Highly Doubtful Illegal Revenue Use.

Could this be remotely possible? A March 31, 1974 use of an 1862-71 10 cent Inland Exchange revenue.



Because I have more points below in favor of genuine use does not mean I personally favor that.

In favor of a genuine illegal use:
1. I think (but am not sure) that ten cents was the correct first class postage for the date.
2. It is a definitive size stamp and blue was the color of the newly issued Scott #1510 for the period.
3. It is tied to the cover.
4. A person who knows nothing about revenue stamps could have found an old revenue and put it on the cover.
5. Other modern use of stickers or other non postage stamps were applied to covers, processed by automated equipment and delivered to addressees.

Not in favor of a genuine illegal use:
A. It was a 100 year old stamp at the time. (This is really a weak argument considering point 4 above.)
B. The tied cancel is questionable. (Or is this possibly a carrier applied cancel?)
C. Unfortunately the cover obviously went through the canceling equipment upside down or my original question would be unneeded.

I think it was just a "novelty" to "see what would happen." But Alex Damo may still be around; track him down and ask him LOL LOL. Also, the stamp appears to have had a pen and ink cancel before it was put on the letter. The machine cancel is in the "wrong" corner because it didn't find any tagging, then a clerk cancelled it by hand.

"Alex E Damo

Sponsored:
Criminal History
Contact Details
Address History
Criminal Check

68 years old from Bay Shore, New York, United States"

[from www.peoplesmart.com]

Oh, and I just noticed, postmarked the day before April Fools Day!

I'd go along with Option #4 recited above. It could have simply been a legitimate mistake.

I support that theory based on the shaky handwriting. My guess is that it was mailed by someone who was rather elderly at the time, so they could have simply mistook a stamp they found in a desk drawer with a legitimate postage stamp. After all, very few non-collectors would stop to look at the differences a revenue stamp would have as compared to a regular postage stamp. Further, the denomination was for 10 cents, the going first class postage rate at the time.

After all of the above is taken into consideration, plus the fact that it is just not worth the time and effort for the USPS to pursue single pieces of mail with short-changed postage such as in this example, they probably just let it go through.

wt1, that is the option I considered as most probable. It seems to me that at best the cover would be a novelty item, being that it is a 100 year late use of the stamp.

Nope, an April Fools' Day joke between two old philatelic buddies. Betcha!

It's clearly a fake, the stamp does not originate on this cover. It has a "herringbone" cut cancel from it's original use, and the cancel that "ties" the stamp is a fake.

Now I am inclined to believe doug's explanation is the most probable cause. Herringbone cancel or not, an April Fool's joke is looking good.

Fake. Even if it were not, it still would not be worth much of a premium, if any at all, as it is so far out of period. It would be considered philatelic/contrived. Unless it is used within the era that the stamps were actually used, the usages are not actively sought after.