First Right Side Up Jenny Souvenir Sheet Auction For $45,000

Actually, the auctioned amount is $45,000, but with 15% buyer's premium the sale was $51,750 and was just completed today (06/26/2014) by Siegel. Still quite a sum for one of 100 of the intentionally made souvenir sheets and it even exceeded Siegel's pre-sale estimate, too:

http://linns.com/news/breaking-stam...d-in-45-days

Was the floor bidder wearing a white coat that ties around the back? Was the medical staff ready to take him back to the padded cell?

An artificially created "error" (crap is a good word to insert here) brought significantly more than most of the other items in the sale, all of which had legitimate philatelic or historical validity. Truly a sad day for the hobby.

I agree with you in that there are many worthy philatelic items out there that are ignored or not given their philatelic due.

I agree. I don't think an auction price such as this will continue over the long term, especially as more "right side up" souvenir sheets reach the market. But for now, it's the first specimen to reach auction, so I guess that distinction is worth that premium (to someone, not me!)

It would be interesting to see a close up of the specimen presented at auction to see just how perfect it is or if it contains the same printing anomalies and/or poor centering issues that have plagued the upside down Jenny reprints.

Well, maybe it's time for me to take another shot at the USPS scratch ticket lotto.

What the USPS did is nothing short of abominable. To deliberately make a rarity that is beyond the means of the ordinary collector is bordering on the criminal. But it is not the first time and won't be the last.

The floor bidder was probably an agent anyway, the actual collector was almost certainly not on the floor bidding. Although for a Rarity Sale there might have been a few more than the usual 4 or 5 people on the floor.

http://www.siegelauctions.com/zoom/...075/1183.jpg
Siegels Image magnifier of the SS.

I cropped the first two stamps from the auctioned Right Side Up Jenny. Centering doesn't look too bad, but the blue and red migration is still not up to expectation. Furthermore, the red color is slightly smeared near the UL corner date.



IMO, not worth the auction price ... but then again, I wouldn't pay the price for a lot of the world's rarities (even if I could afford them) ... so to each their own, I suppose.

Okay, I'm missing something here: The USPS issued a $2 value 'Inverted Jenny' to try and attract new collectors for revenue purposes. As a further MARKETING endeavor, they produced very limited VARIETY (which Scott refuses to recognize as such, because it was 'on purpose') for the same value (not premium). Collectors have become upset with this 'capitalistic marketing ploy' and lambast the USPS at every turn. The printing is not the highest quality granted but it is what it is and for many reasons. Those that can afford to play the game have done so in attempts to acquire a sheet of upright jenny's. Now there are two tales of the commercial sale one a flop, one successful. The USPS did not set the market, the BUYER set the market. The USPS receives $12 per sheet. What's the issue? Those of us that are not purist probably have collections of no value because the collection has faults. It is what it is. In fact Scott is incorrect in not assigning at least a variety notation (because that is what it is a VARIETY)) The Wild West issue is an issued error allowed to go on sale by lottery. The only difference in the Jenny variety issue is that the lottery is 'luck of the draw'. Get over it, get real. It was an ingenious marketing strategy for revenue generation. I bit, may bite again. As I end this (sort of ) rant, I think the variety sheet should remain intact not sold as individual stamp units.

I don't think it was "an ingenious marketing strategy". Instead, it put the USPS into a category of not being up front with its clientele (the stamp collector ... and even the US population that uses the US Mail as a whole). There still is a rule on the books that suggests that the USPS must not intentionally create an "error", but they circumvented that rule in this case.

Remember the Dag Hammarskjold case back in the 1960s, when the error was found (created accidentally) and then when the first errors were announced, the USPS intentionally created more of the errors so that the initial ones were rendered virtually valueless? Same thing with the Wild West Issue. The error was unintentional at first, but when it was publicized, the USPS created extras and sold them by lottery.

In the case of the Jenny SS, it was INTENTIONALLY CREATED by the USPS (not accidental) and as such it is viewed by many collectors not as a means to "create excitement" for stamp collecting, but rather as a quick way to create revenue from the general public in buying stamps at an overpriced denomination that really wasn't needed at the time of issue.

Anyone can choose to play the "game" (lottery), which simply serves to justify what the USPS did, but stamp collecting purists will always consider these an intentional marketing scheme just to pull in more revenue.

okay.. now I know I am missing something.. Wt1.. I think you just validated my statement.. The USPS was only trying to raise revenues.. how collectors saw this was their interpretation. They (USPS) didn't create a mistake.. they created a variety ..the 2-issues depict exactly the original situation of a right side up in many normal issued sheets and a limited 'printed error' only in reverse. The Dag Hammarskjold was done in a lame brain attempt to limit a crazy market for the error. The Wild West was not done from additional errors made, but from existing stock of 150,000 sheets already produced with the incorrect portrait but offered to the collecting universe at face costs in a (supposed) first come, limited quantity purchase lottery. (I was lucky to get one for the $8+). The remaining error sheets were destroyed. Everything the USPS does is a marketing scheme to pull in revenues. They limit press sheets perf & imper. They reduce print runs or extend print runs or re-issue. They remove items from sale & destroy issues no longer considered marketable or being replaced for seasonal purposes, (or other), the USPS has subscription services for stamp issues in several collecting formats (which Scott's catalos and places values on). The USPS does not play in the collectors market, they play to it. Collectors choose to purchase those issues that interest them. The general public does the same. The USPS provides a service for which collectors willingly (sometime grudgingly) pay more to collect their tokens, some good, some better, some which should never have been but are, and we still acquire them. Purists are part of the market universe. They should not dictate as to how the market is supplied, as that would then be a closed market, elitist and possibly then only serving the .1% not the 99.9%. Scott's (& purists) thinking that the USPS 'created a mistake' is just not true. They said that they were issuing a replica of the Jenny invert & then said that there was a limited supply of Jenny up-rights. Face value $12 a sheet. some lucky purchasers will receive an up-right . How they fare monetarily will be the markets play. Scott can put the Jenny in it's catalog with a variety notation and price it according to auction, ebay, one to one sale singles, sheet blocks. It is out there. It is collectable, and it most certainly today has significant value over face (which will change in the future) as the collectable market plays it out. (now if one were to find a sheet of Jenny Inverts with a row (or single) Jenny up-right) that would be an error).

Isn't "intentionally created error" somewhat of an oxymoron like "military intelligence", "benevolent despot", "deafening silence", "smart bomb"; and, a classic I saw at a Staples: "erasable permanent markers" ?

I do wonder whether they actually raised any "significant revenues" over and above what they would have sold anyway; I know several members of the philatelic world who did not buy even one sheet. Including myself.

let us not forget that the USPS is a quasi-governmental agency. Ox & moron go well with some of their management decisions. Also, 'significant revenues' are relative. Purchasing a sheet of any issue (or a single) provides more revenue if the unit is not used for the service prescribed. Not pure profit but certainly more than that if a mail piece is put into the stream for processing & delivery. The USPS is not in the 'collecting market' but at times plays to it in the hopes of garnishing greater revenues per unit. The US Mint caters to the collecting venues, the Bradford Exchange plays to the collector venues, Mystic plays to the collector venue, etc., while the USPS provides a universal service that provides for a specific collector venue (with all the sub-categories) opportunities to acquire collectable items at 'reasonable' expense. (The only problem is that they issue excessively).

I bought three sheets that I wouldn't have otherwise, but I used them for postage. While they can point to increased sales of that particular sheet, at least in my case it didn't amount to any additional retention of unused stamps and hence no additional revenue over and above what they would have gotten from me anyway.