Frank-Less Telegraph Stamp

I noticed among my BOB curiosities today that one of my telegraph stamps was missing its frank number. I'm sure someone here can tell me whether this is unusual or not. I know very little about how these were used, I'd be interested to know the purpose of this number.

Here's the frank-less example and one with a frank number for comparison. These look like they may have been issued in booklet sheets -- is that the case?

Hi Greg,

No, the "missing" frank numbers are not that unusual.

The Western Union stamps basically used the A to E letter prefixes and suffixes in the frank numbers, along with manuscript frank numbers, no frank numbers, "corrected" frank numbers, handstamped frank numbers, and so on.

Crazy people like me actually collect these type of varieties, of which I will show some examples tomorrow night.

Jim

Should be interesting! And was my guess about booklet panes correct?

Greg,

Yes, they were printed in booklet panes. Search telegraph on ebay and you'll see some examples of the panes.

I believe that the franking numbers were a way for Western Union to know who was using the stamps. The number was assigned to a specific company.

The franking numbers beginning with the letter "A" are, in my experience, the least commonly seen. The early stamps with "E" are also scarce.

However, I don't know of anyone that "values" any of the letters any more or less than another (other than myself, I guess).

The stamps were usually issued in booklets with panes of 4, 6, 8, or larger stamps.

The early Western Union horizontal pairs, imperf. vertically come from either leftover, unfinished larger panes of 16, as shown below, or from truly misperforated panes.

Shown below are some scans of the various franking numbers and their varieties.

Jim

I'm a bit confused as to properly grading the Western Union telegraph stamps. None of the stamps that I have, have "cancellations", (as defined in regular postage stamps). I have some that do not have Frank numbers, some that have unblemished gum, some without gum, some that have obviously been hinged, etc. I have been grading those that I find with unblemished gum, as "mint", and those where the gum has hinge marks, lack of gum, etc., as "used". My doubts are with the Frank numbers. Are they considered as "cancellations", or are they more related to a company, auditing, control numbers, etc?

I've got one of those without the frank number. It is style T24, is dated 1876, and is signed by William Orton. That SHOULD make it 16T6.

The problem is that it is NOT red like the Scott catalogue says it should be.

Anyone know what it is? It appears to have had the perforations trimmed away and has no gum.

uboatnut

Your WU item is a trial color plate proof on india paper. The proofs are listed in the proof section of the Scott Specialized.

dialta

Those stamps with gum are mint, those with gum and hinged are mint, hinged. Without gum can be either an unused stamp that has lost its gum over the years or a used stamp that was not cancelled. With few exceptions, used Western Union stamps are extremely difficult to locate as most were destroyed by the company. When you do see a used, cancelled stamp, it could have a pencil or handstamp cancel.

Thanks, Eric.

16T6TC3a (violet blue)

Given the total lack of perforations, I thought that might be the case, but it was printed on almost tissue-paper-thin paper rather than the more common card stock.

Glad I still had my 2014 US Specialized catalogue as Proofs were removed from the 2024 US Specialized.