Adding Cachets To Older First Day Covers. Why?

The 11-cent Hayes stamp (Sc. 563) had its First Day of Issue on October 4, 1922. It was the first of a new series of flat press ordinary stamps, the Fourth Bureau Issue, that were introduced in late 1922 and early 1923. They preceded the use of cachets on Harding Memorial FDCs by George Linn on September 1, 1923.

Rotary press versions of the stamps of the Fourth Bureau Issue would be released in later years. Cachets would appear on some of their FDCs. Some were applied initially, others were added on with the passing of time. Widespread use of cachets on ordinary stamp FDCs would not occur until the introduction of the Presidential Series in 1938.

Here are some Scott 563 add on cachet FDCs that I've discovered from both of its First Day cities; Fremont, Ohio and Washington, DC. I have not seen cachets on rotary Hayes (Sc. 692) FDCs.The application of cachets to these and similar FDCs, no matter how attractive, disturbs me. What do you think?

attractive?

I think that most addressed and un-cacheted FDCs are ugly and virtually worthless (except for scarce and rare items of course). They are plentiful to obtain, so why not add attractiveness?!

Hand drawn/painted FDCs are pretty popular in this unpopular genre, so I don't have a problem with it, as long as it is disclosed to the buyer.

A matter of personal preference, as with most things philatelic.

John

The cover is worth more if the artist creates the work in the year the stamp FDC. Otherwise, the art is the most important part.

The terms are contemporary and add-on. Contemporary usually has a greater impact on value of the underlying FDC, sometimes 100x or more. Later add-on cachets usually add little value except for certain artists and again their work can multiple the value of the underlying FDC many times. Jack Follows was one such popular add on artist. Wentworth was another popular artist, mostly with naval event covers, but FDC too, where he did contemporary work but also add-on work for earlier covers.

Similar but different are cachet makers who "recycle" earlier FDC by adding one or more stamps and FD cancels as well as art work. Hideaki Nakano was one such maker who even had the audacity to add a perfin "HN" to some of the stamps before being cancelled. His work is quite popular and hits three figures at times.

Edited to add: Each item's value and acceptance is in the eye of the beholder. For many anything but a clean unaddressed FDC is a ruined FDC.

As a long-time student of history and even longer-time teacher of that subject, anything "added on" to something historical make the original look wrong because it's inappropriate and that ruins its value.

It's no different from altering an old photograph or adding a signature to an old document. No one who actually cares for old things would do that. To me, an added cachet is not so different from graffiti -- it does not belong and therefore ruins the thing it's on. Those who add cachets like these are essentially vandalizing the covers to make a little money.

Looked at aesthetically, these cachets do not look like 1920s cachets which would be black and more subdued. Those colors and designs are not what you would have seen at that time -- and that cheapens the covers even more.

Before the use of cachets, FDC's had only the stamp, the cancel and the address. That's a real FDC for this era, not a fake "tarted up" FDC that distorts what 1920s FDC's looked like which is what most collectors of FDC's want.

You might as well erase a cancellation on a stamp or add one. That is cheating. Adding cachets is the same. To me, these no longer look like a 1920s FDC, so their value has been destroyed. It may be the decline and unpopularity of FDC's that permits this. If they were valuable and sought after, originality would matter and this would be considered vandalism. Maybe this reflects the lack of interest in FDC's today. Is it acceptable to do this because very few people care about FDC's anymore. To me, these covers have been made completely worthless. I'd never buy them.

Re what DrewM wrote, as I said there are deeply dug in folks in all camps on this subject.

That said may folks, "tarted up" their letters and card with personal artwork, some in multiple colors. They usually were just regularly sent and not associated with a particular stamp issue date. Edited to add illustration:






YES! Clean off all the inappropriate cave painting graffiti, I prefer the caves as created by nature not "tarted up" by some old cave dweller. And lets polish down the old rocks to get rid of the unsightly petroglyphs carved in by bored vandals.





So you were teaching (I must use that word loosely here) history before you began to learn about history? That certainly makes me all warm and fuzzy about your opinion here. While you may have been teaching history, you clearly were not teaching English composition.

The Chapman brothers tarted up well-known Austrian artist Adolf Hitler's portfolio of watercolours he submitted to the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. Even with the additions (rainbows and psychedelic skies) the Academy still told Adolf to eff off.

Well then, I guess duck stamp (and other) remarques should all be eschewed if not discarded outright, because they are definitely NOT artwork and therefore hold zero value...

/s


https://postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibit...se/remarques

A LOT of collectors will certainly disagree.

I suppose that is limited to stamps and certain documents and artwork like paintings and sculptures, as additions to historical structures tell history.

The illustrations added to the FDCs after the fact are a tacky vulgarisation. I seem to recall that someone showed some Kennedy "death day" covers here sometime ago. They were tackier still.

Here is a Hayes FDC that looks very similar to the Fremont cachet FDC. Would you ever add a cachet to this cover? Why or why not?
<center></center>