Government "Re-Use Paranoia" And Other Word Pictures

Since Revenue Stamps came under the purview of a completely different department of government (Treasury) than postage stamps (Post Office) it is well for us to consider the motivations and actions of the government separately, despite the fact that for a great many proposals the inventors specified postage and/or revenue. Revenue stamps could have very high face values, and were commonly cancelled with simple ink from a pen, so both the potential for losses and the fears for their cleaning and reuse were understandably greater than for the comparatively humble postage stamps that could be cancelled with pen and ink, but more often received something stronger.

For the early days of postage stamps, the greater concern initially was a bit of carryover from a problem that had bedeviled the bank note production companies all the way back to the beginning of paper currency; i.e. counterfeiting. Special papers, inks, and printing methods had been developed and continued to be developed to make the illicit private printing of bank and government securities as difficult as possible. Our appreciation of efforts for re-use prevention must be understood against that early backdrop, so that we can appreciate ALL the forces in operation to make it happen. The background story to the Wilcox Chameleon paper, and how that got extended into the realm of postage stamps will serve as a good example, when it is fully told. So also the history of the grill.

But getting back to the so-called uber-paranoia of the government, let us not be naïve in our understanding of what constitutes official concern in the face of apparent public fear. The fact that newspapers might print a report from time to time about the horrors of stamp cleaning may well be a better reflection of what it takes to sell newspapers, or how the newspapers wanted to strengthen their hands as influencers of public opinion and government policy, than of any real concern over how dreadful the fiscal losses of the Post Office Department might actually have been. The apparent angst of a reporter may or may not have a counterpart in the heart of the officials who actually would do something about it, or not.

I would say that I am utterly & completely unqualified to speak to that question.

That will not, of course, stop me from offering a few cogent observations.

The array of articles I cited included more busts for revenue & documentary stamp fraud than for postage stamp fraud.

But that may be because it was easier to track down & bust the sources of counterfeit or renewed documentary and revenue stamps.

Forged or renewed documentary stamps were the original 'forever' stamps, staying on their documents. Therefor, any investigation could begin with simply rummaging through the files of a cooperating court, property records office, etc. And you always knew who submitted that document with that stamp.

Revenue stamps on products were a little trickier, but the point at which they were applied to the product was also easily determined.

But stamp-washing would & could be a more widespread, small-scale, home-grown activity. (During Prohibition, GrandPa was making raisin wine in his bathtub.) Similarly, there were a (relatively) infinite number of places where 'renewed' postage stamps could enter the postal stream and, having done their duty, be tossed with the trash.

If I were the POD, I would see chasing-down washed postage stamps as the world's worst game of whack-a-mole, with little to ever show for it.

Therefor, as stamp-washing was widely & publicly discussed only ~10 years after the US POD began selling postage stamps nationwide, it would hardly be surprising to see the US POD invest some effort in 'permantizing' their cancellations.




Fair enough, essayk, but I do not think that you should underestimate the importance of civic virtue, especially as the early 1860s were a time of draft riots, widespread draft-dodging, war profiteering, and, oh yeah, the theft of labor thru slavery.

Later decades saw broad public arguments on what to do with the 'Indians', the railroad trusts, soft-vs-hard currency, etc.

Bill Bryson's new book on the Summer of 1927 offers a fantastic & tactile picture of Prohibition, another morality play that, well, played-out in the public discourse.

Surely, we who live today with 'national conversations' about abortion (etc) can appreciate that, if stamp washing got onto the public radar screen, it did so against considerable competition.

It may not have made sense in terms of dollars & sense - Barbara Tuchman's "The March Of Folly" discusses how little impact dollars & sense had in the British decision to stick by the tea tax, and crack down on The Colonists - but as a morality play, yes, it would have sold newspapers, but precisely because, yes, it mattered as a matter of public morality.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Just as a point of information, stamps were not washed during prohibition. Counterfeited, yes, but there was no real need to wash genuine ones. Bonded alcohol revenues usually had printed cancels, which were also faked. These were the big time bootleggers of course, the small home made stuff probably didn't need any stamps, it was an underground activity that was sold very locally to friends and neighbors. The real stamps could not be effectively washed in any case. Stamp washing was really always for documentary usages.

I could remember if this link was in there but it does a nice job of showing some of the ideas proposed for protecting stamp usage.
http://www.theswedishtiger.com/tamper.html

Thank you for the image @Essayk! That wasn't the one I was thinking of but much better. The one I was thinking of was a scan of an old periodical of some thype that was discussing this whole issue and in B&W. Thanks again! @Russ I'm looking forward to it!

I revisited this topic today because of something I read in the "American Stamp Mercury".

Dated Nov 25, 1867 (Volume I, No.2) is the following paragraph:




What I found interesting is that this article was (presumably) written, then published, one day prior-to the report written on Nov 26 by the Postmaster General




It may amount nothing at all, but why did a stamp dealer in Boston write about the actions of the POD prior to an official announcement? How could he have possibly known?

Brian

I'm not at all sure this is the last word on the subject, since the reference is dated 1898, but this may help answer your question:



If you wish to read more than just the above excerpt, the reference is found at this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yj...1867&f=false

Has anyone seen or heard of an experimentals used on banknote postage dues?

For what purpose on Postage Dues? They had no franking power, were not sold to the public, only served to increase the cost to consumer for a piece of mail - no matter how you slice it there was no reason to counterfeit or attempt to reuse a postage due stamp.

Have you seen something?

Welcome to the list BTW, rporter314!