Posted 10 years ago
CardinalLady
(66 items)
This stamp has one spot, but no cancel mark that I could find. It belonged to my mother and found in her Bible. I have looked online and have not been able to find he year it was made. Anyone out there familiar with older stamps? Thanks!
First issued 1903 (KM#319) - issued again imperforate 1906 (KM#320) - someone initialed "imp." so I would assume it is the 1906 issue
It is perforated, so I would think the earlier issue.
scott
Imperforated stamps were issued but all copies were privately perforated with slightly larger oblong perforations at the sides.
Thank you agh and Scott! It is so nice to learn about things you find. Everything has value if it belonged to someone you love!
This actually has a little more value than 2¢ - depending on which variation
Did you write "imp." next to it or is that how you found it? - It does appear the "spot" you refer to is in fact what is called a "light cancel" mark. The 1903 one is 6.00 unused at 25¢ used and the 1906 one is 16.00 unused and 17.50 used. So the "imp." really does mean something in values and so does the "light cancel"
Thanks agh and Valentino - you give me much to think about!
Repeat from comment 5 - Did you write "imp." next to it or is that how you found it?
This example is a standard perforated example.
The imperforate type were cut apart by the end user.
scott
Comment #3 - "Imperforated stamps were issued but all copies were privately perforated with slightly larger oblong perforations at the sides." - KM320d is a Schermack type III - The Schermack Type III perforations were developed by the Schermack Mailing Machine Company before it became the Mailometer Company by acquisition. The Schermack Company of Detroit, Michigan has provided us with the most famous privately perforated coil, the Schermack Type III, and, of course two of the great rarities of 20th century U.S. philately are found only with the Type III perforations.
Here are 48 examples of imperforated stamps (Scott 320):
http://arago.si.edu/index.asp?con=2&cmd=1&fid=2035538&id=189991&img=1&pg=1
I don't see any with "slightly larger oblong perforations at the sides".
Suspect you are talking a variant example-- 320d??
scott
Yes there are five different variations of the 1906 issue stamp;
#320 - color "carmine" type I printing
#320a - color "lake" type II printing
#320b - color "scarlet" type I printing
#320c - color "carmine-rose" type I printing
#320d - color "carmine" type II printing
All the above "colors" are variations of what any normal person would just refer to as "red" and all the above variations were issued as "imperforate" - only the 320d has it noted that ALL of copies were then privately perforated using the Schermack Mailing Machine. - If the poster would just answer the question posed in comment 5 and then repeated in comment 8, it would certainly clear up the matter. The "type I" and "type II" refer to the actual printing of the leaf part of the image which unfortunately is obscured in the picture posted above by the smudge on the stamp.
Not sure I understand where you are going.
What relevence is an unusual perforation when the stamp clearly has standard perforations?
Can we not conclude that this is a perforated example?? The notation in ink doesn't change what is visible in the actual stamp.
scott
It is not an unusual perforation - the point I'm trying to make is that you say just because it has perforations, it was not originally issued "imperforate" - The ink marking certainly matters because if the person who put the stamp away 100 years ago is the same person that made the 'Imp." notation, it would mean that person was a collector and knew the stamp was perforated by the machine, probably in his/her presence so he or she noted it as such. -- The value of my time spent on this ridiculous item now far exceeds the difference in value of the stamp.
The stamp has STANDARD perforations!
If it was originally imperforate-- it is NOT relevent since it was perforated in the standard manner, MAKING IT a perforated stamp.
It is a HUGE stretch to believe that a ball point pen notation would somehow turn this into an imperforate example. All the "if"s: noted 100 years ago (unlikely with a ball point), perforated in their presence (??)... don't change WHAT the stamp is!
It is far more likely that a new/ unknowing collector put the notation.
No matter, as a matter of FACT the stamp is perforated and will always be treated as such.
Interesting conversations on a stamp made in the billions and worth less than a quarter!
scott
Thanks to all of you for the "wonderful discussion."! Sorry I did not respond about the handwriting (I apologize agh), which is not 100 years old! It is my writing about 40 years ago because my departed Mother thought then that this stamp was important - she would not have had substantial reason to think so - no internet or research - just a thought that she had it for a very long time. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and feel free to keep talking!!!!