Illegal Use Of A Precancel?

Or did the sender perhaps have special permission.

What makes you think this was a illegal usage?

Stamp precancel and town of mailing match.

Hello Parcelpostguy.
A precanceled stamp is just that: a stamp that already has a cancel applied to it.
We are not able to reuse a stamp just because it was postmarked in the same location we are sending it from. That would defeat the purpose of ever needing to buy new postage stamps.

I've used many word combinations to try and find out more: "postally used precancel", "postmarked precancel" etc. etc., but I always end up getting very general information about precancels or postmarks. It obviously doesn't know what I'm asking for, and I don't know how to phrase the question for it to understand.

The closest thing I could find was about the "illegal use of precancels", and saw on these threads that sometimes special permission can be obtained that allows one to postally use a stamp that has been precanceled.

Anyway, there is probably a legitimate reason why it occurred here, but it seems too niche a topic for me to be able to search for accurately. Any direction would be much appreciated.

For the record, the sender, William Wyer, was a significant philatelist in his day. His collections were sold at auction around 1977.

Mr. Wyer likely had a mailer's permit that allowed him to use precanceled stamps for his correspondence, just like you still can today if you want. From Google, "A precancel mailers permit allows businesses to use precanceled stamps for commercial mailings. You can apply for a permit by filling out PS Form 3615 and submitting it to your local post office."

Your cover has numerous interesting aspects including an inverted precancel and a non-standard postal cancellation, which, may have actually been created and applied by Mr. Wyer himself. I don't think the law says that precanceled stamps cannot be additionally cancelled by the sender before mailing. I mean, they are already cancelled, right?

There is nothing illegal about your cover. Those much deeper into precancels will be able to cite the regulations for being 1st class rates, likely sent in quantity. Your cover is typical of many from the mid 1920s onward. The Multipost Company of Rochester NY was the major player in this arena. Note this cover from them:


All these covers have *privately applied* cancels onto a precancel, including another from Mr Wyer.



The Multipost story has been written up by Reg Morris, Robert J. Payne, and Timothy B. Holmes "The Multipost Company: History, Machines, and Markings" published by the Machine Cancel Society in 1997. I suspect many of these cancel devices were supplied by other companies as well.

*Mailer's permit*, *privately applied cancels*, and the *Multipost company* are keywords I needed to open up a whole new niche I've never heard about. It's very fascinating! And I really like those covers, John Becker. Until now, I have only seen covers where a precancel is applied without a postmark, like the following:




I am glad to learn about *privately applied* cancels on top of precancels, and glad to read Ken Lawrence stating "not many collectors even know about them", otherwise I would have thought I was going crazy because even in my stint of precancel collecting I have not come across this information before.

I truly respect your kind words and also your enthusiasm for the hobby! For something that the inexperienced might consider an average-looking cover, you were able to pull some interesting information from! I appreciate that.

Solomons,

The difference is the class.

Your last two covers are sent as bulk mailings, that is a 3rd class category NOT generally having any dating, thus the precancel serves its normal purpose the way most of us think about using precancels - not needing any additional markings except perhaps the Postal Laws and Regulations (PL&R) section number.

Versus all the previous covers sent as 1st class mail requiring a dated marking.

Ah yes, you reply also jogged my memory that Ken Lawrence had an article in the back of Beecher & Wawrukiewicz's "U.S. Domestic Postal Rates, 1872-1999" book on these. He cites the original ruling found in Postal Bulletin #13540 dated August 7, 1924, which specifically notes the private postmark in subsection (a):



Add: here is a cover and explanatory letter for a use where precancels should have been used but were not available:

I got it! The difference of class is very clear to me now, and it's summed up perfectly in your short post. You are a good teacher. I will certainly remember the date August 7th, 1924, because it's my new goal to obtain privately applied cancels that are close to this date



That is incredibly neat! So this means that in order to obtain a licence, the post office must have kept records of the cancels that could only be used for precancels.

This is also probably why companies/individuals with permits could only mail these items from post offices designated by the Department, because those offices were probably the only ones holding said documentation.

Thank you. I try to let the philatelic items do the talking, whether stamps, covers, or literature references.

There is no doubt the majority of the earlier ones will be business mail, which were delivered to the PO already faced and cancelled, sped them to the next sorting stage ahead of the rest of the mails.

Add: for a starting point for an early use, here is January 24, 1927: