Follow-up. I asked Richard Friedberg whether he had seen any Pan Americans illegally used as revenues. His reply:
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:
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.
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.