Unique (?) C-11 Insured Crash Cover Ties Together Two SCF Threads

There was an interesting discussion today in this thread: https://goscf.com/t/84852&whichpage=2

And a request to see the items I described as more important to me in this thread: https://goscf.com/t/84854

[The item illustrated below sold for $920.00 plus S&H plus tax if appropriate. It opened at $85.00.]

In the first thread listed above the focus was how to describe an item for it to sell for more money, in that case, on ebay. The block of four is one of four recorded with a single block of six the larges used block. Yet there is a price for the block of four in Scott, it is rare and sold for pennies on the dollar even with ten bidders chasing it. I have no way of verifying that there are only four recorded blocks of four.

Here I show an item where there is not Scott Catalog price. I was part of a specialized competitive exhibit of the 5 cent Beacon Airmail, US Scott C-11 which is being sold off over a period of time on ebay.

I chased it because of my interest in early Insured mail. It is one of only a few damaged insured items I have seen over the years and the most spectacular example. Here the Insured endorsement is clear having survived the loss of material due to burning. This for me justified the price I bid. More information about this will be below the illustration.

Now the former exhibitor describes this as the only example of C-11 used on an insured item. Now that makes this far more interesting than just the reasons I mentioned above. However, how does one evaluate the veracity of such a claim? And how does one factor that information into pricing of one's bid? Does the item become returnable as misdescribed if in fact the is a second C-11 on insured matter?

I know for a fact that such claims have some wiggle room, even from the most honest students of postal history. One of the last of several exhibit the late Tony Warukiewicz, postal historian beyond compare used the phrase, 1 of 4 examples known to the exhibitor or 1 of 2 examples known to the exhibitor. He showed two of the three examples he described as only three known to the exhibitor. He had two and I explained about a different example which passed me by (I was a naive idiot at the time). So Tony seemed to play it straight.

That said, Tony listed the count of 1 cent postage due collecting covers from the dead letter office for the one cent advertising fee for an unclaimed mail item. Yes, they are difficult and he mention how many were known to him. Yet, I knew of the same number of such covers with the one cent due collected by parcel post postage due one cent stamps (JQ-1). He did not ask me, I did not tell him. Yet his exhibit page with the description appeared with each item of his sold.

So I go back to the first paragraph above and ask how a claim, "one of four known blocks of four" can be verified when a seller so claims. Honestly, you can't. Catalog value is established by printing a price in the catalog which any one with the catalog can reference. But how does one verify a census claim? And lastly, which should drive the price, census or catalog and why?




The mail plane, a Douglas M-4, crashed into an apple tree at 6:00 PM in Heron, Ohio, during a snow storm after the pilot and only occupant, Leo J. McGinn, experienced spatial disorientation on December 20, 1928. Operated by National Air Transport, the fatal crash occurred during the Cleveland to Chicago portion of CAM-17 route, New York to Chicago.

I searched for more information on this crash and was surprised as well as disappointed by what I found. Triple S Postal History has another C-11 crash cover from this flight which is currently priced at $1250.00. That took hope from me as the Insured C-11 sat at the opening bid of $85.00. My snipe bid did not register when made as it did not not the current then and losing bid of $910.00 topped by a fourth bidder's $920.00. I can imagine Doug Weicz's smile from here.

This was a severe crash with a devastating fire such that less than ten letters were recover.




The description used by Triple S is, "BEACON ISSUE Sc#C11-INTERRUPTED MAIL-AIRPLANE CRASH-AAMC#28.10-DAMAGED IN MAIL PLANE/ACCIDENT AT HURON,OHIO/DEC/20/1928 6 P.M.-VERY RARE-REC."

So, the if base cover runs $1250 what should the unique (claimed) cover run? Using the first threads 8% of $11,500.00 is $920.00.

Your comment about having no way of knowing whether or not my claim about the R105 multiples is accurate is a bit disengenuous. As I have posted previously, most recently within the last several weeks, the definitive census on revenue multiples is located at thecurtiscollection.com, a project of the late Dan Curtis, now maintained by Siegel Auctions. It is free for all to access, no login required.

Is it going to be 100% accurate, no of course not. No census ever is, as it depends on others submitting data. But it's what we have.

As a general rule, you basically have to know what you are doing, in any sub-field of philately, in order to verify something like that. The validity of such claims will vary based upon the depth of knowledge that the person making the claim has. So, understanding who is making the claim and what their background is, would be a good start.

I frequently go try to research such things, in areas that interest me, and there aren't any shortcuts. Searching old auction catalogs online and offline, and, of course, additionally all pertinent literature. Network with other specialists in the area.

And that was and is my point, even the BEST CENSUS REPORTS (I made that all caps to underscore the respect for such a report I have) are just estimates and counting of reported items. Per your comment in the original thread, you mentioned a census of four blocks of four. Armed with that information you paid less than 8% of catalog. What would the price be if in fact a fifth or sixth block of four came to light and was included in an updated census? Would the price drop to 7, 6 or even 4%? I think not. Nor do I think the catalog price would feel downward pressure due to two new discoveries. Likewise if your block of four was split for singles, the catalog price would most likely not go up.

Now your referenced census report is just one of many and really no one can have an idea if the foundation of the census was solid to begin with nor if there have been changes in the information AND if the new information has been published.

As I noted, even a legendary philatelist such as Tony W. can be short on his published counts. You may take his information on postage dues as accurate because you have no way to know otherwise, while I did have a way. Sadly, he died before I could open up a discussion with my friend of 30 years on the subject of his counts. I did buy his examples with my understanding of a large count.

Harry K. Charles, Jr., PhD., has published much on postage dues. Yet I was surprised that he did not include information about goodies I owned. I even contacted him and he just did not find information on my material. I sent it to him. But I purchased my material in question years before he got deeply involved and via back channels of private treaty sales not public auctions nor published retail lists. I cannot believe I am the only collector who quietly buys materiel and then buries it for decades thereafter. Below I include another such person.

Henry Gobie discovered a unique Q-7,15 cent, 7-1-1913 FDC. After the discovery article, it was shown for a year or two more in an exhibit of Henry's. Who has seen it since then? Henry told one person I owned it. His annual calls to buy it stopped when he died while never seeing the cover in person. One other dead collector, Scott Ward, Grand Award winning exhibitor of US Parcel Post was the only other person since the exhibit to have seen the item in person. Even Robert Schlesinger, exhibitor of parcel post, Vermeil, open international competition at Ameripex '86 did not see it when visiting me. Now that is Scott listed, but not the unique Q-3 block of 4 on a 7-1-1913 FDC which walked into Pacific '97 with an unknown party, not even known if a stamp collector, to a dealer who then sold it to me within a few minutes when he left his booth and found me on the floor. That was the only item the anonymous person brought and he was observed leaving the venue after the dealer purchase as the dealer followed him to the exit while looking for me. Chase, yes that Chase, was known to have a 12-31-1912 (twelve) Q-2 cover. Such was mentioned in the philatelic literature pre-1930. Yet from about circa-1930, it dropped from the radar. It was sold to a collector who collected two suitcases full of parcel post covers, including a 7-1-1913 Q-2 FDC and values on cover except the 50, 75 and 1.00 denominations. The suitcases were placed into the attic of a home. Earlier this century, after 2007, the suitcases were discovered, removed and sold as two suit cases of parcel post covers to as it happen, a friend of mine. One contained just 1 and 2 cent covers. The other the "good stuff" which when via private treaty to me and split with Scott Ward. I made the buy for the Chase cover, Scott for the Q-2 FDC. I have never shown the Chase cover to anyone in person but it can be seen in the PF Certificate Database. The suitcase of one and two cent covers were slowly distributed into the market place over a couple of years. I see them surface on ebay and elsewhere at time as I know how to ID them.

My point is, even the reports which can effect the pricing of items, are not necessarily something to rely upon when spending money. A guide, yes, absolute, far from it. Too many collectors trade behind the scenes for all the good stuff to show up in public auction and sales sheets.

Lastly for specifically the Parcel Post Postage Due covers, besides me there was one dealer-collector who vacuumed up PPPD covers when he saw them. Robert "Bobby" Feldman. He started before me, meaning before 1983 and whatever he got stayed out of the light until he sold his group of nearly 300 PPPD Covers in approximately 2016 to Wade Saade. Thus that holding finally returned to the light of day, after for some covers, nearly 40 years.

All this is to say, scarcity does not drive price alone, the big price driver is interest, aka, collector demand. Many inverts can be had for just a few dollars because a a low or lack of demand. While scarcity knowledge is nice, catalog values are a bigger driver of final price than information on scarcity. With revenues, if the interest in blocks of four and larger takes off, prices should rise, but until then, not so much.

As to the C-11 covers shown in this tread, folks like and chase crash covers. For the crash involved in the two covers above, less than 10 covers remain. Yet while they have interest and a four figure price, they are out stripped in price by the much more common Hindenburg Crash covers. Why is that? The greater interest in that crash, not the scarcity of the covers.

Curtis collected and researched multiples for a long time. And there has always been an interest in revenue multiples, in part because the tax rates and usages tended to preclude many above a pair from being used. And in some cases, not even pairs are known. In the case of R105, the stamp in question is something of an odd value for a tax rate at the time. It would have mostly been used to help make up specific odd rates, and there were much easier and far more commonly available stamps to use to create a 12 cent rate if needed. So the chances are good that the census in this case is pretty accurate. And also that this block is under cataloged as well.

I am astonished that the winning bid was that high as a regular crash cover from that event which is catalog number 29.10 should sell to a knowledgeable collector for a small fraction of that amount. If the winning bid is not a shill bid then the buyer must have felt that most of the value they paid was for the improbable claim that a C11 used on an insured cover is unique.