GREENWOOD STAMP COMPANY – Since 1962 - The Royal ...

RPSC news • nouvelles SRPC • RPSC news • nouvelles SRPC • RPSC news • nouvelles SRPC • RPSC news • nouvelles SRPC
DEAR TONY:
Thank you for the opportunity to
respond to David Handelman’s letter in
the same issue. It is wise to present both
sides of an issue at the same time.
We do, however, regret that a publication
such as The Canadian Philatelist must
be forced to include such debates that
reduce the available space for more important
articles.
Handelman’s letter to the editor
implies that all five of the illustrated covers
are fakes. He goes on to state: “These
doubts are based on rather obvious features”.
Well, you will see that perhaps that opinion
is a bit stretched, or is it?
He further states that “the onus is
on those who claim that a cover is valuable
to establish that, rather than the other way
around”.
As acknowledged experts in the
B.N.A. Postal History area we say balderdash
to this cynical approach.
It may be true that in Civil law one
is guilty until proven innocent, however,
in Common Law the opposite is true for
the obvious reason: There are far greater
numbers of non-guilty than there are
guilty. Thus, logic implies that society is
basically good, not evil. An attitude that
we believe will be readily accepted by this
magazine’s readership.
This tenet of rational thought thusly
should, and does, usually carry forward
to objects as well as people. There is absolutely
no reason to believe that an object
(cover) is inherently wrong just because
a few are. The reality is that far, far
more covers are genuine than otherwise.
Charles was once told by an official of
an expertising committee that the reason
certificates were requested by their owners
was that the owner believed the items to
be bad. Again, a false assumption derived
from the bad until proven good philosophy.
The fact has been demonstrated to Charles
that in reality, a certificate is requested
ONLY to insure future saleability. After all,
who among us would like to have proof
that they erred in the acquisition of said
item? When a certificate is requested the
submitter invariably believes it to be as his
knowledge base allows.
When examining a patient for certification,
an expert will generally give the
benefit of the doubt to its genuineness,
and then look for problems. Approaching
it from the other side will invariably lead
to problems for the submitter.
A point to remember when viewing
Postal History: Anomalies to the postal
regulations do exist, although infrequently.
It must never be forgotten that it is
people, error prone, in a hurry people that
handled the mails. These same people
have, for various reasons done things
beyond or outside the regulations on occasion.
Common sense in Postal History
expertising is as essential as knowledge of
the rates, routes, etc..
As an example there is a Canadian
correspondence to a Mr. Brooksbanks in
England during the 1850s where every
cover was overpaid the Pence denominated
rate to the UK. When studying the
entire group it became quite obvious that
the Postmaster of Barrie had run out of
10d stamps. Prior to recognizing this fact,
it was not uncommon to hear my colleagues
deride these covers as fakes. After
all, their thinking went “who would pay up
to 4½ Pence more than required?” A postmaster
who obviously improvised out of
necessity, it turned out.
Now that we have set the tone to
involve the thought process along with
knowledge, let us examine each cover that
David has a problem with.
No. 1: The fact is that the stamp is
definitely, if only, slightly tied to the
upper right and lower right, where one
would expect the ties to be. The cover was
forwarded as evidenced by Fredericton
having been struck out and Dorchester
applied above it. The stamp bears the 25-
grid cancel, which was used, at the town
of Salisbury: The Salisbury postmark is
on the reverse as it should be. In British
North America, as well as virtually all
countries, the stamp, or rating mark was
to be applied to the upper right quadrant
of the cover. As can be seen, this 3 marking
(in red to denote prepayment) was
applied at left while the postage stamp
was applied as near to the upper right corner
as was permitted by the manuscript
address. This leads us to believe that the
stamp did indeed originate on this cover,
the tying compounds our belief. If it does
not belong we would expect the 3 rating
to be applied upper right. The fact that
it appears at left implies that it was an
additional marking which was added after
application of the stamp.
The backstamps confirm that the
cover made it to Fredericton (JY 4) but a
backstamp for Dorchester is not shown,
however, it arrived at St. John (JY 7). The
folded letter is a petition headlined to “The
Legislative Council and House of Assembly,
now convened at Fredericton”. Beneath the
manuscript 3 is a red Fredericton PAID split
ring cancel dated JY 6 (2 days after the
Fredericton arrival backstamp). The application
of the rating mark over this postmark
somewhat implies that the 3 Pence
was paid at Fredericton.
It is possible that the Fredericton
Postmaster paid 3d to forward the letter
to “The Honourable A. Smith” who had
returned to St. John. The 2-day delay at
Fredericton also implies that the cover
was rated secondarily. The July 4 backstamp
should have been sufficient to send
the cover on its way. It certainly did not
need to be struck on the front (directives
required that postmarks be applied to the
reverse) on July 6 in red with the paid hs
unless the Paid was to represent a new rating.
We believe the stamp to belong to the
cover but can only conjecture as to why
the Fredericton Postmaster re-rated it as
he did. It appears as though it was treated
as a completely new posting, this time
from Fredericton. Thus, it is our belief that
it was rated 3d for forwarding.
No. 2: David does not like the fact
that the postmark was used as a killer to
cancel a bisect and was struck in blue. We
agree that postmarks used on the front
of covers was against regulations but as
seen in No.1 as well as here, they do exist.
In fact we know of many. Where David
got the idea that the Salisbury postmark
was in blue, we do not know. It is struck
in black and, yes, it is a clear strike but
a random sampling of the postmarks on
covers in the Wilkinson collection show
that the vast majority are clear and neatly
struck. In fact, examine the 25 grid on the
cover from the same Post Office. It too is
immaculate and sharp.
Let’s face it, the regulations were usually
but not always followed. This cover
also bears proof of the postmarks genuineness
in that the only backstamp is the
receiver from Dalhousie. As the Salisbury
Postmaster had struck the stamp there
was obviously no need to add another
postmark to the reverse. If it had a second
backstamp then there would be reason to
suspect foul play. This cover has a 1971
Royal Philatelic Society London certificate.
JF06 • the CP / le PC • 11