C19 Block Of 4 With Plate No. On Cover

I've described the following as a "Block of 4 with Plate No." rather than as a "Plate Block" because only part of the selvage is attached:




The missing portion of selvage appears to have been cut, rather than torn. Is there a reason I might be missing as to why someone would have done this? NBD, just curious is all.

Basil

Sometimes it has to do with one's perceived "attractiveness" of the cover. In this case, the additional "blank" selvage would have hidden the airmail red and blue color markings, so they decided to remove it.

As it stands, it's really a "second day" cover, as the first day of issue was June 30, 1934. If it had the June 30th postmark, the cover would be worth 20x its modest value as a second day (July 1, 1934) cover.

Back in the 1930s and 40s first day cover dealers popularized collecting "first day of national use" or second day covers from Washington, D.C. in addition to the first day cover from the designated first day city. As wt1 noted, this is such a cover.

My knowledge of the difference between June 30 and Julu 1 covers for this stamp comes from Planty:


I do happen to have a variety of July 1 C19 covers with cachets. I acquired this one because of the "plate block," which I've not often seen on a C19 cover. If I ever see one with a June 30 cancel, it will probably be more than I can afford.

Not all Washington DC covers were "second day." I have a couple of C20 covers with Washington DC cancels issued on November 22, 1935 whereas the normal cancellation is November 22 in San Francisco. According to Planty, these Washington DC covers are scarcer and sell for about 50% more than the San Francisco covers.

But thanks for the comments. They add to my knowledge, which continues to grow.

Basil

Great 'spot on' answers. The only thing I can add is that collectors today have slightly different standards that those of so many decades ago. Today's collectors want perfect, as issued stamps. They also want things like having their first day covers to be the actual first day rather than a variation such as first day of general use and so on. If Mr. Denton or whoever sent this cover to Mr. Denton was using today's collector's standards, he would have left the selvedge intact and simply lowered the address so the stamps would fit without covering up the edge stripes or the address. Or even better he would have used a plate block of 6 and not this one of 4. There is room on the cover for a plate block of 6. Or to make it the most desirable possible by today's standards he would have used a plate block of 6, ensured it was an actual FDC and had it cancelled on June 30, and made some kind of air mail cachet that was related to the stamps.

What one often does not remember is that back in the day of the cover shown, there was no "grace period" where one could go and buy their own stamps, affix them to covers and send them in for cancellation. Back in 1934, a collector had to send their prepared covers with a remittance (check or money order) to the USPO and THEY affixed the requested stamps to the envelopes and provided the cancellation.

Also, as it relates to the C19 issue, the July 1, 1934 Washington, DC postmark is the most common and least "valuable" variety; the more valuable June 30, 1934 postmarked "first day covers" were only known from Baltimore, MD, New York, NY, Brooklyn, NY and San Francisco, CA.

Speaking of November 22 (the day of the month that C20 was issued, noted above). As noted elsewhere today on SCF, it is the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.

wt1, what was the source of your information about cancellations in New York, NY, Brooklyn, NY and San Francisco, CA? Planty mentions Baltimore. Scott Specialized mentions June 30 as date of issue, but only lists a valuation for July 1 covers (presumably because the others are uncommon, if not rare).

I've been collecting air mail stamps and covers for about 10 years, but only recently had the time to begin delving into the minutiae of what I've collected. So I'm always interested in your postings, and here in particular your sources (in case it is something I want to add to my growing pilatelic library).

Not the 50th anniversary ... but the 51st anniversary.




Scott Specialized Catalogue of US Stamps and Covers. You have to refer to the "First Day Cover Section". (In my 2013 catalog, it's on page 236). Noted is that there was a June 30, 1934 Baltimore, MD postmark (valued at $200) and then postmarks on that date from New York, NY (valued at $1000); Brooklyn, NY and San Francisco, CA (valued at $1500).

This is in contrast to the July 1, 1934 postmark from Washington, DC is valued at a modest $10. What a difference a day makes!

I haven't looked up the history of these covers, but I suspect it involved incorrect release of the stamps in the named cities before they were supposed to be officially placed on sale.

This June 30 / July 1 controversy was extensively analyzed in the September/October 1966 issue of "First Days" the journal of the American First Day Cover Society. In essence, the conclusion was made that Baltimore received the stamps either on June 29 or June 30 since it was a distribution center that received stamps directly from Washington. Also, after looking official USPOD announcements, it seems that there was no set First Day of Issue.

According to postal records 1,390,000 stamps were shipped on June 29 to distribution centers.

June 30 covers are known from Baltimore and Philadelphia. Indeed, the Baltimore covers has both the new 6c airmail stamp and a 2c regular definitive to meet the 8c airmail rate still in effect on June 30. The FDC is shown on the cover of "First Days"

The article is quite long and was supplemented in further issues of "First Days".

Glenn Estus, President, Vermont Philatelic Society

http://www.vermontps.org

editor, The Vermont Philatelist

First Day Columnist, Stamp Insider http://www.stampinsider.org

http://empirestatepostalhistory.blogspot.com/

http://nypostalhistory.blogspot.com/

http://vermontpostalhistory.blogspot.com

Glenn,

Thanks for the reference to the First Days articles. I'll take a look at them.

wt1,

Thanks for the correction on the anniversary. So I was off a year. Couple of days ago, you were just off a month, I think.

Thanks too for reminding me where I should have looked in the Scott's Specialized Catalog.

Update...

I've read the several articles by Richard H. Thompson in First Days that Glenn drew my attention to. Very interesting. The gist of the matter is captured in the following two news reports from the time C19 was released:



Writing 33 years after the fact, Thompson was only able to identify 39 covers dated Jun 30th, 36 with Baltimore cancels, and 3 with a Philadelphia cancel. But others were known to exist: Adam Bert had 200 serviced with Baltimore cancels, and Henry Hammelman perhaps another 200. But altogether, the number of C19 covers with June 30 cancels was perhaps little more than 500, certainly less than 1,000. That is in contrast to the ~50,000 covers serviced on July 1 in DC.

As an aside, my primary album of US airmails contains mint singles, plate blocks, and an FDC. For the FDC's, where I can, I have an FDC with a plate block on it. Of the 39 covers that Thompson identified in 1966, only one had a plate block. So I think I shall have to make do with my July 1 cover as far as that is concerned. However, in a quest to have as complete a collection as I can, I now have this:



It will take the place of the cover with plate block in my main album, and the latter will take up residence in a supplemental album with several other July 1st covers. And for what that's worth, as a collector of cacheted FDCs, most of the C19 covers identified in Planty are known only with July 1 cancels.

Thanks for the previous contributes to this thread.

Basil

A very nice Baltimore, MD 06/30/1934 FDC of Scott C19.

On a related note, I thought you might be interested in this link whereby the addressee on that cover, Edward M. Horman, RFD 2, Landover, MD, was attributed to Pioneer FDC Servicer, Dealer and Exhibitor Henry Hammelman:

https://henryhammelman.wordpress.co...ndix-part-4/

wt1, I knew, just knew, that if there was anything of interest about the addressee on that cover, you would deliver. But you exceeded my expectations. Thank you so much. Reading the narrative at that website about Hammelman, Edward M. Horman was apparently a USPOD employee, as was Hammelman until he retired. And as he retired in 1935 and moved to NYC, the C19 was probably the next to last airmail he serviced from DC.

Reading the companion website regarding Hammelman FFC's I came across a cover serviced by Hammelman addresed to D. R. Niblack:

https://hhflightcovers.wordpress.com/2026-2/

Well, I recognized the name, and looking through my album found it:



It has the same "Type Style" documented here

https://henryhammelman.wordpress.co...-type-style/

and so I'm quite sure that this is a Hammelman serviced cover as well. As you no doubt know, the C16 has its own interesting history, and may almost be as rare or scarce as the June 30 C19 cancels. So thanks to you, I think I've discovered something I did not know about this C16 cover.

Basil

Does anybody now where I could find a June 30 C19? Would like to add to my collection.

Not at this time, but I do see them in auctions with some regularity. They seem to go for between $300 and $900 depending on the cachet, whether it is a single or a block or a plate block, and the overall attractiveness.

Thank you Kimo. I will look into auctions whether ebay or other. Best regards.