What's Wrong With The Bank Note Issues?

What turns me off about the Bank Notes is:

After watching for a couple of years now I've noticed that the stamp issues that get the most discussion on the list include the Washington/Franklins (perfs and printings) and the early classics of 1851-57 (plating questions). Stamp colors for the 3c of 1861 and sorting out the papers on the Bank Notes get repeated discussion from time to time. Generally speaking we do not talk about stamp design, either for definitives or commemoratives, and with few exceptions the latter seldom come up as topics of their own (the National Parks issues being an exception).

I am assuming that the comments and questions that prompt discussion are coming from the things that have our attention at the moment, and that certain things have more of our attention than others. While there is nothing surprising about that, I do find it curious. What makes us tick?

All this is preamble to the question behind this poll. As one who is fascinated by the Bank Note Issues, I would like to better understand why others do not find them that way. I am not alone in that. The new editor of the Bank Note section in the U.S. Philatelic Classics Society Chronicle is finding that fewer studies are devoted to those stamps than to the earlier classics, and there seem to be few specialists in those issues, despite their proximity to the classics. (An old definition of "classic" referred only to stamps produced before 1870.) Is it his imagination that there is a great chasm of disinterest in these stamps? You tell us. Which, if any, of the poll statements would you use to describe what makes the Bank Note Issues of less interest to you than other stamps of the 19th century?

I voted for "hard to sort due to too many paper varieties." Another reason (which applies even more to the Washington/Franklins) is that they are portraits of the same few people over and over.

My favorite 19th century stamps are the Columbians, closely followed by the 1869 pictorials.

I actually like the bank notes, but I agree that for many people the papers (and the grills) make them very difficult to collect. In addition, since many have real catalog value, there is a fair amount of the three R's; regums, reperfs, and repairs.

I like the Bank Notes. I like their size, postal history and they are not too hard to distinguish the different printings. True, there are some papers that still give me a little trouble. They show cancels very well especially the fancy's. It is easy to start a specialist study of cancels and printing variety's for little money on the on the 1,2 and 3 cents stamps. Lots of fly specking to do. I specialize on the Large Boston Negative numerals and letters.
When I receive my copy of the chronicle the first section I read is the Bank Notes.
I read everything that I can find on the Bank Notes. I am always looking for old auction catalogs and periodicals with sections on the Bank Notes and their use.
As the currant President of The US Cancellation Club I need to put in a plug for the club and newsletter. There are several articles in the latest edition of the newsletter with Bank Note issues. If you are interested in the club or newsletter just send me a pm through this site.

Vince


Vince

I like the Banknotes. As Vince already stated, I think they are best for fancy cancels and such. One does need to spend some time studying the paper types if they are collected. But isn't that what philatelists do--study stamps. So I didn't answer the poll. I couldn't because there was no appropriate answer.
Art

I like the large banknotes and I quietly collect and study them, not with the zeal that I collect 1851-61 stuff but with serious interest nonetheless. As I watch ebay auctions, it always seems to me that there is healthy interest. Maybe I am wrong...

I hate banknotes.... Only ones I like are the early grills!! Boring design, difficult to sort due to paper issues, generally horrible centering making most of them very UGLY.

I'm not one of those that dislikes them, but due to cost I have to restrict them to used.

Most of the designs I find uninspiring (but I wouldn't call them "ugly"), particularly the lower values. I've not gotten into cancel collecting; also, many of the higher values have moderate price tags which add another barrier. Bottom line for me is that I don't have the money to extensively collect Banknotes and Wash Franks, and I prefer the latter in design and variance.

I echo gabriella77us. The 1869 and 1893 issues are so much more interesting in aesthetic design and they sandwich the Banknotes. Ironically, both those issues generated complaints in their day and so were relatively short lived, while the Banknotes lasted well over a decade in use.

One thing I do like about the Banknotes is the challenge of finding colored cancellations which Scott lists many different ones and with sizeable premiums. Black cancellations were becoming much more the norm during this period. The striking color of a red cancel offers a challenge as can no other stamp issue in classic US Philately.

I actually like the bank notes. I had trouble with paper in the beginning but I think I've got that figured out. I still have trouble with color on the 15c the 30c and 90c between National and American. I have what I think is a nice "complete" set (excepting the grilled National) and am working on a second with focus on fancy cancels. As someone said above, hard to find them nicely centered, nicely perfed, and nicely cancelled, but when you do... For me they look great as a set all together on a page.

Bruce

I, for one, happen to like the Large Bank Note Issues.

I also like the bank notes as long as Lester Brookman and Charles Micarelli are with me.

Strongly agree