1893 30¢ Columbian On 1928 Zep Cover

Stallzer (and obliquely, essayk),

Well, anything created with a pretense to be something else is deplorable and is deserving of rebuke. I don't think that was the case here. It was clearly a Graf cover from the get go, and no one would imagine that the Columbian was used out of period with an intention to deceive. Since the creator probably had a defensible reason for using the Columbian (I suggested a possible reason in my last post), I think it was inappropriate to label it "contrived." That seems to require more knowledge of the creator's mindset than we will ever know. Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be an objection to philatelic creations per se, why was there a need to label this one "contrived?" Sure, it might be natural to speculate about why the Columbian was used, but there is no reason to question the motive.

I'm sure it was not intended to deceive but it certainly is a contrived cover based on a stamp used 30 years out of date. By no means am I stating the cover is not collectible in it's own right. I think it's a great cover but it is what it is and any philatelic cover is by definition, contrived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philatelic_cover


con·trived
k#601;n#712;tr#299;vd/
adjective
adjective: contrived

deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.

It's contrived precisely because a collector, or dealer in this case, specifically used an old stamp long out of period just to give another collector a used example of that stamp on a zepp cover. Clearly they had lots of current stamps available to make up the 30 cents if they wanted to use them. The motive was clearly to create a usage for collecting purposes rather than simply using whatever was available at the moment. They knew a collector was keeping it and created it accordingly. This was done by the tens of thousands of covers back in the 20's and 30's, it was a very common motive.

So, are we saying "contrived" is morally neutral, and implies nothing negative about intent? I don't think that is the common association we have with the word. The rest of the definition:

"created or arranged in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic."

No argument that it was created to be a collectible. But given revollector's last sentence




it really isn't fair to say it was created in such a way that it could be described as "artificial or unrealistic." If done by the tens of thousands (something we all know is true), and for what it was purported to be (a philatelic creation) then it was hardly artificial or unrealistic (for that purpose).

But we are quibbling over words, and no one wants to yield. So I will. I have nothing more to say on the matter.

This is a reason I find this type of item fascinating. I love the covers with a lot going on without being too messy. They create conversation and speculation.
This one being sent from Burger (stamp dealer) to Koehler (first stamp auctioneer in Berlin) creates many scenarios in my head.
Plus it was flown on the 1928 return flight of LZ127 and I needed to fill that space.

I would love to see the Koehler auction catalogs from this period to see if this cover was put up for sale.

Rev, I had thought the same thing. I can't believe this could have been a stand alone item. Maybe in a larger lot.

I don't know where you got that "definition" but I don't like the way the word "unrealistic" nuances the usual sense of "contrived." It implies a negative judgment, when the word "contrived" does not necessarily imply that. To be sure, it can be spun in a way that does that, but I would replace "unrealistic" with "unnatural" even though that is already implied in "artificial."

I don't see much point in speculating on what motive a person might have had for using a 30 cent Columbian on a zeppelin flight cover, but there is no arguing that it is "out of period" for the Columbian. In that sense it is unnatural and not to be expected, and so is "contrived." But it may have been chosen to conform to a special image or interpretation of a theme, and in the sense of a deliberate arrangement is "contrived."

But the sore point in your comments does not seem to revolve around fine points in the definition. Rather, you seem to be inquiring into what arena has stigmatized philatelic usage. The fact of the stigma plays out in the marketplace, but that is not the source of what you seem to think is a prejudice. I will submit that avoidance of philatelic usage is a conditioned response for a particular class of collectors who exert a major influence on the marketplace: exhibitors.

Few at this forum do exhibit, and may not realize the depth of influence exhibitors have on the hobby. Nonetheless, people who aspire to exhibit competitively know the status of philatelic usage in the judging system, and in order to stay competitive conform to the expected standards. When exhibitors are taken out of the market for a class of material, the exodus is noteworthy. This is because exhibitors, operating in a free and competitive market, spend more money on their collections on average than non-exhibitors, and so are "courted" by those who make a living from servicing the hobby.

What this means is that if the judges frown on philatelic usage in an exhibit, then the demand for that kind of material goes down for a large block of some of the strongest buyers in the hobby. The judges frown because it's in the rules, having been encoded that way a long time ago, and not just by the standards of one nation. The FIP sets out a worldwide standard, and is shaped by the traditions for exhibiting that are preferred in its constituent countries. In some things the US follows and in some it leads or goes its own way. But in the matter of "philatelic usage," the stigma is observed world wide for certain classes of exhibiting (such as traditional and postal history) and less so for others (such as thematic and display).

But make no mistake about it, as a matter of definition a distinction is observed between conventional usage and philatelic usage.

Certainly true for me.
Your post is very informative. An issue I had never considered.

It might easily have been a stand alone lot at that time, auctions were vastly different in those days and there were a lot more of them every year back then.

Rev, I went on the Heinrich Koehler website. I went to the 'contact' page and sent a note. I'll let you know if they reply.

If it is a lot it would almost certainly have to be a description only, there were few photos in catalogs in those days.

essayk,

I wasn't going to post any more on this, but I've decided to for two reasons. First I want to acknowledge the thoughtfulness of your latest reply in aiming to explain where the animus against philatelic usage comes from insofar as the world of exhibiting is concerned. And I can appreciate that perspective, but not everyone exhibits or necessarily worries about what FIP rules are. Are they less genuine or authentic "collectors" for that fact?

The other reason to reply is to say that I think you do not appreciate the negative association with the word "contrived." The definition came from Google, and you are right, the implication is negative. If you don't think Google is authoritative, how about Merriam Webster: "having an unnatural or false appearance or quality." Don't confuse "contrived" with "contrive." There is no negative association with the latter; there is with the former. It was Stallzer who used the word, and only he can tell us what he meant, but if he did not mean for it to carry a negative association, he chose the wrong word. On the the other hand you have gone to some effort to explain why there is an animus or negative association with philatelic usage in certain quarters of philately, so I don't see how you can really object to the negative sense associated with the word "contrived." You cannot have it both ways.

I'll stand by Stallzer's use of the word 'contrived', even if he wanted to use another word.

And yes: to me, and I suspect to many other philatelists, a 'contrived' cover is a negative. I do have 'contrived' covers in my collection, but they're there for very specific reasons. This



is an utterly contrived cover of the 1931 pictorial set of Charkhari State. It's highly doubtful that Charkhari had any legitimate postal need for such a high value as 8 Annas, when a registered letter cost 2 Annas. However, the cover does at least show that the 8 Anna was available and on sale at the post office at the time: something that wasn't always clear.

This




is another contrived cover, bought purely for the Montgomery's Hotel image on the back. To that extent, it's in the same class as a Zeppelin cover. However, the stamps were contemporary, even if the franking was 32 times the basic letter rate.

I don't exhibit, never have, and have no plans to do so in future. I would feel very negatively towards a stamp used on cover some 20-30 years after it had been withdrawn from sale. If one allows such uses, then one can create 'used' stamps at will. I wouldn't want one in my collection, though.

The last word belongs to the marketplace, of course. If a legitimate, in period and correct rate, 30 cent Columbian cover were to be offered alongside a similar Zeppelin cover, which would sell more quickly for more?

I meant contrived, I posted the definition of the word above for you.
Here is another link to wikipedia on Philatelic covers which clearly states;


"While many philatelists prefer genuine commercial covers to philatelically contrived covers, philatelic covers may still be acceptable in collections of countries and eras where few other covers exist. Whether the cover was contrived or not, it is still an item of mail sent through the same postal system as other covers from a given country, with a postage stamp(s) and postmark, and is often more historically significant than covers sent with no intention of recovery."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philatelic_cover

Not sure why you seem to be taking this personally. Again, it is what it is and I've also stated that I think it's a wonderful cover. I even have an LZ127 cover and it also is contrived and it does not bother me one bit since I'm not a purist. I'm sure stampcrow also feels the same in the fact the he/she enjoys the cover and that really is all that matters.