1851-7 1c Franklin - Plate 6.....?

Thanks ray.mac!!

Yea, this has been an ongoing philosophical issue in the philatelic community forever.

I think there is pretty broad consensus that writing of any kind on the face of a cover is not a good thing to do.

The main debate is whether its ok to make pencil notations on the reverse or not.

Ashbrook was notorious for writing all over the front of covers. Much of what he wrote on the front of many more valuable covers, has been erased at this point. What he wrote on the rear, largely remains.

One must be very careful prior to erasing anything, particularly on the front of a cover (but also the back), since there are many pencil, crayon, and other markings done by the PO which do have meaning, and are often subtle and not easily recognized as such. You don't want to erase those.

I loath writing of any kind on stamps and covers unless they are contemporaneous markings.

Anything that I can clearly identify as dealer-originated and not from a "name" philatelist I erase.

I'm actually in the evil camp with regard to writing on covers.

I think that if someone, for example, plates the stamp on the cover, that it should be noted in pencil on the back.

If the cover has important postal history information, such as importance of addressee, scarce mail route, etc .. that is not necessarily easily observed, then it should be mentioned.

The problem that really bugs me, is that I see great collections broken up, and sold in sales. The top-end covers, of course, everyone knows and keeps track of. Many other covers fly under the radar, and the research done on them is often lost. A few years later, one of these covers will show up in some random sale as #10 on cover, or whatever -- or worse: it will be in some large group lot, because that's all the seller sees it as. Maybe after that, the stamp gets soaked and the cover discarded, since no-one realizes its importance.

This happens a lot, and I stand by my argument that research associated with covers should in many cases, be recorded in brief in pencil on the back. Not for every cover, but for those that have some import above the rest. Platings should almost always be recorded.

I also appreciate at least some provenance listed on covers, as when I'm trying to authenticate something - western covers are a mine-field, for example -- if I can find it in a sale prior to John Fox's time faking covers, then I feel a lot better about its validity. A provenance on the cover, that gets me directly to a sale catalog helps speed that process.

I think my issue is more with the writing on the front than the back. Plate position or other pertinent information as txstamp mentioned as long as it is done neatly on the back. But that cover we are discussing, what about the date at the top? It was not written by the person that sent the letter. Is it a valid year? The other pencil writing makes me question the date as well.

(I love that cover anyway)

I will never write on the front of a cover.

The writing immediately above the stamp is probably Ashbrook. It resembles his handwriting closely - not a perfect match - he's not usually that angled, but its close and given that he examined this cover, its close enough to say its him.

The docketing of "New Orleans and the date" at the top, probably came from a dealer or collector. Docketing noting when a letter was received and whether it was answered was commonplace during this timeframe. This, however, is a circular - aka printed matter - aka junk mail, so I would not normally expect to see docketing from the time period on it, although its remotely possible. The year-date slug in the CDS is illegible, so someone read the printed circular and grabbed the date from it and noted it on the front for convenience. Most likely a dealer at some point.

My interpretation is similar except I don't think the note above the stamp is Ashbrook. Probably a dealer or collector. The "TOP ROW" notation is Ashbrook as is the note on cream colored paper. Looks like everybody that has ever touched it has had to add something... sigh...

From Deep Cert - the stamp on cover is 5L8.

Here is a 5-6L8 pair for comparison.

Nice pair of stamps with the great color and the early impression and all. Of course I would like the back to look as nice as the front... clean.

I knew Ray's stamp was the same position as my super duper top row #24. It is interesting that when I first posted it everybody's initial reaction was that my stamp was a Type Va also. With Deep Cert's example showing the nearly complete right side ornaments, one can see how and why Ashbrook went wrong. Here is my 5L8. Wish it was as early an impression as the other two in this thread.

Thanks Ray Mac for the cover post. It looks a lot like a type VA stamp, with near complete side ornament.

Matt

Some very pretty stamps in this thread. Maybe I'll have to start collecting plate 8.

You'd have a fair chance of completing Plate 8, txstamp. I have 139 positions.

Dudley, you don't have an extra 3L, do you? Only A Relief I don't have on Plate 8...I also have some dups for the A reliefs if you need any: 1,5,6,7,8,10L, and 4,8R. I also have an extra copy of 13L...

Let me know if any of these can help you. My main interest is completing all of the V and Va A reliefs, and anything on Plate 5.