Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

classic coins and txstamp --

Thank you for the comments and insights on the Chicopee cds with the integral 5 rate marking (reference my post of yesterday, 7/23, for the scanned image).

In addition to the information you both provided -- another collector referred me to an article in the USPCS Chronicle titled: Integral Domestic-rate Postmarks within the Townmark: 1845 - 1851 -- Authored by: James W. Milgram M.D. Link to the USPCS Chronicle article is here:

http://chronicle.uspcs.org/PDF/Chro...16/12954.pdf

In the case of my Chicopee cds with the integral 5 rating on piece -- as txstamp noted -- "one cannot be 100% sure without a full cover".

The other collector who referred me to the Chronicle article advised that if he "had" to write it up -- he would write something like this:

3c 1851 cancelled Sep 6, (1852?) with Chicopee, Mass. "5" integral rate datestamp, implying additional 5c due for unpaid second rate due to weight or travel distance >3000 miles.

Again -- the above "write-up" is qualified as speculation.

Thank you again classic coins and txstamp for your insights and comments -- much appreciated.

Regards // ioagoa

A second rate is a possibility and a good thought.

All --

Here is another cancel with an integral rate marking on piece (which is how I acquired it -- so unfortunately, no cover) -- this one being a pale blue strike of a "MAR 8 -- AUGUSTA, GEO. -- 3 PAID" circular date-stamp.

The stamp is a Scott #11A -- position 29L1L -- and based on the impression -- was surely an early printing -- and thus is most likely a MAR 1852 usage (again speculation on the date of usage).

Regards // ioagoa

So, interestingly, ioagoa's Chicopee CDS says Chicopee Ms. I assumed it was early post office for Massachusetts, but according to Jim Forte's Post Office History there was a Chicopee Mississippi, (Chicopee, Holmes County (1852-1854)).

ioagoa, Thanks for linking us to the very interesting USPCS article on integral domestic-rate postmarks.

I'm now visualizing a drawer or tray full of cancelling devices in an 1850s post office, some of which saw little use, with your Chicopee cancel being an example.

Hi Moyock13 --

Great to hear from you -- and your comment about there being a Chicopee, Mississippi piqued my interest in state abbreviations circa 1851 - 1857.

I also use Jim Forte's post office search utility a lot -- and am always amazed at how many towns have the same name -- albeit in different states.

In any event, I found a listing on the USPS website for their "official" state abbreviations from 1831 to present. Link is here:

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/p...viations.htm

Looks like Mississippi was "Mi." in 1831 -- and switched to "Miss." in 1874.

Massachusetts is listed as "Ms." in 1831 -- changing to "Mass." in 1874.

The above not withstanding -- we have all seen plenty of "Mass." abbreviations on cancellations prior to 1874 -- (and a bunch of other exceptions to the Post Office Department's official guidance as well) -- so it looks like many local postmasters did not follow the official guidance from the Post Office Department back then -- all of which can make our modern day quest to identify the town and state names from off-cover stamps frustratingly difficult at times.

Also -- I tried to research Chicopee Miss. on the Internet -- and can find no information on the town -- other than Jim Forte's website which lists the post office being in existence from 1852 -- 1854. Wikipedia also shows that Chicopee, Mass. had a population of 8,291 in 1850, declining to 7,261 in 1860. So anecdotally, I think that Chicopee, Mass. is "more likely than not" the town-mark on the stamp I previously posted. Still, you raise a valid point, and when it comes to postal history, I am definitely operating at the "Sesame Street" level.

In any event, the above link to the USPS website is the best information I could find as to the "official" historical state abbreviations. Does anybody out there know of a better reference?

Regards // ioagoa

Thanks ioagoa. The USPS website was quite interesting. Guess I hadn't realized that states changed their official abbreviations several times.

Anyway, good research on everyone's part! Any more mysteries? That was actually a lot of fun!

Hi classic coins --

You are probably right about that "drawer full of cancelling devices" -- as Milgram in his Chronicle article mentions at the outset that...

..."One word of caution is needed. Some postmarks containing the numeral 5 continued to be used in the rate period after July I, 1851, when unpaid mail was charged five cents regardless of distance (except to the Far West, which will be covered in a future article). When the contents are missing and a cover is not otherwise dated and is not marked "Paid", a "5" integral rate postmark might represent a use from this later period." ...

Milgram also lists (in "Table 1" of his Chronicle article) that Chicopee, Mass. was a known town where an integral "5" rate marking was used from 1848 -- 1850 -- and since no other "Chicopee's" are listed -- provides more anecdotal evidence for Mass. (versus Miss.) on the stamp I posted a few days ago.

In any case -- researching this cancel just might be starting me down that slippery slope of "postal history" -- as unless one has a full cover to work with -- sleuthing rates and usages is a virtually impossible venture. Still, at least for now, determining plate positions and colors on the 1851 -- 1857 3-cent imperforate are my main interests. But I do have a stack of covers that I am now going to pull out and take a closer look at .

Regards // ioagoa

edited to fix typos

Here's a nice common one to sooth your nerves lol.
Not for any reason other than I have a picture of it share.

I noticed some markings above the frame line on one stamp that I am unfamiliar with. Is this a known 'variety'?

Hi Caper123 --

Hard to say what that ink is at the top of your stamp without plating it. Based on the partial scan -- the stamp looks to be from either 2L or 3 -- but with that weak RIL could be from 5L also. If from 5L -- could be rust marks? If 2L or 3, probably just one of those strange copies with some stray inking. If you post a scan of the full stamp, presuming that the resolution is suitable for plating, I will plate your stamp and we will find out.

Regards //ioagoa

This the best I can do...

Hi Caper123 --

Your stamp is a Scott #11A -- position 51L3. It is an A relief with both inner lines recut -- and other than that, is not any other variety of note. Consequently, I do not know what the ink marks at the top of your stamp are -- but they are definitely not a constant plate variety?

Hard to tell from the scan -- but are you sure that the ink marks are the exact same color as the ink used to print the stamp? If so, then this is one of those strange copies with a bit of stray ink.

See below for another reference copy of position 51L3.

Regards // ioagoa

Well done, ioagoa. And thanks for posting that beautiful plate-number stamp!

Here's one on piece with the numeral missing.