studebaker's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add 51studebaker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The theory about not removing the previous stamp residue while faking the rest of the document makes sense. That said, are there any non-philatelic reason(s) that that someone might have added a stamp at a later date? Anyway to search to see if there was any kind of legal action related to this doc?
Don
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
United States Postal Service, Now on eBay!United States Postal Service, Now on eBay!
New Forum Topics Recently Active Forum Topics
  Help with IDing watermark on cut square
  A perfectly placed ink void
  Lovely Q3 parcel post on first flight cover
  Scott 89xx-2 precancel
  Trying to identify stamp Scott 441 versus 448
  Can't find in German Catalogue Type 61?
  R15c double transfer pages from COMPEX
  Estate Stamp Collection ???
  Is this a Stamp? Possibly Russian?
  Minor issue with an eBay lot description
  Lousy stamps' supplier, need a new one. Please advice
  Anyone have an illustration of the Relief/Transfer Roller of 1851 3c
  RJA21 versus RJA41 overprints
  Identifying stamps without any identifiers
  Swiss 1850 Poste Locale 2 1/2 Rp. Forgery?
  12 Stanley Steamer (Scott 2132) Type I and II differences
  Russian empire 1r with watermark
  Look at this one, how come no one other than me bid on it ?
  A facsimile of a facsimile?
  Scott 2115 tagging alternatives
  Help identify China stamp with printed denomination "$10" and serial number
  US Scott# 1468 what caused the unusual tagging?
  US Scott #1289 G.C. Marshall tagging on hi-brite paper?
  Can anyone help me with these Scott # 832'S
  Please help identify German? states.

  Scott 89xx-2 precancel
  PDF style Stamp Album Pages
  Show Us Your Beautiful Flowers on Stamps!
  Help with IDing watermark on cut square
  A perfectly placed ink void
  Lousy stamps' supplier, need a new one. Please advice
  Stamps on Stamps
  Please help identify German? states.
  Have a Heart: - Not just on Valentine's Day
  Lovely Q3 parcel post on first flight cover
  My starting precancel collection
  Regency Stamp Auctions in St. Louis
  Stamps with Coins?
  The Stamps of Australia : On Steiner Pages.
  German and Austrian perfins
  Steiner vs Philosateleian pages for used US collectors?
  Stamps On Television
  Automatic Supplements
  Can't find in German Catalogue Type 61?
  The Stamps of Jersey.
  Sabor of the Midland on cover?
  R15c double transfer pages from COMPEX
  Trying to identify stamp Scott 441 versus 448
  Minor issue with an eBay lot description
  What Did You Do Philatelically: Today or Recently?

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2017 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2014 Stamp Community Forums Go To Top Of Page
It took 0.81 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05