cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Question regarding a Franklin one cent stamp.

I have a lot of old postcards with stamps and I would like to know if these one cent stamps are of any value.  I would appreciate any help.  Sorry, the picture that is not great, I just snapped it with my phone.

 

IMG_3876.jpg

 

Thanks, Bits

Message 1 of 20
latest reply
19 REPLIES 19

Re: Question regarding a Franklin one cent stamp.

Er, because the lower cover was made up retrospectively, some years after the date, with a “borrowed” canceller, to satisfy collector demand for fdc’s?

Message 16 of 20
latest reply

Re: Question regarding a Franklin one cent stamp.

That's why questionable items should be submitted for a certificate if a bunch of money is changing hands, especially if the item is offered on eBay.

 

One must question why a high valued item would be offered on eBay when a regular auction house which handles high value items all the time would be a better venue for those items. Ever wonder why high end auction houses always offer specialized high value items with certificates? Rather than "as is, see scan". Or, offers replicas with Scott value for real stamp? Is a fake of a $3,000 stamp more valuable than a fake of a $250 stamp? So why do sellers on eBay descibe their auction lots with Scott values in listing their auctions of fakes?

Message 17 of 20
latest reply

Re: Question regarding a Franklin one cent stamp.

sayasan - Great answer!

 

Bern received razor canceler 4.01 on 10 October 1898. This is identified by counting the number of hachures [13 top, 14 below]. The device was the only Bern razor device available on 2 July 1900 (top), the first day of issue of the UPU series of stamps and postal cards.

 

The next Bern razor canceler, 4.02, was distributed for use on 10 September 1900 [with 8 hachures top and 8 bottom] (bottom). This item, canceled with the Bern 4.02 device, therefore, is not a legitimate FDC item. One can only assume a collector had a postal employee friend backdate this for his collection. The fact the clerk used the 4.02 razor device set to 2 July proves neither the clerk nor the collector had any idea this item was being canceled with a device that had not yet been manufactured! If the clerk had used any other of many cancelers available to Bern post office employees, we would have greater difficulty questioning its authenticity [see below]. This collector/employee collaboration was done before December 1901 when the 4.02 canceller was removed from service.

 

Another interesting fact is the first series of UPU stamps were line perforated, while a new printing of stamps issued after 12 July and September 9 were comb perforated. All the stamps on the false cover are stamps issued after 12 July, therefore, couldn't possible be first day uses. 

Message 18 of 20
latest reply

Re: Question regarding a Franklin one cent stamp.

Great detective work. I hazarded my guess because the same sort of thing plagues Japanese Occupation of Burma material. After the defeat of the Japanese the genuine cancellers were pretty much rented out at the GPO to whoever wanted to backdate reprints on made-up covers etc. Handwriting, or the suspiciously clean look of the cover, is also an indicator. Hard to prove, without the kind of tell-tale signs on your example.

 

I’ve seen such retrospective items, unidentified, in gold medal exhibits. On the general point, some certificates are better than others, though no expertising committee is infallible. Some I respect entirely. Other certs I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole, as we say in the UK. Though that doesn’t help the discussion here!

Message 19 of 20
latest reply

Re: Question regarding a Franklin one cent stamp.

Handwriting, keep in mind if written in ink, ball point pens did not come into general use until later part of 1946!

Message 20 of 20
latest reply