US Postal Regulations For Postmark Ink Colors

Hy-brasil, you wrote

They don't. One can't remove the bar portion and put them back on. They are part of the device. They are all masked-off 4-bars. Just different abilities to mask-off the bars.

Eyeonwall, Ink is a supply ordered and used regularly. The regs are very simple from the 1880s to after WWII that the USPOD supplies everything and stamps are cancelled in black ink. Anything not in black (or occasionally red/magenta) has an extremely high chance of being collector-supplied ink.

More broadly: trying to learn postal history & the associated rules/regulations by studying philatelic mail is a poor approach. There is considerable bending of rules. The fancy registered killers of the late 1920s and early 1930s surely prove this and it was eventually shut down as described in the introductory pages of Fishback and Walker's updated/revised edition of Loso and deWindt's "20th Century U.S. Fancy Cancelations" volume published in 1987.

Not sure that was ever in doubt. What I hoped to determine was if there has ever been any effort to adress this "considerable bending of rules." I'm taking the answer to be no. (Edit: perhaps with the issue with fancy cancels excepted? The use of color in approproved modern pictoral postmarks seems to be an anomaly, however.)

The meanderings of the thread have been personally interesting, but I suppose there is not much else that can be said as to its original purpose.

Hi Basil,
I supported the thread wanderings because it keeps the thread active, the hope being that someone might weigh in with more exacting information you originally asked about.
Don

Basil, The effort would be to research the rules in the Postal Laws and Regulations volumes and in the Postal Bulletins.

As you echoed, the 20th Century Fancy Cancelations book noted above references several reminders published in the Postal Bulletin - so there have been some reminders of the rules.

I know of no procedure in the 1880s to post-WWII era to seek exceptions to the ink or postmarking regulations (i.e. a "form" to submit).

Certainly what the USPS is doing now with ink-jet pictorials is best characterized as a changing of the rules for FDCs and other philatelic products rather than a bending of rules.

Don, I was thinking of the diversion and dialog with hy-brazil brought about by my mention of backdating cancellations. In my case, the two issues -- unauthorized inks, and backdating -- could reflect a particular ethos associated with the WW II patriotic covers of Victory, VT. I think your post does add to the discussion in light of John's mention of the issues with fancy cancels. Looking at the covers illustrated in the article you posted, there are both philatelic and regular mail covers shown. I have to wonder if the fact that postal authorities came down on the use of fancy cancels in the literature cited by John was because of widespread use to cancel ordinary mail, rather than sporadic use for philatelic purposes.

Most of the rules and regulations from the late 19th century and probably up into the 1920s about using ONLY USPOD supplied inks were part of the effort to prevent the washing of stamps for reuse.

The Department believed (probably correctly) that locally manufactured inks would not be permanent, and thus allow stamps to be washed and reused.

Basil, Which covers in Don's post do you think are regular mail? I don't see any which aren't completely philatelic.

(Yes, "F.C." = first class, but these would all be collector-inspired philatelic creations, just at a lower cost than registered mail.)

John, I took the covers without cachets to be ordinary mail, but in retrospect realize that is not necessarily the case.

One of the covers has a marking applied that looks like "Found in ordinary mail." Is that a recognized postal marking, and if so, what does it mean?

Basil

is an auxiliary marking placed onto mail which should have been segregated out for special treatment. I have seen this most often on registered letters dropped in a postbox and found by the clerk/postmaster as they were sorting.

Morning John and all,

I think "found in ordinary mail" is only seen on registered items? Can it be found on any other types of mail that could be dropped into a pick up box?

Hoosierboy, I have only one example handy of the "found in ordinary mail" marking, which is used on registered mail found outside the control of the registry system and subsequently registered.




A browse through the 1948 Postal Laws and Regulations volume mentions the "found in..." marking only in regard to registered mail. Also a similar "not in the registered mail".

The auxiliary mark is legitimate/recognized. As an example, in this supplies listing, it is item #31:



This thread on mail discovered in higher or lower classifications or odd places has related examples:
http://goscf.com/t/75087

Thanks, John. Does anyone have a similar publication from other years listing available devices?

See the Stamp Smarter page:

https://stampsmarter.org/learning/P...upplies.html


If you compare John's page entry with the 1952 Catalog on Stamp Smarter, which is a supply catalog for the Fourth Class office, you will see that entry No. 31 is not present. This implies that this type of stamp was not provided to all post offices, only the Presidential Class.

Anyone with other editions of any of these catalogs is invited (and encouraged) to offer copies to be digitized and added to this Stamp Smarter page.
Mike

Morning Mike and all,

Where can I find a complete list of supplies available to each class of post office?

Russ:

All the information I have is in the catalogs which I scanned and posted on Stamp Smarter.

Your question is rather broad in scope. Are you interested in current information or historical information back to 1776?

Mike