Help For Fancy Cancel

Hello!
I'm Miriam from Italy.
I have this cover from "tortugas, Monroe, Florida. 1907
What do you think represents?
I see some stars, someone know this fancy?
thank you

No cover appeared.

It was there earlier. Would also hope that the original poster would provide a picture of the entire cover. Posted earlier was a block of 6 (IIRC) of Scott 278's but my catalog memory I put down years ago and still haven't remembered where I put it.

This is from 1902 not 1907

I definitely see that both the top and bottom cancel are the same, but both suffer due to a poor quality strike.

I cannot identify what the cancel says, but it does intrigue me. I'll keep pondering it and try some image manipulation techniques when I get some free time.

ok! but is very hard job.

not worth the effort - it's a blob.

Even if you were to find out that this post office used some really ornate device and it lines up perfectly with the ink on this cover, the quality of the impression negates the "fancy" part of "fancy cancel."

chipg,
I disagree. However, if your argument is that it is probably not financially worth identifying it, then I agree. There is little chance of identifying it AND the cancel making this block "valuable".

I view tartamimmi's request for assistance as one for further understanding. Not one focused on possible monetary gain.

I have many such stamps/cancellations that I desire understanding of. I'm not looking to benefit financially. I only desire to know what the heck that I have. I desire to know the intricacies for the benefit of my own understanding.

Over a year of collecting stamps, including acquiring some that are very valuable, I have not sold a single one. I believe that tartamimmi's motives are similar to mine.

Hopefully, I believe that the intent of this forum is about increasing the collective knowledgebase.

Some forum posts are queries about value which I personally don't mind at all. I have no qualms in educating those that seek evaluation of liquidating what they have acquired. I view such interactions as basic obligations of our forum. My continued presence on this forum is for the purpose of gaining a deeper knowledge of philatelic topics and understanding of what I have.

In essence, I participate on this forum to gain from the knowledge of others. I try to reciprocate by sharing my what I have learned.

I don't view tartamimmi's request as "not worth the effort - it's a blob." I view it as a genuine request for understanding.

I hope that future interactions on this forum can occur without "others" being "judged."

tartamimmi's intentions could be devious, but there has so far been no reason to believe anything other than genuine curioustiy.

tartamimmi, it may take a long time to identify them, but please know that I am just as curious as you are about those cancels.

chipg again,
I wrote the above to express my feelings regarding newer members. I am very passionate concerning those that are not experienced philatelists.

You did not do anything that was specifically offensive. Please understand that my words are focused towards a mindset commonly encountered on this forum and not specifically towards you.

While my tone may be a bit more direct than you might prefer, I will remain firm that words and their meanings matter. In this case, the word "fancy" in "fancy cancel" does have a meaning - it refers to cancellations that were out of the ordinary - pointing to some motive by the postal employee to mark the stamp with something other than a simple obliterator.

If one can look at the mark and see a design that is interesting, or if one knows that a given postmaster used such a design during a given time period and the cancellation on the stamp matches that, even if a poor strike, one can label the cancellation as a "fancy cancel." Without that, the designation is incorrect.

A beautifully struck 3-ring target cancellation on an 1861-issue stamp may be pretty, it may be a nice cancellation, but it isn't a "fancy cancel," as it was a common, commercially-available obliterator used in hundreds of post offices of the time.

Sorry for any offense.

No offense taken. You presented a main argument:



I responded to it, you responded to me, and now I'm responding again.

Semantically, I understand your side argument concerning the usage of "fancy" cancel. I believe that your definition of it is the correct one. However, many such as tartamimmi and myself are still learning these intricacies. Most sources of general philatelic knowledge do not make such a distinction.

The issue of definition is a minor/side point in your first post. Your main argument is "not worth the effort - it's a blob." I countered that argument and your response to it did not address it at all.

In my rebuttal, I intended to address the disparity between experienced collectors of U.S. classic material and the novices. I see it as a matter of experience and also see it as a point of contention that frequents this forum. To restate my rebuttal in a more succinct manner:

-Many seek understanding of the material that they have and are not concerned about value.

-The U.S. classics forum is often more concerned about "value" than objective discussion of philately.

-Many novice members are "put off" by dismissive statements.

Can we agree that people of various backgrounds have various priorities that might not include prioritization of monetary consideration?

Those are blobs, they are most certainly not fancy cancels.

And also note that this cover is from a town that didn't even have a CDS. I would assume that those cancels were made by a random piece of cork or perhaps cloth that was dipped in ink.

The interest in that cover is that it's a block of 6 on registered cover from what is almost certainly a very obscure Florida post office.

We certainly can. My response was not intended to be about money or value. It was really pointing to the overuse of the word fancy cancel to describe blobs, common cork cancels, targets, mute registry cancellations, and anything else that was struck cleanly.

As a side note, registered covers were not supposed to have datestamps applied to the stamps. The idea of using plain or registry obliterators was to force the clerk to turn to envelope over and note whether it was still sealed before logging it and passing it on while looking for the mailing date.

However, this cancel is still a blob and the only thing staring at it and trying to find a picture in it will determine is that you might want to avoid Rorcharch tests.

chipg, No. This handling requirement became effective January 1, 1911, so the cover in question should have a normal dated postmark on the front.

That said, it would be interesting to have a scan of the reverse side posted if it has any additional postal markings. There should at least be an Akron receiving mark.

As has been stated, both of the "lines" of the cancel/obliteration appear to be the same. I don't draw the conclusion that the markings are words or letters.

If I had to guess, I would say that that the postal employee of this small Florida locale used a home made device to cancel parcels, or strips of stamps. The markings have "that look" to me. The device may have been cork, or absorbent material (cloth?) wrapped around a piece of wood and secured, which could then be applied to a stamp pad and transferred to the stamps.

I've read with interest all of the comments regarding the cover in question. While I agree the "blob" of a cancel is not worth much in terms of what type of cancel is shown, almost all of the comments by-pass the postal history aspect of the cover. Here's what I found:

1. The post office in question (presuming we're talking about Tortugas, Florida as shown in the return address) was discontinued on November 30, 1907, with all mail re-directed to Key West, Florida from that date forward.

2. The location (Tortugas, Florida) has a population today of zero. It is known as Dry Tortugas and is the location of Fort Jefferson as part of the Dry Tortugas National Park.

3. The return address of the cover is that of "George W. Brown" who was an engineer appointed by the US Navy to build a coaling station at Tortugas, Florida at the time: