Some US Recent Revenue Document Acquisitions At Auction

... and I don't mean eBay, for a change.

First a 2-document lot I picked up at a Sterling Stamps auction on SAN. While the stamps themselves are a bit beat up, the documents fall squarely in my illegal/improper usage collection. Both documents have pairs of the 1861 1c Franklin affixed.

The first is an 1867 receipt of unknown geographic location. The stamps, while not canceled, appear to be "tied" by original document folds.

I recall having a conversation with a prominent national dealer a number of years ago when examining a similar item in his stock, where he listed the value of the stamps using the "mint no gum" value from the Scott Specialized rather than the used values, as the former was much more than the latter. I asked him why, when the stamps were clearly used. His response was that you could soak the stamps off and sell them as mint no gum.

Personally, I found that to be a somewhat unethical response, but it reinforces my contention that only stamps with a large part original gum should ever be considered unused. I contend that the vast majority of stamps (revenue or postage) found in such a state are NOT unused stamps but rather uncanceled used stamps that have been soaked.

Mint No Gum is a misnomer IMO.

This particular pair isn't the best example of how such a concept could be alluring, as the difference between two MNG singles and a used pair is only $200 vs. $95 per Scott, but for the stamps on the document the dealer had, the difference was into 4 figures.




This next one, the stamps are even more mangled than the first, but are clearly canceled by the same hand as the document. It also has very attractive vignettes. More importantly, it is a Texas usage, which are quite scarce. Not to the level of Arkansas or Florida usages, but I was surprised at just how few Civil War-era Texas documents I have amongst the thousands in my collection... this is only the second one I've imaged. I have far more Texas documents from the Spanish American War tax period.

It caused me to do some research, and I guess I never realized just how low the population density was in Texas during this period. Per the Texas Almanac (https://www.texasalmanac.com/drupal...t%20web.pdf) these are the populations of the major "cities" in Texas in 1870:

Amarillo: ---
Austin: 4,428
Brownsville: 4,905
Corpus Christi: 2,140
Dallas: 3,000
El Paso: ---
Fort Davis: 615
Fort Worth: 500
Galveston: 13,818
Houston: 9,382
Huntsville: 1,600
Jefferson: 4,190
Laredo: 2,046
San Antonio: 12,256
Sherman: 1,439
Waco: 3,008

No wonder not many Texas documents are extant!





Next up are two documents I picked up in Eric Jackson's 3-week auctions.

First is an improper use of a 2-cent Blackjack. Not uncommon, but nice in that it's on a billhead (most are typically handwritten receipts).




The next one is one I was thrilled to get, and my max bid was considerably more than I ended up paying. It's a pair of U.S. Scott #112 (1c. Franklin) used improperly as revenues on an 1869 receipt, canceled in a hand matching the document. The bottom stamp has a horizontal tear, but I'm not complaining as improper uses of #112 are hella scarce. I've only been able to find record of about 6 examples, and only 1 other multiple (uncanceled).

By far the most frequently seen 1869 denomination used as a revenue stamp is #113, the 2c Post Horse and Rider, which logically makes sense, as the 2-cent tax rate is the one that occurs the most. The next most common stamp (and FAR less than the 2c) is #114, the 3-cent Locomotive, typically found overpaying the 2-cent rate, albeit improperly. The 1-cent is found in far, far fewer numbers.




Lastly is one I sat through a session of Kelleher's most recent auction to bid on. While I already have an example of Scott # R115a (2nd issue 50-cent revenue with inverted center), it's not on document, and as I've progressed in my collecting, my goal is to replace stamps with examples on document where possible. So when an example on document came up I figured I'd give it a go. There was some competition, but I ended up with it at under 2/3 of Scott after buyer's premium and shipping, which I consider to be quite reasonable. All of the prior on-document examples on SAN sold for higher amounts.

I wouldn't go so far is to call it rare, as there are 7 other examples on document in SAN's archives, but I would call it scarce.

What makes you confident the stamps were not applied later over folds and then folded?




Perhaps consider unused as a technical term within the hobby that means no cancel and no gum, not the normal English meaning. Similar to Average (aka Good) centering which means rather poor and (for many stamp issues) not typical centering.
Also, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 years ago there was a trend to soak the gum off mint stamps because it was thought that the gum was dangerous to the heath of the stamps (not 100% untrue), plus more that have had to be soaked because they got stuck down due to poor storage. So "vast majority" sound like a stretch to me.

Have you ever tried doing this? It's far easier said than done, especially if the folds are fairly sharp/deep. Now, the argument could be made "why not take a document that wasn't folded, affix the stamps, and then fold the document to create that effect?"

The truth of the matter is that uncanceled stamps on documents will never be as in demand as examples with cancels tying the stamps or matching the hand of the document. It's no different from covers where the stamps are not tied: you can never know for certain if the stamps originated on the document/cover.

I assume that you are aware that the second pair of Franklins are grilled.

"Have you ever tried doing this? It's far easier said than done, especially if the folds are fairly sharp/deep."

No, have not tried it.

"The truth of the matter is that uncanceled stamps on documents will never be as in demand as examples with cancels tying the stamps or matching the hand of the document. It's no different from covers where the stamps are not tied: you can never know for certain if the stamps originated on the document/cover."

Understand

I wasn't when I bid, as the images at SAN weren't high enough resolution, but it was a nice surprise when they arrived. I haven't tried to figure out which grill it is, but as I don't have any other examples of grilled 1c Franklins on document, it will be a new addition regardless.

They will probably be E grills. They appear to be strong enough to check which way the ridges go. I expect they will be vertical.

Probably!!! LOL