Help With S. Co. Narcotic Handstamp

I finally decided to post this to see if I can get any help.

Trying to identify this company. I am of the belief it could be a provisional.

Any clues?

Looks to be either R228, R251, or R264, . See US specialized catalog under documentary revenue stamps.

Actually, trying to identify the company to see if it's possible it falls in the category of the narcotic provisionals RJA26 - RJA32.

It appears to be one of the standard narcotic overprints; possibly Philadelphia or NY. Unless one can prove that the S. Co. was applied along with the narcotic from one device it is simply an RJA9. Without another example with a complete cancel it cannot even be proved that S Co. is the complete company name. Perhaps revenuermd will chime in here, he has far more narcotic cancels than I have.

That would be awesome if anybody else has any examples with this cancel. One characteristic I noticed that may determined if it was stamped all at once or separately is the S. and the NA are both light to missing and the Co. and TIC are heavier and more smudged.

From the Nov. 1974 issue of The American Revenuer S Co. is known as a cancel on RJA67b, Squibb Company perhaps

Sorry to be so late in responding to this post. Indeed there is a second example of this cancel. Alignment is the same. So I think it is fairly safe to assume that the S. Co. and Narcotic are part of the same handstamp. The thought that this might be Squibb is certainly a reasonable assumption until we can more definitely pin down the identity.

Poking around on the internet it would appear that Squibb Corp was located during this period in Brooklyn (3rd Collection District, New York), before moving to Princeton, NJ. We have not identified their cancel otherwise on RJA9 - 41. I might note that we have many cancels with registration numbers on RJA33 - 41, whose company names have been ascertained. So there is hope!

Would love to see a scan of the other copy if possible.

Here is another example of the same two-line handstamp provisional for S. Co. The conjecture that this might be Squibb Corporation is an interesting one. If I understand the history of the company, they were still in Brooklyn in 1919, which is the 3rd collection district in New York. We have no documented users from that collection district among the handstamps used on RJA 9 through 25. Martin H. Smith was located in Brooklyn, but they also had a facility in lower Manhattan and they used stamps with the handstamp which we have established were used by a number of companies that had facilities in the 2nd collection district, New York (lower Manhattan).

Two years later, here is (I think) the answer to your question:

I would think that if the stamps came from Squibb, then they would have used "E. R. S. and Sons" as their overprint/cancel, as that was the full company name.

I believe that these stamps were created by Schieffelin and Company, which was based in New York City. They definitely made narcotics, see below.

The only thing that I'm not sure of yet is that the font that was used in this cancel/overprint is similar to that used in Philadelphia, and not the one that was used in New York.

Still working on that though...

Jim



Philadelphia overprint



New York overprint



Sounds delicious

Squibb was in Brooklyn far longer then 1919; I seem to recall seeing the sign as a boy when taking the subway over the Manhattan Bridge.

Sorry, but what does that comment mean?

Are you disagreeing with my identification, or...?

Jim

I don't think Bart's comment had anything to do with your suggested identification. My interpretation is that he was simply following up on an earlier statement by revenuermd that Squibb was "still in Brooklyn in 1919."

The fact that the NARCOTIC part of the cancel resembles the Philadelphia district collector's handstamp may or may not be relevant.

If E.R. S. & Sons is the full name of Squibb is used as the reason for doubting S. Co. is Squibb, then the same logic should discount Schieffelin & Co. as the identity of the user of the S. Co. provisional. No &!

Ron has a point. Theoretically if it was Schieffelin & Co. then the handstamp should say S. & Co.

Just also noticed that the date on my copy as well as Ron's is March 21, 1919. Maybe this mystery company ran out of Narcotic stamps on this one particular day?

I am going to go out on a limb and say this is definitely a provisional. My reasoning is this: what are the chances the S. Co. and the word Narcotic on both stamps being at identically spaced apart and identically at the same angle? Also on both the period after Co. is directly above the I in Narcotics. Anybody want to put odds on that happening?

The centering indicates that they probably came from the same sheet, and I suspect that they were all cancelled before the sheet was separated.