Imperforate 1934 National Parks Stamps Recognized Now!

The National Parks Issue of 1934, Harold Ickes and Farley's Follies - How the whole happened…

A few months back, I found a group of what were listed as gummed National Parks Imperforates (Scott 756-765) certified by PSE as having come from the collection of Harold Ickes. Knowing that Ickes was Secretary of the Interior under the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s and one of the four documented recipients of the original sheets of imperforate stamps pulled in 1934, I sat up and took notice.

If these stamp were documented as having come from Harold Ickes, then that mean these had to have come from the original sheets pulled by Farley and presented to Harold Ickes, President Roosevelt and Roosevelt's Secretary. According to all documentation from the time, these were the only people to have received the National Parks stamps, although the Mother's Day Issue of 1934 was also pulled and several sheets (believed to be less than 10) distributed to others besides Roosevelt and his secretary.

That's the short version - it's really well documented, so you can check it out if you want more about the original scandal. What brought the whole thing to the collecting community was the break up and sale of one of the Mother's Day sheets at public auction. It brought $20,000.00 in 1934! This sale enraged collectors who believed they should be given the same opportunities as those who had profited from this event. The President of the Norfolk Philatelic Society fired off a letter to President Roosevelt stating just that, and sent a copy of it to the philatelic press, where it was widely publicized. This came at a time when Roosevelt was beginning to feel the heat of the opposition and he wanted to avoid a potential scandal at all costs. He basically told Farley to make this go away. Farley's answer was to make imperforate stamps available to anyone who wanted them, creating the twenty stamps in the 1935 Reissue.

So, if you've read this far, you're probably wondering where this is all leading. Fair enough. Back to the PSE certified 756-765 issues. I purchased singles of all issues except the five cent, which wasn't offered at that time and a pair with horizontal line for the 10 cent.

When I received them, I called the seller, Caj Brejtfus at PSE and asked how these could be certified as having been in Ickes possession. He explained that he had purchased the large blocks which had Ickes signature on the reverse side underneath the plate number and had reduced the size to normal plate blocks. The stamps which remained were then certified as being from the Ickes collection to preserve their provenance.

I argued that instead of being Scott 756-765, these should be Scott 740-749. Ickes had sent his sheets back to the BEP and had them gummed PRIOR to the release of the 1935 Reissues. Ickes had also never purchased any of the reissues. This meant that the stamps in his possession were from the 1934 Series and should be identified as such. Mr. Brejtfus said he agreed with that but that PSE would not issue certificates unless Scott Catalogue had either a separate number or at the least, a minor note stating these existed. I provided the documentation about how the stamps came into being and offered to do what I could to help get Scott's to recognize them for what they truly were. Mr. Brejtfus said he'd let me know if there was anything else I could do.

Last month, I received a set of new certificates. All show the Scott number is now listed properly, but because the note will not appear until the 2018 catalogue comes out, the certificates still read "…not listed in Scott…" It is my understanding after talking with Mr. Brejtfus that a note will be added stating that stamps certified as having been from the Harold Ickes collection are considered to be from the 1934 series, imperforate and gummed.

Here's the stamps and the certificates!

Congratulations! How in the world are they distinguished, once separated from those certs?

The certs are the part which provides the provenance; without the certs they would be indistinguishable from the 1935 issues.

I congratulate you on getting the certs changed .... its interesting that they changed the certs but not the date of issue of the new certs..... I find that strange on PSE behalf that they reissue or revise certs without updating the date they did reissue. I don't like that. I got very confused when I was looking at your scans as expected 2 different dates (one for original certs and then one for updated or revised certs). Interesting items. Thanks for sharing story behind it.

I'm just throwing this out there for the sake of argument. Should there be a reason for concern if the seller is the same person who issued the certs?

I wonder about the wisdom of basically reversing the 1934 decision preventing the development of the handful of 'favor' stamps. If there was good reasoning to do this back in 1934 has that reasoning now changed? (Speaking mostly about giving these a new catalog number. I have no issues with identifying these particular stamps and preserving their provenance.) What am I missing?
Don

Not only did the dates not change neither did the cert #. This is a bit odd. The new cert should have a revised date and number and cite the previous cert as superceded.

Maybe something went wrong with the OP. I notice that every certificate is posted twice?

Peter

Peter

Those are the first and the revised cert, one showing 1935, the second, 1934.

Geoff

Don, that's a good point. I believe that, since technology has changed, that the ability to do this now might have something to do with it. Also, there was the problem with correctly identifying the provenance at the time. Once the original stamps sold in 1934, the few in private hands did not come onto the marketplace. The only example I know of is the 2 cent plate block which is listed in Scotts. That is rather easy to identify as the plate number was never used in regular production and begs the question of where it came from to begin with. I don't have the answer to that question. Something for later research.

We now have much greater access to information with the internet and all the source material which has been compiled over the years by others. This will likely only increase in the future as more and more material is digitized and made available. I believe this is what is driving the change in this case and I believe that any of these items which can thus be identified should be while we still have the ability to do so. As I mentioned in an earlier reply, if the stamps were not certified at the time they were separated from the blocks, they would be no different from any other re-issue stamps of 1935.

As to the questions about PSE's inner workings, (i.e. dates of issue and certificate numbers), I have no working knowledge. I'll see if I can reach out and get an explanation of why these didn't change with the issuance of the revised certificates, if anyone is really that interested or concerned about it.

Changing certs without changing date is like your doctor going back in medical chart and changing his exam findings a year after he signed off on the note. Lawyers generally don't like this!! Opens up liability concerns and perhaps more important .... TRUST

That's a pretty interesting story, thanks for posting.

Prior to breaking up the original block, did Caj make scans of the original - presumably front and back, in order to get the signature, and hopefully the relative position of your stamps on the original?

If I were you, I'd try to also get such photos as further verification.

I think it is great that these items are being identified and preserved; it is our responsibility to be good stewards of this material.

I am reminded of a similar situation with the 1962 Dag Hammerarskjold 'error' stamps. But it this case the Post Office made a decision to release additional stamps to negate the effects of the mistakenly released error stamps. Scott lists the original stamp as #1203, the original error stamp as #1203a, and the reprinted 'error' stamp as #1204.

I think they only list a value for used 1203a; which can be proven as an original used 1203a if the postmark is before 11/16/62 (release date of the production 'error' stamp #1204). But doesn't APS own a mint pane of 50 of the original 1203a stamps?

Perhaps these original imperf 'favor' stamps should be considered the same, historical items to be preserved but without turning them into a new commercial rarity. Time will tell if this change will be something that many US collectors, or marketplace, will embrace or not.
Don

I enjoy reading the provenance and believe it. Great addition to any collection of these issues. However certification process of this smells fishy. Not that I think it is incorrect, but if I examine the stamp by itself, there is nothing to distinguish it. Without Ickes signature on stamp itself, maybe a letter from Roosevelt or Ickes to go with a picture of stamps, or a video from the guy at PSE breaking up the sheet... well ???? Just not right that certification company is involved.
PF should have been involved as 3rd party in my opinion

Please don't let my opinion on expertization detract from this cool find, and the great historical significance of these stamps. I indeed believe the provenance, but don't like the process of certification of it. It could have been done better!

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding:

1) The original national parks were issued perforated and gummed in 1934
2) Special gummed imperforate stamps were given to "favored" people in 1934
3) Imporforate stamps were reprinted ungummed and sold to the public in 1935
4) The post office applied identical gum to returned imperforate sheets on demand.

I too believe the provenance, but if there is no way to distinguish between the original mint gummed stamps and the officially mint re-gummed sheets, I do not think a new number should be given. The note of existence should be fine.

On the other side, should used dated 1934 imperforate national parks stamps on cover be given an "a" number, like the 1962 Dag Hammarskjold issue mentioned by Don?

Interesting story! However, like Jenny2U, I was wondering about anyl issues/concerns related to the certs being issued by a body closely associated with the seller and appearance of potential conflict of interest.


Edited to add language about COI.