Double Transfer And Stitch Watermark On Doi Official Stamps

Found a Stanley B Ashbrook signature and description. Looks the same. Most definitely.

http://www.philamercury.com/covers.php?id=10248

http://www.philamercury.com/viewcov...=10248&num=2

Thanks for link redwood. Definitely looks the same!!

rg, If you were able to set aside your irrational prejudice against ebay and happened onto the listings of some Sinclair guy, you would have seen a couple items over the last year or so with SBA graffiti all over it, including the much ballyhooed Ashbrook signature.

LOL...

I do occasionally bid on eBay. I get outbid usually at last second on stuff so only won perhaps 4 philatelic things in last year or two. (One of which was Nienken book last year)

Regardless I feel my stamp education level has moved up two notches over last year or two so perhaps I will start feeling more comfortable on eBay. I will look you up

Rg

This is one of the items that "Sinclair guy" sold to me through
eBay. It is signed by Ashbrook. It also says "illegal use of old
stamps" on it. I am not even sure what that means, but I did like
the cover.

Thank you Winston!

Because of the civil war, all stamps issued up until 1861 were declared invalid for postage May 1861. Effective July 1, 1861. (Nov 1st for states of California and Oregon and the territories of New Mexico, Utah and Washington.

While I have your attention, (non Ebay list)

Schuyler Rumsey has this described (no cert with it) as a Scott #23, type IV in upcoming "Gems of Philately" auction. Has Big crack/flaw from plate 2. Isn't this a Scott #20?, not a #23?

I am sure that it is just a typo on their part. It is described as position 2L2 which means it could not be a type IV which only come from plate one late. If you changed the "IV" to "II" the description would be correct.

I agree its a mistake, but the stamp is placed in lot order by Scott #, and it is labelled as a Scott 23 with higher estimate ($1100) than perhaps it should have. They list it as a "23var".. "ONE OF THE FINEST EXAMPLES OF THE 1857 1c TYPE IV SHOWING BIG CRACK..."

Just throwing it out in deference to Sinclair that maybe I will convert gradually over to eBay searching for my needed 1851s +, 1857s, other used US 19th century, etc., as major auction houses seem to make mistakes as well (but not as often as eBay sellers). As I educate myself more, I think eBay will become more of a place to search.

The new stamps did not start appearing until mid-August, until then the old stamps were valid for postage. The old stamps were essentially demonetized on a town by town basis as they were supplied with the new stamps. I am not sure when that actually occured at the Palmer, MA post office. It is possible that the 1c 1857 stamps were legally used on October 10, 1861.

ok, I see it on the #20 and think I see it at the far right od the 159, but where is it supposed to be on the O97?

And why was it delisted from Scott?

"the stamp is placed in lot order by Scott #"

the catalog software sorts by Scott number (after the numbering mistake was made).

The watermark on the #O97 is slightly right of center. Sorry I am not picturing it very well.

Stitch watermarks should probably get the same treatment as freaks and oddities and not have a spot in the Scott catalogue.