Imperforate 1934 National Parks Stamps Recognized Now!

Thanks for sharing another dimension to this story. I am new to collecting and just started in on a US collection and recently had looked up more information on the National Parks 1934 stamps. It is a fascinating story.

It is interesting that the provenance on these stamps has been preserved in spite of the best efforts at the time to devalue the stamps.

I'm including some of the documentation which came with the stamps and certs. Perhaps this will help assuage the concerns about PSE's certifying these stamps. Perhaps, as someone mentioned, having a third party like PF would have been a more transparent way to go, but I don't doubt the veracity of the certs. It would be completely destructive to the entire market and how long it has taken for PSE to establish their credentials to endanger their reputation at this point. Personally, I just don't see it as a problem.

BeeSee,

Your observations are correct. As to new Scott numbers, the distinction and certification should be made by the APS; not by PSE.

Jack Kelley

@BeeSee




Not quite. The Feb 7 letter by Ickes makes it clear that the original imperforate sheets were NOT gummed, inasmuch as he goes out of his way to state that he made arrangements for his sheets to have gum applied.

I think the plan was to have the massive special production emulate as much as possible the original condition of those first special sheets.

I'll throw this out there to stir the pot...

If the 1934 imperf 'favor' stamps were secreted out of the production line before the perforation process; why not call them 'printers waste'?

A typical example is the experimental #1384 precancels; which Scott lists with minor numbers. Scott throws some relatively high values of them but the marketplace/collectors tend to treat them differently. The inverted precancels example are thought to have been slipped 'out the back door' and this casts a pall on their legitimacy, most refer to them as printers waste. These stamps can often be purchased for just a fraction of the Scott listed catalog values due to this.



Could it be argued that unless the stamps actually make it through the production process, and are delivered for distribution, that they can be considered 'printers waste'?
Don

Don

I suppose the distinction is that printer's waste goes out of the back door. The printed by favour stamps went from Mr Farley's desk. The 1d red Plate 77 is an example of an underhand passing of a stamp otherwise unavailable.

Geoff

Don,

The "favor" stamps from the Farley era are definitely not backdoor items. Farley paid the full face value for all the sheets which were obtained as part of the process of obtaining them. This is well documented.

The idea of "out the back door" may apply to items such as the inverted precancels shown, where there is no explanation of how they ended up in collectors' hands whereas the process by which the National Parks Imperfs of 1934 are documented.

Greg

The definition of a stamp is one that was issued over the counter. The stamps that Farly bought were not sold to him over the post-office counter.

He has a good point.

Robert

Does he? Whose definition standard is that?

Stamps that come out of official channels may be classed in a variety of ways, but if an item is valid for the prepayment of postage, then it is a stamp. Did anyone at any time declare that these special emissions were not valid for postage?

Even without the certificates, didn't the q935 imperforate issues have no gum, while these are gummed? If so, that's one other indicator of the difference.

I think the 1935s could be gummed on request.

Beautiful! THANK YOU!!
I bought them and ...decided that it is a set of forgeries! ))
Pleas tell me if you want to see my scans.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Please share your scans. Which stamps are you referring to, the National Parks or Scott 1384 precancels?

Yes, by all means Aurora let's see them.