I agree.
Philatelic covers have been around as long as stamps themselves. Here's a cover from a dealer in 1906 including an older stamp.
And a 12 year old Columbian 4 cent stamp used by Scott in 1904 along with the current 1 cent Franklin.
The survival rate is much greater than normal commercial or personal mail because they were delivered right into the hands of collectors who were apt to save them!
Just for the record, I've checked all the stamps on these covers and none of them had enhanced values for being on cover. So, this is all purely academic.
For the sake of discussion, I would submit, that any description with the word "but" in it, is non-definitive.
BenFranklin shows a fine pair of examples and the addressees would tend to lend support to the concept of being philatelic in nature. But, the fact is, these were just as likely used as genuine correspondence between individuals and not solely for the purpose of creating a philatelic artifact.
In the case of my 50 or so covers, how would anyone know they were philatelic in nature, without having first hand knowledge of their history? Even if the stamps were removed, the blocks with SON cancels would have the appearance of being CTO'd and many of the singles were tied to the cover in a lower or upper corner, again, giving them the appearance of a CTO'd stamp. Too, since many of them contained notes or short letters, isn't it just as acceptable to think of those as postally used, without the exception of being "but philatelic".
Many will find these points, moot at best. My interest is in the idea that, by nature, philatelist's and even weekend collectors, tend to view stamps(and covers)as a black or white issue. It is either this or it's not. This subject, however, would seem to have somewhat of a gray area.
WB
"BenFranklin shows a fine pair of examples and the addressees would tend to lend support to the concept of being philatelic in nature. But, the fact is, these were just as likely used as genuine correspondence between individuals and not solely for the purpose of creating a philatelic artifact."
Sure, I can see where research would be a key element, especially on higher value material. In the case of the covers I mentioned, that wouldn't come in to play. The only person they would have much value to, is me and that is more for sentimental reasons then anything else.
Because I'm not an avid cover collector, I undoubtedly don't have the trained eye that others would. I was just going through some material that I hadn't taken a hard look at and wondered, if I didn't know the history, would there be a definitive way of telling that these covers, were what they are.
I think you've helped me to start finding a way to do that.
Thanks,
WB
i'd say we have hit the nail squarely.... material that was properly used in period is the most desirable, better still with the highest value stamp franking it.
Of course, those who value it first have to learn that it's desirable, and the reasons for it.
that doesn't diminish the appeal of a FDC or obvious philatelic use of a SS, but....
CTO s normally all have the same or a group of standard postmarks ( which in many cases are easily identified), while cancelled by favour normally have the normal local postmark applied.
Not suggesting you should remove any stamps from cover, but should you do so there will be no way of telling a by favour cancellation from normal commercial use - unless the type of postmark is "wrong" for the period of the stamp. I certainly wouldn't vandalise a perfectly good cover or postmark on piece just to make the stamp look commercially used. You have to keep a sense of proportion in these matters.
I have in the neighborhood of about 50 covers that were part of an exchange(1970's-'80's) between two collectors, one in the U.S. and the other in Germany.(DDR) The exchange took place by adhering the stamps to an envelope and sending them through the mail systems. All covers were neatly hand cancelled and most are tied to the cover. However, there are some blocks/sets that were cancelled in their centers and not tied to the cover. Not to confuse the issue, but about 2/3's of them contained notes, mostly along the lines of "how are you" or "hope all is well". How would the stamps on these covers be defined, CTO'd, Favor Cancelled or Postally Used?
WB
re: CTO vs Favor Cancel vs...
Philatelic covers have been around as long as stamps themselves. Here's a cover from a dealer in 1906 including an older stamp.
And a 12 year old Columbian 4 cent stamp used by Scott in 1904 along with the current 1 cent Franklin.
The survival rate is much greater than normal commercial or personal mail because they were delivered right into the hands of collectors who were apt to save them!
re: CTO vs Favor Cancel vs...
Just for the record, I've checked all the stamps on these covers and none of them had enhanced values for being on cover. So, this is all purely academic.
For the sake of discussion, I would submit, that any description with the word "but" in it, is non-definitive.
BenFranklin shows a fine pair of examples and the addressees would tend to lend support to the concept of being philatelic in nature. But, the fact is, these were just as likely used as genuine correspondence between individuals and not solely for the purpose of creating a philatelic artifact.
In the case of my 50 or so covers, how would anyone know they were philatelic in nature, without having first hand knowledge of their history? Even if the stamps were removed, the blocks with SON cancels would have the appearance of being CTO'd and many of the singles were tied to the cover in a lower or upper corner, again, giving them the appearance of a CTO'd stamp. Too, since many of them contained notes or short letters, isn't it just as acceptable to think of those as postally used, without the exception of being "but philatelic".
Many will find these points, moot at best. My interest is in the idea that, by nature, philatelist's and even weekend collectors, tend to view stamps(and covers)as a black or white issue. It is either this or it's not. This subject, however, would seem to have somewhat of a gray area.
WB
re: CTO vs Favor Cancel vs...
"BenFranklin shows a fine pair of examples and the addressees would tend to lend support to the concept of being philatelic in nature. But, the fact is, these were just as likely used as genuine correspondence between individuals and not solely for the purpose of creating a philatelic artifact."
re: CTO vs Favor Cancel vs...
Sure, I can see where research would be a key element, especially on higher value material. In the case of the covers I mentioned, that wouldn't come in to play. The only person they would have much value to, is me and that is more for sentimental reasons then anything else.
Because I'm not an avid cover collector, I undoubtedly don't have the trained eye that others would. I was just going through some material that I hadn't taken a hard look at and wondered, if I didn't know the history, would there be a definitive way of telling that these covers, were what they are.
I think you've helped me to start finding a way to do that.
Thanks,
WB
re: CTO vs Favor Cancel vs...
i'd say we have hit the nail squarely.... material that was properly used in period is the most desirable, better still with the highest value stamp franking it.
Of course, those who value it first have to learn that it's desirable, and the reasons for it.
that doesn't diminish the appeal of a FDC or obvious philatelic use of a SS, but....
re: CTO vs Favor Cancel vs...
CTO s normally all have the same or a group of standard postmarks ( which in many cases are easily identified), while cancelled by favour normally have the normal local postmark applied.
Not suggesting you should remove any stamps from cover, but should you do so there will be no way of telling a by favour cancellation from normal commercial use - unless the type of postmark is "wrong" for the period of the stamp. I certainly wouldn't vandalise a perfectly good cover or postmark on piece just to make the stamp look commercially used. You have to keep a sense of proportion in these matters.