Questions About Scott 1623 & 1623B First Day Covers

I have two first day covers from March 11, 1977 one of 1623 and one of 1623B. Why would there be two similar looking booklet panes, differing only in perforations, issued on the same date? Also why is there a dash under the value column for a used Scott 1623B?

Edited to add photo - top cover is 1623B

What catalog and year are you using? I ask, because ....

My Scott 2020 US Specialized has values listed in the regular listing section for the various singles and combinations both mint and used, and in the FDC section for panes The only dashes are for the "tagging omitted" varieties. The dash is explained in the introductory section of the catalog.

A fitting question for Perf10. That perforation difference was not intentional, so different versions wound up on FDCs. The difference was noticed quickly, IIRC at INTERPEX itself on the day of release. The population of the versions is still not known exactly, however the 10 x 9 3/4.version was quickly found to be the rarer. Since speculation drove the pane price up into the $100s of dollars, most were saved in mint condition, and few examples were postally used that year, which may explain the - in your reference material. I recall buying several of the booklets, and in the same batch received both versions, including a rarer booklet with a counting mark.

Thank you perf10. I had heard two versions over the years. The first version had the perf 10 being a replacement for the earlier booklet, but was on sale for only a short time because of a change in postal rates. Obviously not correct because of the FDC of the perf 10. More recently that the perf 10 was meant for the FDC at the stamp show and the perf11 for the post offices. Again the FDC of the perf11 would seem to invalidate that story also.

John, I have a 2006 copy, mostly works for identification, if not for current prices.

"The first version had the perf 10 being a replacement for the earlier booklet"
That probably is a misunderstanding.
The first booklet version had screened printed covers. USPS thought the covers looked "too weak" so they wanted solid cover colors. The BEP/Goebel thought this would mess up the machine as there was too much ink which would not dry fast enough. BEP added some heater elements and went along printing covers with solid covers, anyways, and it worked.

This issue is more complex than you think.

USPS usually provided fdc servicers with loose panes ("no hole" or "unfolded" panes). The BEP did not have any as they had no perforator to make loose panes (the Goebel booklet forming machine spit out complete booklets at its end, made from cover rolls and specially laid out stamp web rolls).

The BEP made fdc panes by tearing out panes from booklets. Also a solution was tried where the Goebel machine ran half a stamp web roll (two panes high) through it without the cover circuitry stuff which resulted in two panes glued to one another (instead of one pane glued to a cover). Then the tabs of the glued-together panes were torn away.

There is a tricky difference, though. The panes pulled out of booklets are folded between the first and second stamp row, the panes from the Goebel machine experiment are folded between the second and third stamp row. These are much scarcer.

Since booklets with both perforation types were available on the first day of issue, a specialist would try to collect the following varieties:
1. Two perf 11*10.5 panes with tabs, with the Length Register Mark over the right or left stamp.
2. Two perf 10 panes with tabs, with the Length Register Mark over the right or left stamp.
3. A pane (without tab) folded between the second and third stamp row.

drkohler Well of course there is always someone on this forum who has the answer, so thank you very much for all the information. It appears that my perf 11 cover is folded between the first and second stamp, and the perf 10 between second and third stamp. But now I will show my lack of knowledge about booklet panes and ask, what is a Length Registration Mark?

It is the rectangle in the tab

Thanks eyeonwall. As my panes were pulled from the booklets, there is s no tab, but I think I have a few complete booklets. I will go have a look.

Here's an image of the tab areas:




At left is the LRM over the 9c Capitol stamp, at right the LRM over the 13c Flag over Capitol stamp. The LRM is used to correctly fire the perforator unit. Along the top of the tap is the CRL, the Cross Register Line. This line is used to keep the web aligned during printing.

I went at looked at the Scott US Specialized Catalog in my local library and based on the information in there and drkohler's post, I have another question. Which is more common, the perf 10 FDC with a pane folded between the 1st and 2nd row, or the one from the Goebel experiment with the pane folded between the 2nd and 3rd row?

Not sure there will be a reliable answer to that question nor should it impact value much if any.

Possibly true Parcelpostguy, but the unused pane of 1623B with the fold between row 2 and 3 has a catalog value of $100. I was just curious if that was because most of the Goebel experiment panes were affixed to FDC's or that variety is rare in general. There is no CV given for a used pane of that variety of 1623B.

the panes of 1623B with the fold between row 2 and 3 were indeed meant for FDCs, but not all were used that way, so mint examples are known.

edited to fix pane3 to be panes

The 1623Bc with fold between the 2nd and 3rd were sold to collectors, not the general public for the purpose of being used (cancelled), not saved as mint. See the footnote under your $100 mint pane price you quoted. In fact FDCs of the "plain" 1623a panes catalog at $25 while the 1623Bc are a mere $15. As a special press run, one should be able to find the impression count of the 1623Bc special print run, but again, that number means little. The $100 is for the small quantity of surviving mint panes from the special press run. While the 1623Bc quantity is small compared to other printed versions, the fact nearly or all of the press run went to collectors helped satisfy collector demand and thus keeps the price (demand) down.

What muddies this up is that the collectors who prepare their own covers and mail them in for servicing were likely not using the special printing panes, rather the normal panes available from the local post office and/or philatelic sales window of which there were many at that time. That is why, while the number of FDC cancels were recorded, there was no breakdown by print version.

Now the gem here would be a used, complete full pane of 1623Bc with the scoring between the second and third row on a mailing on other than the FDC date; even a brighter gem if the pane(s) paid the correct rate for the mailed matter.

Edit:

Again to summarize, a count would not change the current market price. The used dash listing is because there are not enough transactions to establish a value of a used pane. AND, all one needs do is pay $15, full catalog for a FDC, then soak the pane off and ta-da, a used pane whose value does not suddenly jump from $15 skyward. You want that full pane used after the FDC without the FDC cancel date.

2nd edit to add an "r" to "you" for proper English.

Wow, Parcelpostguy, that is a pretty complete explanation. I don't collect First Day Covers and was planning on offering them in a giveaway. I was just curious about how generous I was going to be.

This issue was printed with two plates.
Plate 37706 had 264'000 impressions. Half of the panes had the LRM over the Flag stamp.
Plate 37829 had 205'250 impressions. All panes had the LRM over the Flag stamp.

So roughly 3/4 of all booklet panes had the LRM over the Flag stamp. All panes on FDCs come from plate 37706 so in theory there is a 50% chance that the LRM is over the Flag stamp on an FDC pane with tab.

The BEP never recorded the perforator used for perforating sheets, so we will never know the percentages of perf 10 to perf 11 panes.