1st Issue Revenue Bisects?

I have two different documents with 1st Issue revenue stamps affixed, er, actually 1/2 stamps. One has a $1 revenue bisect with "Used for 50c stamp" which appears to tie the stamp to the document. The other has a 50c revenue bisect, also with the "Used for 50c stamp" which ties it to the document.

The $1 is plausible, I think, as there may have been a shortage of 50c revenue stamps, and maybe other smaller denominations. The 50c is odd, in that it IS a 50c stamp. Maybe they had a shortage of those and needed to spread them to use on many documents? Curious.

OR, is there a known faker that has produced these kinds of fake usages?

These are fakes, created in the mid 20th century by a dealer (in Philadelphia, if I remember correctly). There was a write-up about them in the 1970's in the ARA magazine.

Thanks, revcollector, for this information. I was getting the "feel" that this was probably the case, also noting that there are no manuscript or handstamp cancels that tie the stamp as well.

Well-known 1930s dealer fabrications. I show several examples in my revenue bisect census:

https://revenue-collector.com/bisects/index.shtml

I bought an example from Richard Friedberg many years ago, for a nominal amount, sold as a fake for reference purposes. What annoys me is that Michael Aldrich sold several for "real bisect" money in his auctions because he didn't reveal them for what they are.

Thanks for the link, revenuecollector. That perturbs me as well, about selling the fake bisects without disclosing... This is one of the reasons I posted these on this thread, because I intend to sell them, but won't peddle fakes without describing them as what they are.

Great reference material described and shown on your link. I have some CDVs with bisects that I think ARE genuine. Would you be interested in scans? I could also post them here, if others may be interested.

We're always interested in scans!!!!!!!!!!!

Well then, here are two that I have (not interested in selling, so am not asking for any value/pricing information).

What I DO want to know, is are there other W. S. Tandy or E. & H. T. Anthony CDVs that anyone can show to compare the manuscript markings?

R13 Bisect (2c R13 with attached Bisect paying 1c for 3c total tax)


R14 Bisect (2c R14 with attached Bisect paying 1c for 3c total tax).

Also, interestingly, the photograph is of Mary Booth, who was an author, editor (Harper's Bazaar magazine) and suffragist. As early as 1867 she was an editor and writer for Harper's Bazaar magazine. She was also heavily involved with the Women's Rights Movement in New York. She served as Women's Rights Convention Secretary in 1855 and 1860 (credit: from the William G. Pomeroy Foundation description).

On the top photo, the right stamp has two pen strokes, and the left stamp seems to show a second pen stroke right at the edge of the cut. That is not a good sign, unless one can prove that all the pen strokes were done before the stamps were actually applied. That idea happened frequently with handstamps, and always with printed cancellations, but with this kind of pen stoke? There is ample evidence that the bottom style of pen strokes DID usually happen before the stamps were applied, but the top style.......

CDVs are hinky when it comes to ascertaining whether bisects are genuine or not. It is far more difficult than with documents because it is impossible to verify the tax rate that should have been paid.

I have been sent a myriad of bisects by numerous collectors to add to my census, but the vast majority of them I don't add simply because they are so iffy. It's also why I almost never pay a premium for bisects on CDVs and I do not consider them in the same value range as on-document bisects unless there is tangible evidence substantiating their validity... which are few and far between IMO.

True about not being able to determine whether affixed and used for tax at time of use since these are not tied. However, as asked above, I am looking for similar cancel examples from these two studios on other CDVs. If found, I think that would be compelling to argue authentic use.

Legal documents are typically dated thus proving their need for taxation or not - and at what rate.

Conversely, CDVs are not typically dated unless it is part of a cancel. The tax on CDVs was relatively short. The majority of countless millions of CDVs which look just these these two were produced before/after the tax period, so there is a huge supply of raw material which can have "bisects" added. I would be hesitant to pay much premium for these.

An additional problem with the second cdv is the torn portion is closer to one third of a stamp... So is it actually an intentional bisect usage or just a worker in a hurry that tore off part of the next stamp? We have no way of knowing.

Thank you - these are all good observations. A lot of unknowns. Similar to the "silent precancel" challenges, except they sometimes have more corroborating in-period evidence. I have seen hand cancels which tie stamps onto CDVs, but they seem much scarcer. It seems for many reasons that one almost needs to find a CDV with a dated hand cancel which ties the stamps, to confirm bisect use.

Cancels tying stamps to CDvs are the exception rather than the norm. Why? The logistics in place at the time.

Most CDVs were stored by being stacked upon one another. If the cancel was made at the time of the stamp being applied to the CDV, you would have to wait until the ink dried before proceeding, lest the wet ink offset onto the CDV above or below it. It was much easier and practical to precancel many stamps and then apply them at the time of need.

It is apparent that the faker wasn't that familiar with revenue usages and/or tax rates. The first document shown above, a $1 value bisected with the the handstamp "USED FOR 50 CENT STAMP" would logically make sense: they were out of 50-cent stamps, so they bisected $1 denominations. The second document, is patently illogical on its face. Why would you bisect a 50-cent stamp to use it as a 50-cent stamp?

I suppose one could argue (if you were trying to argue the plausibility of these fabrications), that knowing they were running short on 50-cent stamps, they bisected them to make them last... a poor argument, but a scenario that could explain them. But... why would you go through the expense of getting a special handstamp made for what is presumably a short-term temporary shortfall? Just manuscript cancel the stamps.

Another fact that makes these utterly implausible is that they occur on entry of merchandise documents across numerous companies spanning a 3-4 year timespan... something a prospective buyer wouldn't know unless they saw multiple documents in the aggregate. Taken in isolation, I can see how they were accepted as genuine at the time.

The vast majority of bisects, similar to improper usages of postage stamps as revenues, occurred in very remote areas, by very small companies, and over a relatively brief period of time, unless it was a business that conducted transactions fairly infrequently, in which case the use of remaining stock could be spread out over time ... but still not over the span of 4 years.

Looking at bisect examples where numerous documents are known:

10-cent bisects by the Southern Pacific Railroad Co.: isolated to May-June of 1866

10-cent bisects on Indiana marriage licenses: isolated to April-September of 1866

10-cent part perf bisects by the Little Schuylkill Navigation Rail Road and Coal Co.: April-August of 1864

(These time ranges can obviously expand if more documents are found/reported.)

The one major exception to this are the $2 bisects on guardian's bonds and letters of administration from Clay County, Illinois: November 1864 to September 1866, almost a 2-year timespan. Typically this would raise questions, however there are SO many examples, not only with good PF certs, but where the manuscript cancels match exactly the signatures on the documents. It's quite possible that they just never took delivery of $1 stamps, or for whatever reason preferred this practice to using $1 stamps.

This is where the faker of the documents in the thread was smart: using a handstamp cancel rather than manuscript bypasses the ability to use the handwriting of cancel vs. document as a disqualifier.

The actual tax rates are never correct on any "used for 50 cent stamp" documents; there is no possibility of any actually being genuine.