US Scott 552 On A 1922 US Stamped Envolope ?
Yes I looked up stamp Scott #552 in a (2019) Scott Specialized Catalog , and 1st day of issue reads 1923.Correct me if I'm wrong.? It reads 1st day issued Jan.17,1923..Scott 552..
The stamped envolope US Scott W425a in my photo had the Sc 552 to the left but the letter was cancelled in the year 1922..Please help me with this? Is the dating wrong in my (2019) Specialized catalog.? See image ..
The stamped envolope US Scott W425a in my photo had the Sc 552 to the left but the letter was cancelled in the year 1922..Please help me with this? Is the dating wrong in my (2019) Specialized catalog.? See image ..
Comments
Well, the envelope is from 1916. It's usage in 1922 would not be terribly unusual.
However, the issue here is more about what is not seen than what is seen.
I expect that the cancellation at right is authentic. And notice that it's entirely different then the date cancel at left (and that "conveniently" you can't see the year date of the right cancel).
Now let's look at the 552. There is a BIG problem here. If you look at the lower left of the stamp, you can see it was clearly cancelled. The upper area of the stamp shows that it had a numeral "battleship" cancel (so named for their shape, as they look like a battleship from overhead). That cancellation clearly extends beyond the stamp itself, yet magically, there is no sign of this cancellation extending to the envelope.
Now we look at the date cancel on the left the "Burlington, NC" date stamp. Note that it's a double strike first of all. On it's own not a real flag, but when you add it together with the rest of what is seen, then it becomes a bit of a tell tale armature application of a cancel.
Sadly, this is a fraudulently applied stamp and cancel to make the appearance of "something that shouldn't be possible", and that's exactly what it is. Something that isn't. The two dated cancels don't match because they are from different cancellation devices. This would not happen in an actual post office, if they wanted to cancel both stamps. Someone is just taking an opportunity to try to create a mystery or rarity in a cover.
The 552 has clearly been added to the cover, and a fraudulent date stamp applied.
So no, you 2019 Scott catalog is not wrong.
What do you mean by "found the date 1923 on the stamp"? Are you referring to the lower left corner of the stamp?
I see small smatterings of ink between the stamp and the GSE's indicia which must have come from the barred elliptical killer (what you called a battleship), tying the 552 to the cover. With Kim's date correction, I would posit the stamp did originate on this cover.
Here's the clear fact: The 552 was issued in 1923. It didn't exist in July of 1922. This isn't an error in the Scott catalog.
This type of fraud is perpetuated frequently. I see 2 or 3 of this type of attempt to show something used earlier than it's issue every year. These stamps were issued in January of 1923. It is not possible that an example exists from July of 1922.
Explain as well, why is the right stamp postmarked 13 July (the day after?) when the left is 12 July 1922? It would mean 2 different post offices applied cancels. The right postmark is largely unreadable, and not from the same circular date stamp from that of the left.
There remains the issue of applicable ink that should be visible at the bottom right and left of the 552.
Even if that strike ties the stamp to the cover, it is still a fraudulent application of the cancelation. The cancels from many post offices have found there way into the trash heap, or saved by the antique shop. Someone acquired it and applied it in this case.
The stamp simply doesn't exist from this date. It therefore, is a fraudulent cancel.
I see no indication of a year date in any of the markings.
The envelope was issued in 1916, the stamp is issued in 1923. They are used on a cover together, but there isn't anything significant about the 552. Right.
So, there is nothing special about this 552 on the W425a (which I'm also questioning a bit, because the cancel is over the critical ID mark for this issue, and the scan is not very high resolution to look closer...
Scott
As to the usage it's nothing special, somewhat common uprated cover for the time frame.