Revenues Used As Postage Gallery

Just some interesting covers.

Nothing on the back unless shown.

Jim

Hi, very funny!

Stampmaster

Beyond the fact that these are curiosities, there is really nothing terribly significant or important about any of these covers. One has to suspect that two that are addressed to Mr. Ardiff are philatelic contrivances. I would be curious if anyone can document that he was a stamp collector, maybe even an APS member!

Alright, thank you.

Jim

p.s. I apologize. I will refrain from posting interesting covers for others to study in the future. If I could delete this post, I would.

Member of The Perfins Club 1978 and the Canal Zone study group.

That's a bit harsh, Ron. Admittedly the ones used out of period are likely philatelic, but how are these any less worthy of discussion than any other improper/illegal usages? Certainly they are not valuable rarities, but definitely collectible.

Admittedly, I'm biased as I collect revenues used as postage and postage used as revenues, but I don't quite understand the implied contempt coming through...

That said, the market seems to prioritize in-period usages over out-of-period pieces, which tend to be philatelic. Prices for the former usually dwarf the latter, sometimes by large amounts.

James, FWIW I found the covers interesting. Keep posting these off-the-wall items.

Nearly all from 1898 or later whether used in period or out of period were philatelic in nature. Some earlier examples were not.

I also found these interesting. And they bring up a question -- if the full rate was paid with legitimate postage, was there anything illegal about adding revenues on an envelope?

James,
Your post is appreciated. Ron mentioned that 'these are curiosities' and I agree with that part of his opinion. 'Curiosities' are great topics for our community and our hobby. Please do not refrain from posting in the future.
Don

James:

I found these to be interesting.

I really don't care that they may not be "significant or important" in the eyes of specialists, or that some consider them to be mere curiosities. And even if I hadn't found them to be interesting, I wouldn't have belittled your post.

My apologies for sounding so down on the curiosities. I have created some revenue used as postage in the past. They are what they are. How about all the underpaid love letters to my future wife - all underpaid by a half cent, in hopes that they would put a half cent postage due stamp on them? Alas, none of the postal employees ever caught any of them. I could point to the choice of commemorative stamps used to pay proper postage, but conveying an additional "not so secret" message to the addressee, in addition to the message of the enclosed message. Important, no. Significant, hardly. Philatelic contrivances, absolutely. Collectable, yes. I obviously have some. But I stand by my original assertions that they are of low importance and minor significance.

Ron - do you like this one better?

Stamp collecting and art have a lot in common where beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's not belittle what someone collects or what they choose to post on this site because the items are of "low importance and minor significance". To you they may be, but to the collector that chose to share them in a post with us they are something totally else. P.S. I found them interesting simply because they are different. And I do not collect US.

To respond to Greg Alex. If I am not mistaken, postal regulations require that a postage stamp be on the envelope in order to get a postal cancel. I have formed a collection of R733, the revenue stamp commemorating the centenary of Internal Revenue. First day covers were created with postal cancels on July 2, 1962 (July 1 was a Sunday), but postage stamps were to be applied in order to obtain a postal cancel. In most cases the postal employees abided by that regulation. But there are exceptions where no postage stamps were applied. So the answer to the query about canceling a revenue stamp if proper postage is also applied is that such cancels are permitted.

The late George Turned wrote about the subjects of revenues used as postage and postage used as revenue stamps. The context, however, was in period use. Bart has noted this. In many cases one justifies this as the unavailability of the proper stamps. They were not contrivances. When revenues were caught by the post office, they assessed a penalty, double the proper rate. If the tax on various documents were paid with postage stamps and a dispute arose, the document could not be entered as evidence in court proceedings. Either of these I would assert are both interesting and important because of the implications. In neither case are the resulting usages created as curiosities