Not A Revenue Stamp Used As Postage On This Postcard, But Rather A Lovely History Piece

I initially thought this might be an improper use of a revenue stamp as postage, but upon examining the postcard and reading the notation, it is not, but still a neat history piece, so I bought it anyway.

It is a postcard sent from San Francisco, California, to Basel, Switzerland, on September 2, 1898. Per images of other international postcards from 1898, the proper 5 cents postage was paid outside the revenue stamp (Scott # R155, large provisional I.R. overprint).

The handwritten message on the back reads:




Just a neat history piece of the era with a revenue stamp tie-in.

Great card! I would put any pre-1900 postally used U.S. picture postcards in the scarce category and that IR stamp makes it even more intriguing. Most of these "pioneer" cards seem to be sent from the States to Germany, which got an earlier start on PPCs than we did in America.

Thanks for posting this!

It's a nice card, but it would have to be considered a philatelic use.

It's not even that. It doesn't purport to pay postage in any way. It was attached by the sender to go along with their message to the recipient.

In no way was I implying that this was a legitimate attempt to use the revenue stamp as postage. I thought that was clear.

But the message makes it clear that it was added deliberately, and almost certainly by one collector to another. Collector pen pals were very common in that era.

Bart, what are you talking about? I never said it was paying a tax or being used for postage. For all intents and purposes, it's stuck on there as cinderella or label. It is completely unrelated to ANY actual postage OR revenue use.

But it was clearly added from one collector to another. And even written about. That makes the card a philatelic creation, since it is not a "Cinderella" but a revenue stamp added to give to that collector. It does not matter whether it actually paid postage or not, it was created for a collector, hence a philatelic usage.

We have different definitions of "philatelic usage then." You are making all sorts of assumptions.

I think any postal historian would agree that it is a philatelic use

philatelic use.

The assumption is that only stamp collectors have any interest in stamps. Why not someone who was picking through an old collection and thought it would be fun to add the IR stamp?

because the IR stamp is tied by the 1898 postmark

The postmark it is tied by is a German one, not US.

Realistically, who but a collector would care that it is a postage stamp turned into a revenue stamp, and who but a collector would bother to add one in the first place? All the stamps on the cover were current and new in 1898. The postage stamps were cancelled in 1898. The revenue stamp would not normally have been cancelled since it did not pay postage; to my knowledge stamps not valid were not supposed to be cancelled. When revenue stamps were used alone were they usually cancelled by mistake if they were not caught beforehand. Those caught were usually held for postage. I have a very nice billiards advertising cover with a 2 cent Liberty marked that way.

You keep missing my point. I'll give it one last shot.

This was not an attempt to use the revenue as postage. There already was sufficient postage on the card. The revenue stamp is as relevant to the postal history aspect as the pictures on the card are, i.e., it isn't. It's akin to a label on the postcard. You make a ginormous leap assuming the sender was a stamp collector when it could simply be fiscal interest (hell, they could have both been accountants for all we know). To assume that the intent was to create a philatelic item is huge leap here.

You say that the stamps were not supposed to be canceled, but that IMO is irrelevant; how likely would someone in Basel (the cancel in question) have been aware of the U.S. postal regs a mere 2 months after the initiation of the tax, a NON-postal event? To them it just looked like a stamp.

It is neither a legitimate use of a revenue stamp nor an improper use. In fact, I would argue that it is not a use at all. It was stuck on there in conjunction with the content of of the message. That doesn't automagically make it a "philatelic use."

It's "none of the above".

From one collector to another, but not an attempted use, rather the subject the send wrote about added for illustration (being a card, it couldn't be enclosed). Very clear.