Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

1863 Power Of Attorney Emu (Early Matching Usage)... With A Twist!

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 8 / Views: 404Next Topic  
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
4984 Posts
Posted 10/23/2020   9:05 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this topic Add revenuecollector to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
In the section for "Power of Attorney, Voting" in Mike Mahler's book U.S. Revenue-Stamped Documents of the Civil War Era, the first example he shows is a Voting Proxy from the Quincy Mining Company, the specific description and image as follows:


Quote:
Form authorizing T.F. Mason to vote as proxy for Emeline Aldrich and Caroline Bassett at meetings of stockholders of the Quincy Mining Co., stamped with 10-cent Power of Attorney part perforate horizontal pair (perf between), manuscript cancel dated March 4, 1863, the form with New York imprint and probably executed there (Figure Power of Attorney-12). Opposite the women's names are penciled "45" and "40", presumably the numbers of shares they owned. It is not clear from the statute whether this document was to be considered two separate powers of attorney, or just one; in this case the former (and more expensive!) interpretation was made, but this was not always done (see Examples 4 and 6). It is known from other surviving Quincy Mining Co. documents that Thomas F. Mason was its President. I have recorded seven EMUs for this usage from the Quincy hoard (Mahler, 1996a), and more probably exist.





What ultimately prompted me to look this up was a similar piece that appeared on eBay, offered at auction but with a VERY high starting price, with Best Offer. What made it particularly interesting to me was that it has an illegal use of a 1-cent Franklin (Scott #63) along with a similar horizontally-oriented pair of R37b, dated February 27, 1863, a full week earlier than the Mahler example. However, 21 cents tax makes no sense, as the tax was $0.10.

Since the tax rate didn't square up, I made a lowball offer of 70% below the starting price, which was autodeclined, so I back-burnered it. The more I thought about it though, it bothered me, as rate notwithstanding, the document fit my collection perfectly, being both an illegal usage and an EMU to boot.

I asked the seller whether there was any writing on the back of the document or any companion documents. I also mentioned the autodeclined offer. Unfortunately, there was no additional writing or companion documents, but after some back and forth discussion, the seller said they would consider my offer if the listing didn't sell.

Two days later, even before the listing ended, the seller contacted me and said they had changed their autodecline settings and for me to make an offer. I guess there wasn't any subsequent action on the listing. I resubmitted my original offer expecting a counteroffer, and lo and behold it was accepted.

This proxy is for 3 (presumably) related parties: Ariel Ballow, Annah Ballow, and Laura Ballow. So using the same interpretation that Mike used, 10-cents per party would have been 30 cents tax. Either (1) when you're in a hurry one blue stamp looks like another, or (2) they ran out of 10-cent Power of Attorney stamps and substituted something that looked close. There's no reason to believe it's contrived after the fact, as the hand matches on all of the cancels.

So this document was potentially doubly illegal: (1) using a postage stamp in lieu of a revenue stamp, and (2) short paying the tax due by 9 cents.

However the interpretation of 10 cents per shareholder vs. 10 cents per proxy document was apparently unclear at the time, as Mike mentions later in the section when referring to a similar proxy for the New York Central Railroad:


Quote:
...note that, as in Example 1, two distinct proxies were executed, but in this case only 10 cents tax was paid, and there is room for the interpretation that this was adequate. In 1867, however, it was ruled that on such documents 10 cents tax was required for each shareholder's signature (Mahler, 1988d, 144).


So 30 cents tax due was correct and the document was doubly illegal after all.

A very nice addition to my illegal usage collection.

Send note to Staff
Edited by revenuecollector - 10/23/2020 9:10 pm

Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
389 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   09:27 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add mml1942 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'm not a revenue guy. What's an "EMU"?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2527 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   09:46 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add littleriverphil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
an Early Matching Use, it is in the thread title.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
389 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   10:35 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add mml1942 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks. Now that I've had coffee, I see it.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
7107 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   10:42 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add revcollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The original idea for first issue revenues was that the title of the stamp was the only usage it would have; mortgage on mortgages, etc. It very quickly became apparent that this was totally impractical, so that within a couple of months the decision was made to allow any title stamp to be used for any documentary purpose, except for the proprietary and playing cards stamps. Those two titles could only be used on proprietary articles. Which is why the playing cards stamps are relatively scarce, there was no need for the duplication of titles for the same purpose. The end result of this is that documents which have stamps that actually match their original purpose are not common, and in some cases are quite scarce, and are a popular collecting interest.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by revcollector - 10/24/2020 10:46 am
Valued Member
United States
65 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   10:48 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ericjackson to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Fascinating and wonderful find. Thanks for sharing, Dan.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
Australia
879 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   8:48 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Laurie 02 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
So would this stamp be the same usage?

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
4984 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   8:52 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add revenuecollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
That appears to be a manuscript revenue cancel, yes. Unfortunately no way to glean context once removed from the document. Still, a nice find IMO.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
Australia
879 Posts
Posted 10/24/2020   8:55 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Laurie 02 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks revenuecollector I better remove it from eBay and keep it for an unusual usage!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous TopicReplies: 8 / Views: 404Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2020 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2020 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.58 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05