Scott US #39 Used—-Why Are Almost All Faulty?

Hello,,,long time U.S collector, but brand new to this forum. My question is this—-can anyone advise as to why almost all of the used #39's you see all have faults or are repaired to varying degrees? They are all either reperfed, have margins added, are thinned, have a tear, are creased, etc., etc., or have had the various faults repaired in some way. The other issues in this series (36, 37, 38) are all easy to find perfectly sound. Any ideas out there? Thanks!

Not really familiar with these older stamps, but this is a higher value stamp. Probably a lot of them were used on packages or similar mail like larger envelopes, which is a good recipe for damage


Peter

Indeed, the info is out there if you search for it. In brief: The stamp entered use in August 1860. It paid the rate of 20c per half-ounce for mailpieces sent over 2500 miles to foreign countries, and its cost was equivalent to about $140 today. Only about 25,000 were printed. With virtually all genuine usages sent overseas, the survival rate of genuine used examples is low. Only six examples on cover are known. Some uses would have been on parcel wrappers that were thrown away or difficult to store. Further, the outbreak of the Civil War in early 1861 led to the demonetization of this stamp, and all others in the 1857 Series, by June-August 1861, so the period of use was a year or less. Then after the Civil War, demonetized but unused sheets, which postmasters had stored and retained, became available to collectors in the philatelic markets. The result is that genuine used examples command 3X to 10X the price of a mounted mint (hinged) example, so the incentive to fake cancels is high.

Furthermore, the whole series was plagued with narrow margins, causing bad centering with respect to perfs. The use of 15 1/2 perforation gauge, and the fact that clerks still separated stamps with scissors even after perforations entered use with the 1857 issue, means that tearing or cutting can occur.

All these factors contribute to the high occurrence of faults, repairs, and fakes for this stamp. Probably no factor is the sole cause of what you are seeing, but they all contribute.

My mother's 2nd husband had a collection from his father (probably assembled in the 40's or earlier) and was sold before he married my mother. I imagine it was a decent collection - it was sold by Siegel's. Out of the entire collection, 2 items were returned as unsaleable - a used #39 (fake cancel per PF Cert) and a #138 (fake grill, per PF Cert). He knew I collected stamps, so he gave them to me back in the 1980's. I've still got them and their certs.

Anyway, as was said, you can assume a used #39 has a fake cancel unless it has a cert stating otherwise. Probably more faked cancels on #39, than genuine ones.

Rupp just listed this mint 39 that is spectacular. Not only are the centering and perfs great, but there is also none of the plate wash at the top that you almost always see. What a stamp.

I would add the following to Chris's excellent comments:

From Siegel:




The six recorded 90c 1860 covers:

1) Sep. 11, 1860, to Augustine Heard & Co., Shanghai, single franking for double rate, ex Gibson, Hindes and Kapiloff

2) Nov. 3, 1860, to Barcelona, Spain, ex Caspary, Rust and Kapiloff

3) Nov. 9, 1860, to Augustine Heard & Co., Shanghai, ex Needham, Paliafito, Ishikawa, Myers

4) Jan. 8, 1861, single used on legal-size cover from Cincinnati, ex Filstrup, Grunin

5) Jul. 16, 1861, to Edwin Howland, Cape of Good Hope, used with 1c pair, 3c, 10c and 30c for four-times 33c rate, ex Jacobs, Newbury, Ishikawa

6) Jan. 26, 1861, to Mackellop Stewart & Co., Calcutta, India, used with 12c and 30c

Thanks to everyone who responded to my query, and thanks for the great information in your postings.