Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
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!

Classic US Meters

Previous Page | Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 53 / Views: 9,462Next Topic
Page: of 4
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1373 Posts
Posted 07/11/2013   9:35 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Trainwreck to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
That air mail meter is nice.

The 1994 edition of the United States Postage Meter Stamp Catalog identifies that meter as CA3b. It was produced by three meters: 5660, 6003 and 7390. The rarity factor is R (rare). The catalog value on cover is $15.00.

Robert
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 07/11/2013   10:18 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Here's a previous link to a discussion on early postage meters in an array of different colors. Toward the bottom of the page is information including the CA3b Air Mail Meter and a brief history of the company:

http://goscf.com/t/18756
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
521 Posts
Posted 07/11/2013   10:49 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Zuzu to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Does that air mail meter say 1829??
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 07/11/2013   10:59 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Does that air mail meter say 1829??


Obviously, the meter would have to read "1929", so the appearance of "1829" must be due to overinking or some other anomaly. However, here's a blow up enhancement of the corner and, yes, it does look like "1829"!

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by wt1 - 07/11/2013 10:59 pm
Pillar Of The Community
United States
620 Posts
Posted 07/11/2013   11:51 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add pjsstamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I didn't even notice the "8". Someone made a mistake setting the date on the meter. It was classified as rare back in 1959 also. I know I didn't pay $15.00 for it. Thanks for all the great info.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
521 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   09:12 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Zuzu to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The "8" looks a bit odd to me... a bit bolder than the other numbers and somewhat out of place. I suppose, though, if someone set the meter incorrectly, a number that wasn't normally used might show up like that.

In any event, I really like it!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
620 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   10:23 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add pjsstamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
It is common for variations in the impression of the old meters. Just look at how light the "A" is in postage compared to the rest.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
6270 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   10:44 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add stallzer to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
The "8" looks a bit odd to me


I concur, it appears as if there might be some Tom foolery involved here. The 8 is the only digit / letter with the bold ink so how could only one number get over inked ?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
5880 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   10:50 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add smauggie to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I detect some Philatelic Phoolery.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
APS Member #: 222539 AAPE, Maplewood Stamp Club (MN), Northern Philatelic Society, US Philatelic Classics Society, Auxiliary Markings Club, Canal Zone Study Group, Minnesota Postal History Society
Pillar Of The Community
United States
620 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   11:46 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add pjsstamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Antonio,
I will bring it to the next meeting. I don't detect any alteration. A lot of the letters are heavily inked as well. I put it under that microscope thingy of mine at 120x and it all looks good. I think it is just plain someone set the wrong number on the dial. I can scan it with higher definition and I think it will show better. I scanned at low resolution to post the entire cover here. The meter impression looks much better and more uniform in person than in my scan.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
5880 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   11:53 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add smauggie to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
pjsstamps - I don not mean that the cover was fooled with, but I agree as you surmised earlier that someone put the wrong number in for the year in the CDS of the meter. I am just thinking that it was done as a philatelic joke rather than as purely a mistake.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
APS Member #: 222539 AAPE, Maplewood Stamp Club (MN), Northern Philatelic Society, US Philatelic Classics Society, Auxiliary Markings Club, Canal Zone Study Group, Minnesota Postal History Society
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   12:32 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Does anyone know if the postage meter type shown with the questionable date had the ability to change the second digit? One would think that the first two digits as in "19" would be fixed in the machine and only the last two digits would be changeable, especially on those early machines.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
521 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   2:39 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Zuzu to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I have no idea about your question, wt1, but I did have a different thought. Could the second digit have been "masked off" so that it would not be imprinted? If so, could someone have then used a hand stamp or something to add the 8 after the fact?

Or am I thinking too much about this?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 07/12/2013   5:08 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I may be reading way too much into this also, but given the squared off look of the digits in the year, the second digit in "1929" looks as if it could be an inverted "2" imprinted over a "9". I don't know if there was anyway that anomaly could have happened accidentally or if it was deliberate. But then again, I could be entirely wrong on all counts.

This long after the fact, one may never know, unless of course we can identify other covers with similar imprints.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
620 Posts
Posted 07/13/2013   06:39 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add pjsstamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Smauggie, 30 years ago when I was in the corporate world, I worked at a place where we had a Pitney Bowes machine. There was a guy at the office who will remain nameless,(Roy), that used to mess with the date on the machine all the time just for fun. I would tell him he could not do that, but he thought I was just a crazy worry wart. We would get stuff back that the post office refused to deliver, but most of it went through. I have no idea if you could do that with the earlier stuff. This was in the 80's and early 90's.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous TopicReplies: 53 / Views: 9,462Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
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 - 2021 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 - 2021 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.34 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05