Cover From 1932

Here is another new one, adding to my array--I was missing #139, so happy to check that box. Also has #135 too and some nice back stamp cancels....appears the the postal workers were exuberant this day.

Nice one

Tommy...Why so many cancellations on the back..?

Robert

The extra postmarks on the back were applied across the seems of the envelope. I have seen this done at the post office on more modern mailings. I think it is a security measure on registered mail so if anyone tampered with the seems it would misalign the cancelation thus indicating it had been tampered with. This is just a theory as I have not researched this in post office regulations.

Well, at least it doesn't seem too seamy,what with all those seams neatly cancelled.

I think you're correct, but the cover is curious in that the postmarks over the seams of the envelope were only applied in the US (not in Canada). Could it be only a US postal regulation -- at least back in the day the envelope was posted?

The other interesting thing is that Boston Post Office did some of the seams and Los Angeles did some also. This may have been a US regulation as you infer.

That doesn't make sense either because the opening is on one side only, correct?

Any envelope seam can be opened.

All good observations, I would only add that with regard to the Los Angeles registration cancels, if you look closely, they are different.
One references the "Arcade Annex" and the other does not. My hypothesis (having lived in Los Angeles) is that there is a large Postal Annex downtown where I believe envelopes from Boston would have first arrived and been canceled. The other, or second cancel, is from another post office closer to the recipient but still in LA.

I am unable to guess as to why the Boston cancels occurred twice, and the seam theory seems plausible. It could also be just an overzealous postal worker. It is odd though, because I have a fair number of Newfoundland covers and many to the US went through Boston and were backstamped, but usually just once.

Here is a 2nd cover to compare. This one also has two postmarks from San Francisco, however one is very faint. The stronger one says RECD and the faint one does not. You can just barely see the faint SAN FRANCISCO CAL APR 7 postmark between the Auckland and Windsor postmarks. This one is not Registered so not as many postmarks and not on seams.

US registry regs of the time had the clerk cancel the stamp with a mute cancellation and apply the datestamps across the seams on the back of the envelope. This forced the clerk to turn the envelope over to make sure it was sealed properly and to apply the datestamps in a way that would make tampering more evident.

In the case of the Newfie cover above, the clerk in Boston inspected the envelope, saw that there were no datestamps across the seams, and applied his datestamp there as both a receiving mark and as a way to ensure that the envelope was not opened while in the US registry system.

When it reached LA, the clerks did the same, turning the envelope over to inspect it. They applied their receiving datestamps across the seam was not covered in Boston.

jimjung,

i love your cover. my wife is from New Zealand so it is personal but also objectively stunning.

have you any Newfoundland to New Zealand covers?

Seems that the San Francisco Rec'd, the Auckland, and Windsor postmarks are all on seams. It also has the same number of postmarks as Tommy's cover, 5.. just sayin. Great covers guys!

Postmarks: The Boston Registry section during its security checks of mails passing through its office were required to 'seal' seams or points of entry to insure tampering discovery. The Boston Registry was housed at the McCormick Courthouse Station (Boston GPO) until forced to relocate retail operations to Liberty Square, and its carriers & other operations to the South Postal Annex in mid 2000's.

On the second cover (not registered), the location of the transit datestamps was not required to cross the seams. Any sitting on a seam was either a random occurrence or some individual clerk's personal foible.