What Would You Do?

Here's a pic of an item that was sold to me as a 182 strip of three, and despite the perf problems I was really looking forward to getting it.





Alas, I will not be keeping it.

Why do you think I wanted it and why do you think I won't keep it?
What would you do?

Because the cancel says 1878 and the American Banknote Co. didn't make them until 1879. It wasn't until 1879, the ABNC acquired the CBNC. using the CBNC plates on soft porous paper. Am I close?

If everything stated to you is correct about the strip...
Looks like ILS is correct...

I am not expert in the detail of US stamps, but according to Scott's Specialized the ABNC soft paper was similar to the soft paper used by CBNC; also that used stamps cancel dated prior to Feb 4, 1879 should be considered to be a Continental Bank Note printing. Scott also mentions the CNBC plates' secret mark of 1873, of which traces remained until the plates wore down: and which were visible on some pairs and multiples. Would this apply here? Or am I mis-reading something? Perhaps some of you can enlighten me. It is the sort of item I would like to have too, despite the problems. I would keep it.

Terry

Did the type of font for the letters in the postmark exist during this time or were they made some time later like Helvetica font? Anything to also do with the postmark on top or under the left star?

Sans serif typefaces like that used in the CDS were in use in the US in 1878. Frajola has some examples specific to that year showing on US mail covers from 1878. I believe William Caslon introduced the first sans serif face in 1816 and this quickly became popular in both Europe and the USA.

Terry

That cancel color seems peculiar for that time.

Doug

Your strip of three was once a connected strip, but now has been repaired to look like one?

@Kevin450 et al

If everything about this item had been as described, it would have moved up by over 6 months the EKU for US #182. So Terry was on the right track. But since that might leave some of you with a question mark, let me explain briefly.

Everyone knows that CBNCo used "hard" rag paper for the stamps they produced. The stamps in this group are known as "imprint captures" and as you can see each has a part of the imprint from the Continental Bank Note Company (CBNCo). However, all of these stamps are printed on "soft" wood pulp paper, which is supposed to be specific to the American Bank Note Company (ABNCo). So the usual explanation for that is that when American took over the printing, they continued to use the Continental plates for a while, even though they "switched" to soft paper.




Well that's not quite what happened. Here's the truth.

The CBNCo merged with ABNCo on February 4, 1879. Here is a pair of stamps dated to the evening of the very day of the merger, which I found in a mish-mosh of stuff I picked up in the early 1970s.



It looks like heck and I was all set to soak it when I noticed that these stamps are on soft paper, American paper. That meant that there was no way that all forms of soft paper began with the ABNCo. Continental must have been using a soft paper late in their tenure of the contract.

Today, Continental soft paper is called "intermediate" paper, and it is being studied for its particular characteristics as part of the paper study project the USPCS is supporting.

Until we know how to determine intermediate paper analytically, the only sure way to spot it is with a dated cancellation, on or off cover.

Here is a cover with a soft paper three cent dated to November of 1878, almost three months before the day of the merger.




It's a pretty little cover, but there's a problem. The stamp is not tied. Prove it was original to the envelope. Cancellation ink and known fancy cancel types help build a case, but it's not solid.

Here's a better candidate, sort of. It bears two soft paper three cents.



In this case the original cancellation was a poor strike of an August 9 cancellation, but in a rather distinctive ink. The left stamp is just barely tied by that cancel, which shows no year date. Not satisfied with the cancellation job the stamps were hit again in black, which ties the two together. So both stamps are tied to the cover.

As you can see from the inset, the reverse bears a receiving mark which is dated August 13, 1878. So this usage is almost 6 months before merger.

If this strip had been on soft paper as described, it would have been my first example of intermediate paper for the 1c, which presently is only verifiable to one month before the merger. So I was really hoping this would change things.

But this strip is on hard paper.

It has some bum perfs, and the duplex cancel is colorful but incomplete for both stars. I paid about $25 for the strip.
Still think I should keep it?

What was the typical lead time between the printing companies having a production run of stamps and then getting them into the field for sale?

Edit;
Is it possible that inventory could sit on shelf (at either a printer's facility, in PO distribution, or even sit unused at the bottom of a drawer at a PO window) while fresher stock could be used before it? Was printed inventory transferred from one company to the other during the merger? If so, did this happen the actual day of the merger or over some period of time?

That's fascinating information and right up my alley. I love this stuff!

essayk.....you tried to trick us.

Hi essayk,

I like it. And yes, I would keep it.

Terry

essayk is this true for all the issues? I know that this one a bit more obvious but here is a snippet from U.S.P.C.S. -
http://www.uspcs.org/the-1870-93-is...ote-company/

Actually I believe I answered my own question - to a point.

This may be a very interesting area of study. I love the 6¢ pink/rose Lincolns from this era and I been looking for one on cover (which is like finding hen's teeth for me anyway) so I'll be on the lookout for issues that are in that interim stage of all these Continental/American Banknote Companies printings.

This particular read really struck my interest.
From USPCS wabpage:
http://www.uspcs.org/the-1870-93-is...ote-company/

Cautionary note here: there is an error in the USPCS write-up. The next item they illustrate after this 186, with a very brief note after it, is the soft paper special printing of this stamp. It would appear that the final sentence intended for that stamp got transposed here. Let me assure you that there are far more than 26 copies of Scott 186 floating around.

As for usage prior to the date of merger, Scott's US Specialized lists April 18, 1879 as the earliest known usage (not July 1). This is well after the date of the merger, so despite soft paper Continental imprint captures the proof that Continental did a batch of these prior to merger is lacking. We should also point out that the fact of the merger does not necessarily mean that all the assets of the Continental facility in New York ceased to function immediately. Whatever paper stock they had was still available for production purposes, and apparently was used. As were their machines and personnel.