A Very High Price For A Match And Medicine Facsimile Label

Yesterday a match and medicine facsimile label sold for a considerable amount:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/U-S-stamp-...047675.l2557



I found a similar label some time ago for far less than this new one:



Maybe these labels from the Swift Specific Company are actually pretty rare? Apparently at least a few collectors were willing to pay much more than $20 for it.

Jim

Of what match and medicine stamp is that a facsimile?

It is, in fact, not a facsimile of an actual match and medicine stamp. "Match and medicine facsimiles" is a catch-all term, used by most dealers and collectors (see example below), to describe those labels that were used by various manufacturers after the internal revenue tax stamps were no longer required.

The facsimiles range from labels that look just like the revenue stamps, to those that look nothing like the revenue stamps, and to those (like this one) that didn't even use their own revenue stamp.

I personally prefer the term "package seals," as it more accurately describes what they were actually used for.

Jim

Yes, I know what facsimile labels are, but I didn't see any link between that label and a M&M stamp. I guess you are expanding the definition to include package closures unrelated to a M&M stamp, unlike the Springer and Holcomb lists.

This is not a "match and medicine" label. That term specifically relates to the post stamp labels of stamps issued by the companies listed in Scott. This is just a medicine company closure label. It might well be scarce enough to be worth the price, but what it is called does matter.

Based on the images that are in this thread, I believe that the one on ebay is a label that went over the top of the bottle of Swift's Southern Specific and Jim's image could have been on the same bottle. But there is a much longer version of the label that went over the top of the bottle which is pictured here. So it looks like the avid collector of these labels has three versions to chase after

The purpose of these labels is to combat counterfeiting of a company's product. I believe that a good term for them is trademark labels. Violation of the company's trademark is a prosecutable offense and indeed that is exactly what was intended.

The presence of the trademark continues to be a weapon against counterfeit products as evidenced by Chinese goods imitating Johnson & Johnson products (with the requisite Red Cross trademark on the packages). Even today this continues to keep lawyers busy seeking to stop the importation of these counterfeit products.

I'm not sure that anyone has ever actually looked up the definition of the word "facsimile."

I did:







Kindly notice the repeated use of the word "exact."

Based on the actual, current, "real" definition of "facsimile," NONE of the Springer, etc. listed stamps actually qualify as match and medicine "facsimile" stamps.

They were erroneously described as such many years ago, and the error apparently continually perpetuates until (hopefully) today.

The stamps in this area should all actually be called "replicas," at best. Maybe 'sort of looks like' would suffice.

Nonetheless, the entire point of this post was to point out the high dollar amount that was spent on what was basically a package seal for an old medicine product, which is what I originally wrote.

The semantics of the terminology used was beside the point.

This point was apparently lost on most, as usual.

Oh well.




And where, exactly, is this particular description specifically documented, please? Or was this just arbitrarily made up for an argumentative sake? Who said that the "facsimiles" had to be first listed in Scott in order to be recognized?

Maybe this is the general contrariness that is always seen here?

Jim

"And where, exactly, is this particular description specifically documented, please? Or was this just arbitrarily made up for an argumentative sake? Who said that the "facsimiles" had to be first listed in Scott in order to be recognized?"
They were erroneously described as such many years ago, and the error apparently continually perpetuates until (hopefully) today.

the terminology "facsimiles" has been around forever. may I point out that many of the original labels were in fact either made from the same dies or plates differing only in the removal of their denomination and usir designations. Henry Holcomb and I believe Sherwood Springer both had separate categories for them based on there closeness to the original design. as the public had been used to seeing for years a stamp on products and the labels were just a continuation of that. what ever you call them they are collectible and can as pointed out occasionally command a high price.

Where is it documented???? Just to begin with, the 1964 Springer catalog called them facsimiles. Which means that the term was almost certainly a common one around long before that. He would have had no reason to invent a term for a collecting area that was very well known by then. Philatelic terms have never depended on pure dictionary definitions anyway.

Jim - you referred to internet dictionaries. If you had referred to a real dictionary you would find that the term "facsimile" is not limited to "exact" copies. Webster's 2nd New International Unabridged Dictionary (1953) gives the following definitions:

1 Act of making a copy; imitation
2 An exact and detailed copy of anything, as of a book, document, painting, or statute; specif., a copy made esp. by a process of photographing and engraving a book or document.

The M&M facsimile labels clearly fit within the definition of facsimile as "imitation." Notably, I pulled this from a 1950s dictionary, closer to the date when Springer and Holcombe were writing. Since the introduction of facsimile [fax] machines, the meaning of "exact copy" has become dominant.

The initial post in this thread was the extraordinary price that this item brought. I added to this discussion a post regarding the intent of these objects to protect the various company trademarks.

Philatelically, the ones that imitate the tax stamps became known as facsimiles and so I have known them my entire philatelic life.

But somehow much of this discussion has gotten sidetracked into the changing meaning of words outside the philatelic community over the past few decades. Personally, I would prefer any additional insight into these and similar types of FACSIMILES that we collect and their monetary value and contextual or historical value.

i agree with revenuermd especially regarding the history and use of these labels, with an emphasis on company's not considered by Springer and Holcombe. these labels were brought about by the company's not only to protect trademarks but because the manufacturers had been telling the buying public to look at the stamps as evidence of a genuine product and they did not want to lose this valuable advertising feature. as for the price paid it seems high, but in line with some of its better known cousins.

It seems high for a part of a label. I feel it might well be a bit low for a complete label; I don't recall ever seeing one before.

Bart,

I think the ebay item was a complete FACSIMILE. Look at the right and left. Then look at the long FACSIMILE I posted. There is no white space on the long FACSIMILE corresponding to the item in the ebay lot. Also the placement of the signatures on the ebay item are placed differently from the long FACSIMILE.

Here are some that I have found (and that are documented in my book):

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Drummond-J...AOSwQH5b6j3f

Jim

There are a number of companies with labels such as these. Some of these are clearly of 20th century origin, which would make them far too late to be considered "match and medicine" items.