First Issue Revenue Stamps Informal Survey Of Silk Usages

Hi All

Would there be any interest from the membership for running a informal survey of dates of usages for the First Issue Revenue Stamps, issued on the experimental silk paper. Something like the earliest date you have, and the latest date you have for a known Scott Listed Number.

Just a simple informal survey.

Example would be something like this:

R15D 18 Aug 1870, Apr 1872. (my stamps)

Scott Catalog talks about silk paper when it was first employed. But does not address either earliest date known, or latest date know. I do not and would not expect Scott Catalog to give such details as such. "Some are found on silk paper, first employed about August 1870".

Then after sometime, I could report the results of this informal survey by Scott Catalog listed number with a range of dates reported. Being an informal survey, no validation just reporting the dates in question.

So, if interested get out your First Issue Revenue Stamps, and search out those dates, then send in the information you have.

Dave

Dave -
an interesting idea; however, unlike postage stamps, revenue stamps were cancelled by the user and not by a government official. Thus, there are many examples of back-dated stamps. This is especially true with the proprietary issues where the only real concern was that the stamp be cancelled and not the date. For example, I have a first proprietary issue stamp issued in 1871, with an 1868 or 1869 printed cancel. I'm not sure how you would determine if a stamp was post-dated, but those likely exist also. While most of the stamps are cancelled with the correct date, the earliest and latest dates are more likely to include erroneous dates. Thus, I'm not sure how useful your results would be.

SPQR

I know already everything you said, that is why I said a simple informal survey. If you do not want to take part for your stated reason I fully understand.

Dave

Back dating was really only an issue early in the usage period when many people were unfamiliar with the tax laws. By the time silk papers came out in 1870 there was probably little backdating going on except in the sense of pre-cancelling multiples upon purchase. This would only change the date by a short time. A big part of the problem is that only paper with actual threads visible can be called "silk paper" and the nature of it is such that many examples are out there without threads.
Earlist dates would prove interesting, late dates mean less since the issue ended in 1871 anyway (and most of the taxes soon followed making the second and third issues very short lived) and people simply used up whatever they had left over. Even finding first issue 2 cent values used after 1872 is pretty uncommon.
Per the Boston Book, silk paper was first discussed in a letter dated August 17, 1870, however they may have been experimenting with it for sometime beforehand.

Revcollector I agree with what you said. But as far as "people simply used up whatever they had left over (revenue stamps). I have always had a problem with this as follows:

1. I agree they used up whatever they had left over.

or

2. But then the tax lets say one or two cents had more buying power then in the 1860/1870's then it does not. People then wasted very little, so this makes me think most people would not have left any revenue stamps left over.

SPQR I hope you plan to take part in my little survey, even tho of your concerns.

Everybody, while examining your first issue revenue stamps, you might also examine for plate varieties!

Dave

let me try to explain my point a different way.
Even if backdating wasn't a "big issue" later in the usage of the 1st issue revenues, it was still an issue. If just one stamp was backdated, it could distort the earliest use reported from this survey.
Assume that, instead of silk papers, we were doing a date survey of the 1st proprietary issue. The Boston Book says the stamp was first issued September 2, 1871. So we collect the dates from a sample of the stamps and I report 1869 based on the stamp below. So the results of the survey will say the date range was 1869 to say 1880. The results are obviously wrong, because the die was not even approved until May 1871. But it only takes the one backdated stamp to distort the earliest reported period of use.
If the intent is to generate a report of usage by month to see when most of the stamps were used, the backdated examples will not be such a problem.

People did not have to have any left over, since the government stopped selling first issues as soon as the second issues were ready. And by 1872 all the documentary taxes were gone except for the check tax which lasted until 1883, so there was no need to redeem the one and two cent values.

The proprietary with the 1868 cancel was because of a slug that no one noticed was wrong; there is no reason to have backdated anything proprietary in the first place. Backdating was always on documentaries where contracts were involved.

fine, let's call the RB4 erroneously dated, instead of backdated. My point still stands - since the dating was not always accurate, there is no way to determine the earliest use by looking at the cancel dates. Maybe you can get a reasonable estimate if you eliminate outliers.

By that logic no dating is accurate in postage either, since there were certainly mistakes made in dating there as well. Yet EKU's are a big deal.

yes, there are dating mistakes in postage, and if you look at the Siskin-Berkun EDU listing on Frajola's webpage, there are multiple instances where an impossibly early date is noted and then dismissed as a year date error based upon information about the printing or shipment date of the stamps. For the silks, it is a paper change, so the press information will not help eliminate the dating errors.
Again, listing of frequency of use by month, or some similar analysis could be useful, I'm just saying that trying to find the "earliest" recorded use is problematic.

Hi All, well mostly all

Here is the results of my informal First Issue Silk usages, earliest and latest dates that I only have. No one else wanted to take part in my little informal survey, you can all read the reasons why in previous posts. But keep in mind, this was nothing more than an informal survey!

R3D (only one example) 21 Aug 1871.
R15D 7 Dec 1871 15 Apr 1872.
R24D 18 Oct 1870 31 Oct 1871.
R34D 11 Mar 1871 (only one example).
R36D ?? Mar 1871 (only one example).
R44D 22 Jul 1870 8 Aug 1871.
R46D 23 Aug 1870 7 Jan 1871 (29 Nov 1870 block of 16)
R60D 17 Aug 1870 28 Jan 1871.
R65D 1 May 1871 16 Oct 1871.
R67D 8 Jan 1872 (only one example).
R69D 17 Sep 1870 (only one example).
R81D 22 Dec 1870 (only one example).
R84D 9 May 1870 (only one example).
R85D 28 Jul 1871 (only one example).
R89D 4 Nov 1870 (only one example).

Note: Only one examples = some individual numbers there were more than one example, but only have reported actual dates I can confirm!

Hope other members will enjoy and maybe get some useful information.

Only other members, you can start taking shots at me now for the results of my little informal survey!

Dave

OK I'll contribute. Of those that have dates which I can read:

R16D 6 OCT 1870

R22D 1 DEC 1870

R23D 7 Oct 1871

R25D 5 AUG 1870
10 NOV 1870

R33D 14 JULY 1870

R34D 9 FEB 1871
9 FEB 1871
1 OCT 1871

R44D 3 JAN 1870

R45D 1 FEB 1871

R46D 1 NOV 1870
30 JAN 1871
16 MAY 1871

R60D 12 JAN 1870
8 SEPT 1870
29 DEC 1870
18 MAY 1871

R66D 22 FEB 1871

R67D 9 SEPT 1871

R69D 2 JULY 1870
20 JULY 1870
3 SEPT 1870
5 OCT 1870
21 SEPT 1871

R81D 14 NOV 1870

R82D 4 NOV 1870
4 MAY 1871

R84D 24 MAY 1870

R85D 19 MAY 1871

R89D 16 JAN 1871

R98D 15 JUNE 1870

southpaw, excellent, outstanding!

Maybe others will step up to the plate now!

Dave

Here is the results of my informal survey!


RD3 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) 21 AUG 1871 STAMP MASTER
R15D 7 DEC 1871 15 APRIL 1872 STAMP MASTER
R16D 6 OCT 1870 SP
R22D 1 DEC 1870 SP
R23D 7 OCT 1871 SP
R24D 18 OCT 1870 31 OCT 1871 STAMP MASTER
R25D 5 AUG 1870 10 NOV 1870 SP
R33D 14 JULY 1870 SP
R34D 11 MARCH 1871 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R34D 9 FEB 1871 1 OCT 1871 SP
R36D ?? MARCH 1871 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R44D 22 JULY 1870 8 AUG 1871 STAMP MASTER
R44D 3 JAN 1870 SP
PR45D 1 FEB 1871 SP
R46D 23 AUG 1870 7 JAN 1871 (29 NOV 1870 BLOCK OF 16) STAMP MASTER
R46D 1 NOV 1870, 30 JAN 1871 16 MAY 1871 SP
R60D 17 AUG 1870 28 JAN 1871 STAMP MASTER
R60D 12 JAN 1870, 8 SEP 1870, 29 DEC 1870, 18 MAY 1871 SP
R65D 1 MAY 1871 16 OCT 1871 STAMP MASTER
R66D 22 FEB 1871 SP
R67D 8 JAN 1872 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R67D 9 SEPT 1871 SP
R69D 17 SEP 1870 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R69D 2 JULY 1870, 20 JULY 1870, 3 SEPT 1870, 5 OCT 1870, 21 SEPT 1871 SP
R81D 22 DEC 1870 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R81D 14 NOV 1870 SP
R82D 4 NOV 1870 4 MAY 1871 SP
R84D 9 MAY 1870 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R84D 24 MAY 1870 SP
R85D 28 JULY 1871 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R85D 14 MAY 1871 SP
R89D 4 NOV 1870 (ONLY ONE EXAMPLE) STAMP MASTER
R89D 16 JAN 1871 SP
R98D 15 JUNE 1870 SP

If anybody else wants to take part, let me know and I'll add your information to my survey!

Dave

The first one must be an error, RD3 could never exist on silk paper.

Revcollector, far be for me to tell you have made a mistake.

Care to recheck you information, or do you want me to scan images of the 7 RD3's I have?

Cheers

Dave