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

This postcard most likely was sent between correspondence club members. Such clubs were common circa 1900.

One was the Cosmopolitan Correspondence Club, headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. The last time I googled that club name I could read entire issues of its journal online. The CCC had thousands of members.

Club members were collectors of picture postcards, stamps, coins, photographs, and friends. The need for companionship, even by mail, drove many to join and share. Romance was included.

[q][It's "none of the above"./q]

Sorry, but none of your statements mean anything in relation to the card being a philatelic inspiration, and a philatelic creation. It DOES NOT MATTER that the revenue has no use here. It was applied specifically to give to the recipient, with a message about what it is. That is why it was applied. And of course it was cancelled in Basel. Which proves it cannot be called a label. And calling it a label does not change any of this. It is no different than if the sender had put three more values on the card and wrote about them instead. It's philatelic. I really don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

My point is that "the card being a philatelic inspiration, and a philatelic creation" is sheer conjecture. It's not automagically a contrived item just due to the presence of the revenue stamp. The presence of the revenue stamp is wholely unrelated to the postage stamps on the card. Its presence there is due solely to its relationship to the message. Calling it a philatelic creation is inaccurate.

Don't you understand that it's the message which proves it?

this is just semantics. Postal History collectors typically refer to something being "philatelic" (rather than "commercial") when the franking overpays the postage rate or uses an odd combination of stamps. It doesn't strictly require proof that it was sent by a stamp collector, just that the cover wasn't franked in the manner that business would do. The sender of your cover put on a superfluous stamp and also used a combination of commemorative stamps. A business would have used a single 5¢ stamp. The cover is "philatelic" (as the term is used by postal historians) whether or not the sender was a stamp collector.

I should add that there are degrees of "philatelic" - it is not strictly philatelic / non-philatelic. Collectors can accept / reject whatever they want for their collection. Is a US Graf Zeppelin flight cover franked with the correct zeppelin stamp, paying the correct rate, with a flight cache philatelic?

another example, I paid a bill a few days ago and overpaid the 73¢ rate with three 25¢ stamps from the 1980s. Is it philatelic? If not, what if the envelope was addressed to Siegel auctions? What if the sender was not a stamp collector but just bought discount postage at a flea market?

[q][ I paid a bill a few days ago and overpaid the 73¢ rate with three 25¢ stamps from the 1980s./q]

The real difference with this example is that today, the 2 cents is essentially meaningless, but 100+ years ago it was not. Most people were not overpaying things then. BTW, I would not call this use "philatelic" but as an over payment it would be much less interesting.

Actually the convenience overpayment would bother me less than the use of stamps out of period - I would consider it to be philatelic

So when I mail a Christmas card to my stamp collecting friend with a contemporary flag forever stamp is the envelope a philatelic cover?

I find this discussion somewhat pedantic and maybe almost meaningless in the distinctions that are being made.

Regardless, Dan's cover is fascinating and illustrates how we communicate with our friends, even to the present day. Let's not try to denigrate Dan's cover by calling it philatelic.

I am not "denigrating" it, I am "classifying" it. It is what it is.

This is an interesting discussion.

I sort of get both opinions.
I think it's probably between collectors, but the revenue is more of an item being sent, like merchandise or a gift.
Can it be a "use" without having provided any function?
It probably shouldn't have been cancelled, but the postal clerk just saw it as an uncancelled stamp and did his job.

Oddly, I had a similar discussion with a local guy who exhibits and is a Judge (Unless I have the judge bit wrong)
I asked him how to handle a group of items that were to me philatelic, but were probably the only uses available
Neopost CVP stamps used to mail neopost unused sheets to me as an ebay buyer,
Or
From one original purchaser to another.

To me they're philatelic, but nearly every existing cover is.

His opinion was that the stamps were used to mail something being sold, making it a valid commercial use even if it was between two collectors.
I'm still on the fence, and still haven't put together anything on early computer vended postage. - Or postage where the machine printed the postage, so I could include mailomats and similar things.

"Neopost CVP stamps used to mail neopost unused sheets to me as an ebay buyer,
Or
From one original purchaser to another.

To me they're philatelic, but nearly every existing cover is."

The Neopost CVP stamps had extremely limited availability - one machine in a PO in the DC area), one inside a company (Northrop Gruman?, in VA), and machines withing Nepost. Chances of a commercial usage surviving are almost nil.