Philadelphia Cinderella

Can anyone help me with what exactly this Cinderella is?

Is the shield printed on the quadrille paper or simply mounted on it? If mounted, can you tell us whether or not it is a gummed label?

This 1864 work suggests that it was a Local Stamp (page 121, 4th to the last entry on page):

https://books.google.com/books?id=0...ge&q&f=false

I can't answer whether or not your example is genuine or a fake or forgery. In fact, here is a Siegel cover reference showing its period use:



In fact, this reference suggests that the Shield-type label may date to as early as 1862:

wt1, excellent research!! Thanks!

I am very impressed by that research, wt1. You continue to amaze me.

I guess Johnson's Lincoln bogosity nonsense label lives on a fifteen year cycle or so.

The first mention of it appeared in July 1, 1865 issue of "Stamp Collector's Magazine" (London) where it was correctly identified as a "speculation" to defraud gullible collectors.

Johnson was exposed as the promoter.

Why so negative about Johnson?

The claims of the writer in that magazine of 1865 that the Johnson's Box labels were bogus speculations intended to defraud collectors of the day, need to be considered in light of the Zeitgeist of that day. Subsequent history may seem to vindicate condemning them, but they were regarded by some very differently back then.

In the introduction to the Bellars and Davie *Standard Guide to Postage Stamp Collecting" of 1864 it is apparent that the notion of what kinds of things are appropriate for inclusion in a stamp collection was subject to a fair amount of dispute and debate in 1860s Great Britain. Claims for the invention of a system of uniform postage were noted for as early as 1659 by a Mr John Hill in a broadside published that year, but the author of the intro notes, "Six years before this date stamps were in actual use across the Channel." He cites a French postal regulation of 1653 regarding "prepaid tickets." He also references from another source the invention by M. de Velayer, also in 1653, of a stamped envelope for conveying prepaid letters in his penny post, an example of which was said to survive at least to that time (1864). The world of philately was not so settled on these matters at that time as we are today. As a consequence, the "Standard Guide" of 1864 includes a listing of the Johnson's Box shield as a collectable stamp, along with hundreds of other such, in its 124 page catalog of stamps of the world.

Peter Schwartz's treatment in the 1998 Railsplitter is a bit more even handed than "Johnson's Lincoln bogosity nonsense label." As I read it, Johnson had hit on the idea of offering a free convenience drop off for mail that would help bring people into his store as potential customers. His labels advertised the service and his store. But as long as he actually carried out the promised service, I don't see the reason to condemn his labels as "nonsense." A scheme like that makes good sense to me and looks very enterprising. I would not be averse to having an original in my collection if I collected early covers from that time.

What is missing in this story that justifies condemning the early intentions of J.H. Johnson as a fraud? Or are you just referring to the reprints?

Although this has nothing to do with the Johnson's Box local stamp, it seems Mr. J.H. Johnson, was a Civil War era Song Sheet printer as part of his stationery business. A couple of dozen pages worth of his printed (mostly Patriotic) Song Sheets may be found here:

http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=J.H.+Johnson&sp=1

Sorry - I had previously posted this in response to Glenn on my board (to be clear, the labels exists genuine on cover, the Lincolns do not):

Johnson's Box

Glen - Your example is a forgery of the "genuine" advertising label.

earlier response by David D' was: The Johnson's Box stamp is actually an advertising label used by a Philadelphia merchant that provided free delivery to the post office for letters that were left in his store. There are multiple counterfeits of the genuine label.

For what little it is worth, I have studied "mock local posts" and similar things for many years. I purchased the George Sloane reference collection material about 30 years ago. I expanded the collection and exhibited it before selling.

Thanks for the clarification, Richard. I was just responding to what sounded like a rather strong negative reaction. "Bogus nonsense label" is a harsh rejection of an item if it had a legitimate reason for being.

Can you perhaps clear up the question I first asked: were these labels provided with an adhesive, such as gum, on the back to facilitate attaching to an envelope? If not, then affixing them to the outgoing mail in the box might not have been the intent. A stack by the box as reminder slips seems more likely. If it was basically an advert piece that occasionally got stuck on an envelope, then I don't think it is right to pillory the proprietor for fraud. In his store it appears that he GAVE them away.

Any proof that he masterminded selling them to collectors? The very existence of detectable counterfeits suggests others intended to profiteer off of their existence. He certainly didn't need to counterfeit his own stuff.