US #2 Cover From Canada That Has Conflicting Markings

The Philatelic Foundation issued PFC #563443 for a US #2 on cover from Canada. (PF Illustration below)

The Submitter's comments, followed by the PF's opinion are:




Link to the cert: http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

Here is the cover:


The PFC is brand new, from late 2019. The cover came out of a very old-time collection, probably formed circa mid 20th century, only to recently come to light. Many other nice items, all appearing perfectly legitimate accompanied this in the collection. This was a very discriminating and advanced collector's material. Fun to see.

Now we come back to the cover in question.

I will start by stating that it is impossible to legitimately have the "CANADA" exchange banner, and the Kingston marking dated 1849, on the same cover at the same time.

Effective on April 6th, 1851, the US had a mail treaty with Canada. This treaty allowed mail to be pre-paid to the destination in either country, for the first time. The single rate at that time was 10c (US) or 6p (Canadian).

As part of the 1851 treaty, it was required that the country of origin be marked on all cross-border US-Canada mail. So, a letter from Canada to the US, would have "CANADA" on it as the country of origin. From the US to Canada, one might see something like "U.STATES", or similar. New postmarks were issued to exchange offices in each country to conform to this new requirement. The CANADA marking that is on this cover, was issued for this treaty, and is not known used prior to April 1851.

So, what about the Kingston marking? At first glance, the '4' looks like, what I'll call 'dropped', for convenience. So, maybe there was some digit error or yeardate error on the Kingston marking, and maybe it was intended to be 1859. One argument against that is that that would make this a very late usage of the 10c stamp. The 1851 issue came into existence on July 1, 1851 and quickly replaced the 1847 issue. A few late usages are known of US #1 and #2 from Canada, which appear to be legitimate, but they are rare. This one would have to be 8 years later. The odds go down.

Specifically, speaking to the dropped '4' marking on the Kingston cancel. This cover, was Siegel sale 1063, lot 1068 (thanks for the scan Siegel) :


In my opinion, something is clearly amiss with the #2 cover. I don't think that it is in its original state.

The PF has been notified of this, and, I hope, if this cover gets re-submitted, that they will consider this information.

This is well out of my area of collecting; I read the responses on Frajola's board. The only other possibility I can think of is whether the Scott #2 and its cancel originated on the cover--if the Canadian CDS and/or boxed CANADA aren't fraudulent, and IF the year date is good? I'm probably talking out of turn.......

Hi Al, thanks for the reply - I know I get long-winded at times.

To summarize in short the problem with this cover:

The red "CANADA" exchange mark did not occur prior to 1851, yet the year-dated Kingston exchange marking indicates an 1849 use.

So, this literally does not compute.

It is difficult to say, without an in-person exam with UV light, what exactly this cover most likely originally was. I see basically no way that it originated like this.

I posted the text of the PF's submitter + opinion because I think its pertinent, and tells me that they just missed the simple fact I note above. The submitter used the words "1849", and "CANADA" in the submission, which is already a red flag, and, rather than offering an opinion that explains this paradox, the PF simply stated that it was genuine. So they clearly just missed the problem, I think.

I hope that this gets resubmitted at some point with all of this data in mind.

I had a couple goals in posting this - namely, to document this cover for future reference, and also, I find it interesting. I hope others do as well.

Txstamp, that my friend, us a great cover.

txstamp, here is a cover from 1849 showing the same "dropped" '4' as the cover in question. I've flipped it so the cancel is easier to read. Dave

Chevelle, nice find!

The one I posted was 1845, but you found an in-bound (to the US) cover about a month off of the one in question. The cancels are a close match, it appears.

Someone on the other board did point out that there is some white-ish blurring around "KINGSTON", which may be evidence of tampering - but it could also just be due to wear.

I have hesitated to construct a full case for what I think may have happened to this cover, because its probably impossible to be sure without an in-person exam. The markings all look so convincing from just a scan.

I thought the 'dropped 4' was a curious, and possibly distinctive mark, for Kingston, that might make me lean towards believing that the Kingston marking may be authentic.

Note that on your cover, there are no Canadian postal rate markings. In 1849, the single rate would be 4 1/2p to the border, while double, due to distance would be 9p. One sees both of those quite often. One issue I have had with this is if it started as a stampless cover, then where is the Canada pence marking? Your cover doesn't show this, and I've noted a few others that don't either -- which may have originated at the exchange itself. That may be the reason.

If so, and the #2 cover never had a Canadian rate marking on it, that would have made it an easy target for alteration. The '10' in pen may have been the US rate due originally. Then we'd have something similar to what you just showed. That would probably be my leading 'guess' at the moment.

My 'guess' being the Canada exchange banner, red '10' and #2 stamp all added to a stampless cover with Kingston, Sackets Harbor and ms '10'. This of course assumes 1849 is the correct date. If it has contents that might confirm or refute this. Also the back.

Its very hard to be sure, though.

That was a very useful contribution to the thread, thanks.

Is it known with certainty that the CANADA marking never was used before 1851, for reasons unrelated to the treaty? That appears to be assumed in these posts, but is it known? Sorry if this is a naive question.

Given your suspicions, the cover is a candidate for VSC-6000 and XRF spectral analysis to see whether the 10 is above or below the CANADA and whether the spectral composition of the red ink is contemporary. I would go to the PF or the Smithsonian and the results would make an interesting article.

Hi Christopher,

There is nothing naive about your question. It is, of course, the basis of my argument, so it is fundamental. So here goes another long-winded post.

First off, this cover isn't mine, nor do I have any personal or financial interest in it whatsoever. I just saw it, and found it curious at first, then it got even more curious. That culminated with seeing that it got a good PF opinion which I've noted. Thus, the tie-in to our prior 'stamp' PF/expert discussions, now spilling into covers.

The short answer to your question is 'yes', I'm positive that the CANADA exchange marking was made for the April 6, 1851 treaty, and is not known in 1849 or prior to the treaty.

I've gotten confirmation of this from numerous knowledgeable people on Cross-Border mail, including at least one SCF board member, whom I contacted right away after I saw this.

For anyone interested, when I was first studying this, I referred to Sanderson/Montgomery. Two very good Canada postal history reference books, which I have, and used for this, are:

Sanderson/Montgomery - A History of Cross Border Communication between Canada and the United States of America 1761 - 1875 (2010)

Boggs - The Postage Stamps and Postal History of Canada (1946)

Both of these books illustrate and discuss the CANADA marking, and indicate that its an April 1851 item. Sanderson/Montgomery organize a section around the treaty and the new Postal Markings required, including this one. One of the Cross-Border experts reminded me of the Boggs book, which, due to its old date, I often neglect to open. Every time I refer back to it, however, I'm reminded that it has an absolute wealth of information, and is an irreplaceable reference.

But, I didn't stop there. The US Classics Society website has the online 1847 cover census. I really got some good use out of this here. I did a search on 1847 covers from Canada, and sorted them by Date of use. From that, it is pretty obvious that covers before and after the treaty look quite different. These country of origin markings start to show up. There's nothing like looking at sorted dated covers to really illustrate a clear progression over time. There are no covers prior to April 1851 that show the country of origin marking(s) short of one (3/3/51), which Brookman declared a fake (and at first glance, I agree).
https://www.uspcs.org/resource-cent...over-census/

Now, to the correspondence of the cover. It is from the Kennedy correspondence, which is huge. Anyone (including me) who collects material from this era to any degree, probably has, or has had a Kennedy cover. Most are perfectly good/legitimate covers from this correspondence. But, since it is so large, it has been a target for fakers at times.

Here is Brookman's comment on the 3/3/51 cover he declared as fake, and Kennedy: "The fact that this cover is from the Kennedy correspondence does not add to its reputation for much faking was done with covers from this correspondence".

I agree that the next step is for the owner of this cover, to call the PF and discuss a possible re-submission and/or understand what techniques they used to expertise it the first time. I feel quite confident that the PF just didn't realize the conflict on this cover, and as a result, didn't look hard enough at it.

One of the confounding aspects of this cover, is that the markings all, taken individually, look pretty good. I'm sure that's why it got missed. Anyway, for me, this has been a fun and interesting exercise.

Mark

txstamps, here's another cover that I have that is germane to this thread. This cover could be construed as a "first day" for the CANADA marking based on your comment regarding April 6, 1851. The letter is datelined "Kingston April 5 1851" and was posted on that date. Dave

That's a really interesting cover.

I'm not sure exactly what the "first day" for the marking is - the treaty was "effective April 6", however, it was agreed on sometime in March, if I recall correctly.

No doubt they were preparing devices, and so on up to that point, so I can't say I'm shocked by this at all, but it is interesting.

I'll go back and check the literature tonight, or when I get a chance, and double check if there were specific dates in there for EKUs of the device.

Obviously, "around" the treaty effective date, seems plausible, for an EKU. Since the treaty was agreed to in March, I don't see any likelihood or possibility of seeing these prior to March '51.

For the cover in question, recall I'm talking 1849. That one is still a slam dunk "no way", I'm quite sure.

It is hard to be sure from the scan, but I think your cover is dated 1857 not 1851. Can you post the dateline from inside the cover?

SPQR, you must be or must've been an auditor. I like it. I was an auditor and can appreciate your momentary skepticism. Here's a couple of pics of the interior of the SFL and a close-up of the dateline. Dave

thanks - the incomplete strike of the "1" in the Kingston CDS looked like it was curved like the vertical stroke of a "7"

No time to post much right now but the Robertson sale from Bennett in 2004, lots 21,22 and 23 are all covers from US to Canada on Apr 6 (first day - advertised as unique) and the other two are covers mailed apr 2, and apr 4 which were in transit when the treaty came active. That is what yours is. More tomorrow when I can post again.

I have to admit I'm still a bit bothered by the Kingston '51 here with the '1' which is both 'dropped' and also 'lazy'.

I see the dateline and that certainly appears conclusive - but to dot the I's and cross the T's I would really like to see another similar Kingston '51. I found one from June 4, 1851, and the '1' on it is dead-straight, and lined up vertically as well. Neither dropped nor lazy.

Dave, I'm impressed with what you've been able to show so far - some cool stuff. Do you have another Kingston '51, for comparison? Once I see another dropped+lazy '51 I'll be all-in on your cover. As it is, I'm mostly in.

If your cover is as it appears, it is definitely a very collectable and highly interesting item. Its not a 'first day', since its postmarked prior to the treaty. It would be considered a cover that was in-flight when the treaty became active.

In general, this is a problem when postal regulations change. You will always have mail that is in-flight, and how it gets handled has to be dealt with. Often such mail gets sent at the prior rate from the originating PO, and if that fully paid it to the destination at the time (for whatever mail rate or regulation it applies to) then the destination will often honor that.

This case is particularly interesting, since the April 6 treaty caused a change in mail handling where mail from Canada to the US could be either paid-through or paid to the lines. Now it is transitioning to fully paid through only (or fully not-paid).

It appears as though the sender and/or addressee had a charge account at Kingston, so the letter appears as though it was treated as paid-through at 10c per the Apr 6 treaty.

I think its worthy of note that there is a 3-day lag between the Kingston marking and the Cape Vincent NY marking. They are paired exchange offices very close by. Although postmarked the 5th, I suspect it didn't go out until at least the 6th, and the Kingston PM knew that and just started using his new postmark (CANADA) late on the 5th, maybe.

I don't have access to the Allan Steinhart collection sale, but this is the kind of thing he would have had, probably numerous examples of.

So its neat, but doesn't change anything with regard to the current thread #2 on cover. Nice datapoint though, and nice cover.

The scan below doesn't lend itself to the Scott No. 2 on cover that started this thread, but it might help to further alleviate any concern about the lazy "1"/slanted "1" in the 1851 year date of my cover. So, in reference back to my Kingston 1851 cover the docketing on the cover, albeit in pencil, also supports the 1851 year date. Dave