Bob Hohertz on Stamped Paper: The RN X Sample Books Revisited

I just received another two pairs of RN X imprints on unsuitable papers, the one-cent member of one of them being pictured above. It deepened my perplexity concerning the manufacture and purpose of these "samples."

The sample books were discussed by Ernest Wilkins in the Essay-Proof Journal No. 129. He said that there were 194 pages, each of which contained an orange impression of both the one-cent and two-cent designs. He also commented on the recurring plate flaws in the copy he had at his disposal at the time. For the one-cent he listed damage to the top of the design and a spot of color in the large numeral at right. I already posted the image below, taken from another sample item on rather plain paper and showing both flaws.

In June of 2011 when I discussed these items I included the following one-cent version. It exhibits both of the flaws noted by Wilkins. It also exhibits the same wallpaper design as the one on the example at the top of this article.

The problem is that the imprint shown at top does not have the spot of color in the right numeral. None of the one-cent sample items I have acquired in the last year have it. Yet they all have the same flaw at the top of the imprint. Or is it? I've learned from close examination of several Civil War imprints that apparently identical plate flaws often are not, but products of some sort of weakness in the dies that produced flaws in the same general area.

The two-cent imprints show a similar anomaly. All of the recently acquired ones show a missing design portion at bottom, to the left of "INTERNAL." Wilkins illustrated the two-cent imprint on a sample page which he described as "floral underprint is pale green on cream color paper." This is exactly what I now have, with the damaged imprint. However, his illustration clearly shows no such damage.

The Wilkins illustration.

Damage not shown on the Wilkins illustration.

To sum up what we have so far is, first, what I will call Wilkins Samples: one-cent with frame damage and dot, two cent with no apparent damage. I have examples of these. And, second, new samples: one-cent with frame damage, no dot, two-cent with frame damage. I have five examples of these.

A deceptively simple solution is that there were at least two sample books which have been cut apart. I believe this. But - why? And what happened to the dot?

If the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, or anyone else, decided to produce these books, why only use two dies? If the printer was running several copies at a time, to be cut apart later, there were two, three, four dies being used at once. If the frame damage on the one-cent samples is not the same on the ones with and without the dot in the numeral, this is the explanation. If I could see an example where the paper is pretty clearly from a sample book but there was no frame damage on the one-cent, that would erase all doubt in my mind.

None of this addresses the other question: who produced these samples?

They are not salesman's samples. The only people who were selling the design was the Bureau, who presumably had to get approval for their design from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Can you imagine presenting him with a thick book of samples on things like wallpaper and foil, printed with flawed plates? I can't.

Who else could have printed them? The plates were maintained under supervision of an IRS Agent at all times, and should have been returned to the Commissioner at the termination of the contract, or when damaged or worn. It is not likely that they were abandoned at the end of the tax period, if for no other reason than that they could have been used to place imprints on checks that then could have been turned in for refund. Admittedly, after 1904 no refunds were given, so the IRS may have lost interest in the plates and some enterprising soul could have gotten hold of a set of them to run off some curiosities. The plates available at that time could have been a mix of damaged and undamaged ones, whatever was still around. This would answer all the questions except Why Bother…

I'd love to find a smoking gun, but I don't know where to look for it.

You can access a previous post on these "samples" and sample books below:

What is in the Sample Books? June 18, 2011

Imprinted Check for Use by the Jr. O.U.A.M.

The Junior O.U.A.M. is the Junior Order of the United American Mechanics, a group formed in 1853 to oppose immigration and promote reading of the Bible. The group founded orphan homes and offered fraternal insurance by 1899. At their peak around the beginning of the Twentieth Century they numbered several hundred thousand.

The Junior O.U.A.M. is still active today, though it appears that racial and sectarian restrictions on membership are no longer practiced. Their website does indicate that they now accept legal immigration as a route to citizenship, recognize the Constitution of the United States as the "defining instrument for governing our society," and believe that the Bible .."is the basis upon which our government is founded.." Their website is www.jrouam.org/index.php?pr=Home_Page&=SID, and a short article on the original group is found at www.stichtingargus.nl/vrijmetselarij/jouam_en.html.

They no longer seem to have a chapter in New Jersey - at least, there is no State council there.

One paragraph from their website struck me as worth repeating: "It's always important for us to remember that ...'Good judgment often comes from a lot of bad judgment.' America has had her share of bad judgment. I pray that we're beyond many of the troublesome periods in America, and we pray for mercy not justice."

The Oddest Imprinted Checks I've Ever Seen

eBay seller Mike Kazanjian has been listing some checks on eBay which he describes as having been written by hand - "holographic." When I saw these, my first reaction was that it couldn't have happened. With Mike's cooperation I discovered I was right, but I still consider these likely to be the oddest imprinted checks produced in the entire Spanish American War tax period.

To get an imprint on checks during the tax period, a user first had to have the checks printed. They then took or sent them to a Revenue Agent housed at one of the 28 or so printers authorized to print imprints, along with their payment. The Agent would give them to the printer, who would imprint them and return them to the user. This process left no room for a user to get a supply of otherwise blank imprinted paper that they could use to create a holographic check. Oh, a piece of imprinted printer's waste could have escaped and someone could have risked the wrath of the IRS by trying to use it to defraud the government of two cents, but likely not more than once. And there were a number of these checks.

I ended up with four of them - two used during the tax period and two used later. All appear to have been made out in dark black ink, with a lighter black used for the amount, payee and signature. All are printed on lightly-ruled graph paper.

And yes, printed. If you look closely at the dark-ink parts, they are perfectly identical. They may look like script, but they are printed. The only handwritten thing about these is the amount, payee, and signature.

So - it didn't happen. These aren't holographic. But they are my candidates for the strangest imprinted checks used during the 1898-1902 tax period.

What must the IRS Agent have thought when he received them for imprinting?

Auctions: RN-X Paper Samples Booklet

The sample booklet referred to in the previous two posts just sold for $1600. 

What is in the Sample Books?

Concerning the sample book at auction in the Siegel Rarities of the World Sale, I asked Scott Trepel if he could scan a page or two for me if it wouldn't damage the book, but he replied that it was too fragile to do that. That's understandable.

If you want to see some cut-down samples from one of those books, read on.

A one-cent imprint on a wallpaper-like background.

One-cent imprint on dark blue, foil-surface paper.

Two-cent imprint on dark red foil-surface.

Two-cent imprint on red leather-like paper.

The one-cent imprints have one repeated plate flaw, and one that occurs on some copies, but not all. The chunk out at the top occurs on all that I have seen, while the dot in the numeral occurs on two, but not all.


The two-cent imprints also have a flaw at top, stray lines at bottom right of the rightmost small "2", and a large chunk of the bottom scroll missing on the bottom left side on three copies in my collection. However, the item below does not show any of these flaws. If it was not from one of the books, why would anyone print it on moire paper? Very elaborate printer's waste?

There are a number of questions concerning the imprints on clearly unsuitable paper. First, who created the books? The Bureau of Engraving and Printing certainly did not need to "sell" the designs to the selected security printers who printed them. Since there was so little time to come up with designs in the first place, it is difficult to believe that the books were prepared to convince government officials to adopt them - all the work in printing and preparing them would hardly have been necessary. Surely a sample on plain paper would have sufficed.

On the other hand, it is unlikely that the Bureau would have sent flawed dies to any one of the twenty-eight printers that were selected to apply imprints in the first year. Unless, and this is far fetched, the Bureau required each to print up something like this in order to get a contract - but again, there was so little time between passage of the revenue law and appearance of the first imprints - less than a month - that it is difficult to believe that the Bureau would have had time to do anything like this.

Somewhere I got the idea that there were two of these books in existence some years ago, plus at least one cut up. (I know one is cut up - I have chunks of it - and perhaps from two different ones?) Since some of the imprints seem to have flaws that others don't, do ones from different books show different flaws, and perhaps somewhat different papers? That's why I would love to have been able to see a page from this book. It might have cleared up this question, and given us a clue to just why these books exist (assuming more than one still does.)

Imprint Plus Adhesive - Part 3

From an obituary in the Kingston Daily Freeman, Thursday evening edition, February 1, 1917: "Mark Shultis,… formerly a merchant at Saugerties, died Tuesday at Brookline, Mass. For a number of years he was engaged in the commission business in Boston and amassed a fortune there."

One of the best sources of adhesive revenues added to imprinted drafts was Mark Shultis, during his time as a commission merchant in Boston. The following drafts are a selection from those in my collection.

First, a draft originated by Milmine, Bodman & Company's Chicago office (see the blog entry for April 26, 2010.) It asked Shultis to pay $1,410 to their account in New York. Shultis accepted the charge and added an adhesive stamp.

Another Chicago draft, this one from Nye & Jenks Grain Company which, though headquartered in Chicago, had an office in Boston. Again, Shultis added an adhesive stamp to the draft.

This draft was originated by the Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company of Minneapolis, which operated about a quarter of the flour mills in the city at the time. They, Pillsbury-Washburn and Washburn, Crosby accounted for some 97% of the Minneapolis market at the turn of the century. It isn't at all surprising to see that they did business with Shultis.

A handstamp, present on all of the drafts shown this far, is clearly readable on this draft from Hunter Brothers of Saint Louis, and explains why the additional adhesives are present. It reads, "ACCEPTED PAYABLE AT/ FOURTH NATIONAL BANK,/ Boston………..189…/ MARK SHULTIS,/ Per…….."

Internal Revenue Circular 508 contains the following commentary: "Sight drafts drawn upon or issued by any bank, trust company, or any person or persons, companies or corporations, require a stamp, and, if the acceptance of the draft is accompanied by an order to the bank to pay the same and charge to the account of the drawee, this accompanying order requires, in addition, a 2-cent stamp as 'an order for the payment of money.'" Shultis, in making his acceptance, specified that funds were payable at the Fourth National Bank of Boston, and properly added an adhesive to pay the additional tax occasioned thereby.

(In an article in The Check Collector I mistakenly assumed that Shultis did not know what the imprint stood for and accused him of being the type that wore both belt and suspenders. I owe him an apology.)

As proof that Shultis knew exactly what he was doing, the following draft originated by A Fred Brown of Boston properly does not bear an additional adhesive. Since it was already specifically payable to an account in the Fourth National Bank of Boston there was no need for Shultis to make a second payment order, so he didn't add a stamp.

Of course, there is always one exception to almost every rule. Churchill & Company, Grain Merchants in Buffalo, New York wrote the following draft, which Shultis accepted using the same handstamp as before, specifying payment at the Fourth National Bank. However, there is no sign of an additional stamp. Was the stamp removed, or did this one slip by? Or did the manuscript notation "c/o Fourth Nat. Bk" at the lower left side somehow make a difference? Since an attorney was accepting these drafts and presumably knew all of the facets of the tax law, perhaps it did.

Imprint Plus Adhesive - Footnote to Part 2

I had forgotten that I have a second example of the Merchants National Bank draft that I used in Part 2 of this saga. When I ran across it I hoped that it would shed some light on the use of an extra adhesive, as it has one as well.

This draft was written on October 19, 1898, paying Julia W. Smith twenty-five dollars from the Merchants National account in the Fourth National Bank of New York. Ms Smith endorsed the check over to Rosie E. Robotham, and a battleship stamp was applied to tax this third-party order to pay.



But it doesn't look like that is the correct sequence of events.

It looks like Ms Smith took the draft to the Northampton National Bank and cashed it. The ink of her signature appears to be on top of the handstamp ink, though that might be deceptive. If so, How did Ms Robotham get into the picture at all?

The other problem is that the added battleship was canceled by the Merchants National Bank on October 19, the day the draft was written. Did Ms Smith pick the draft up at the bank and sign it over to Ms Robotham then and there? If so, how did the Northampton National Bank get into the scene? Why wouldn't Ms Smith just cash it at the Merchant's National and hand the money to Ms Robotham, obviating the need for a second stamp?

Let's say that Ms Robotham was not at the bank when the draft was delivered, and Ms Smith didn't want to carry around cash, so she signed it over to Ms Robotham later, who cashed it at the Northampton National (which just happened to put their handstamp above Ms Smith's signature and its ink didn't "take" over the ink of that signature.) Then why did the Merchants National add the battleship on the day it was written? Just in case Ms Smith would later sign it over to someone rather than simply cash it?

Or was the draft mailed to Ms Smith? If so, the extra stamp is even more puzzling, as the bank would have had no idea what Ms Smith was going to do.

The Merchants National Bank drafts have the designation of "ORIGINAL" on the face, and just possibly could have been taxed as inland bills of exchange, but even if they were (and it isn't likely, as they weren't "accepted" by the Fourth National as would have been necessary for a bill of exchange) the tax on an inland bill of exchange payable on sight or demand was the same as for a check or draft so payable.

It isn't likely that banks were tossing around two cents here and two cents there in 1898, so there must be some logic to the presence of these extra stamps on the Merchants National drafts.

A Repeat Offender

Most of you reading this blog are familiar with promissory notes taxed at two cents per hundred dollars or fraction thereof, such as the following note.

Signed on February 15, 1901, the note stated that the American Water Company would pay the Chicago Consolidated Bottling Company $150 on August 15, 1902, and was franked with a four-cent battleship to pay the tax. Nothing unusual there.

The check below is a bit different. Written on October 22, 1900, instead of paying to the order of James Romney at sight or demand, E. Sullivan made it payable on November 1 of that year. This took the instrument from being taxable as a check to one being taxable as a note, or at least one taxable as other than at sight or demand, which has the same tax rate as a note. The correct tax on $964.68 should have been twenty cents, not the two cents paid by the imprint. There is no sign that additional stamps were attached anywhere to pay the remaining eighteen cents.

When I first saw this check, I assumed that the writer either didn't realize that they had changed tax status by turning the check into a note or they didn't know there were additional taxes involved. And somehow it got past the bank.

A bit later I found this December 3rd instrument. Same writer, same payee, but this time the note was for $844.96, payable December 13th.

The writer may still not have known that additional taxes were payable (in this case sixteen cents more), but what was the Park Bank of Albany thinking??

Imprint Plus Adhesive - Part 2

Continuing with a look at imprinted checks that have had an adhesive revenue added, I can only offer two examples that would bear out the idea that a third-party endorsement created a taxable event.

The first is a Merchant's National Bank draft on the Fourth National Bank of New York. Written October 25, 1898, it bears an adhesive revenue dated October 29. The rest of the cancel appears to be "Happy MED Co." It is not a bank cancel, at any rate.

The payee, Marietta F. Edgar, endorsed the check over to James somebody, and the Bank of Staten Island guaranteed the endorsements. This is reminiscent of the circumstances surrounding the Cowles check in the previous post on this subject.

Second, we have a check written to the order of C.R. Spaulding on May 7, 1900. It was endorsed by Spaulding and Geo. J Grear in what appears to be the same hand or at least using the same pen. The next endorsement is by Sister Bernardine of the Sisters of Notre Dame, who added a battleship revenue and canceled it with the initials S.N.D. There is no guarantee of endorsements involved.

If it is truly a four-party check, why is there only one additional stamp?

For each of these checks with an added revenue ostensibly for third-party involvement, there are dozens in my collection that do involve a third or fourth party, but do not appear to have paid any tax as a result.

For instance, the draft below was written on the First National Bank of Oxford, New York, payable by the Central National Bank of New York City. The payee, Peter V. Newkirk, endorsed it back to the writer, Jared C. Estelow, who then endorsed it for payment. The endorsements were guaranteed by the Erie County Savings Bank of Buffalo. No additional tax was paid.

Interestingly enough, there is a faint pencil notation "for deposit Elizabeth Newkirk" at the far left. Apparently Peter Newkirk changed his mind and no attention was paid to that endorsement.

The next check was written by William Potter to Mary L Potter, who endorsed it over to H.V. Allen, who endorsed it over to someone whose name was something like B.F. Thomas. All endorsements were guaranteed by the Boylston National Bank. No additional tax was paid on this four-party check.

Another four-party check is this one written to F.E. Patton, who used a "Pay to the order of" endorsement to W.F. Higgins, who, in turn, endorsed it to John McCann. When the National Bank of the Republic received it they guaranteed all previous endorsements. There is no evidence of an additional stamp.

These are just a few examples of the third and fourth-party checks in my collection that do not have additional stamps. I think there are enough to conclude that endorsement to another person or financial institution did not create a taxable event, or, if it did, almost no one paid the tax.

To end this installment of the saga, let's take a look at four checks written by the Cincinnati, Portsmouth & Virginia railroad Company on August 25, 1898.

The first, paying T.C. Kennedy for damage to a meadow caused by fire set by a train, has only an adhesive revenue. It was endorsed by Kennedy and A.S. Godfrey, a third party.

The second has only an imprinted revenue. It paid for a lamb killed (and two injured) by a train. The payee, John Erthel, endorsed it, but it was a third party, J.B. Hopkins, who signed it over to the Citizens National Bank.

The third, paying the Queen City Supply Company for various supplies, does bear an adhesive revenue, but there is no indication that Queen City did anything but cash it at the Market National Bank. The handwriting on the added stamp is virtually indecipherable, but it appears to have been added on August 30, the same date as it was paid through the Cincinnati Clearing House. Who added it and why are good questions. This use is early in the tax period, so perhaps someone did not understand, or did not recognize the imprint as having paid the tax.

The fourth was paid to C.L. Bowman, Agent, for coal. Bowman endorsed it over to the Walnut Hills Coal Company. The extra stamp on the check was added on the day of issue and bears the initials T.H., so was likely put there by Thomas Hunt, the Treasurer of the railroad. As we will discuss in the next installment, we have some evidence that directing checks or drafts to an agent or commission merchant triggered a second round of taxation - but why would this have been paid by the issuer rather than by the agent? Also, the cancellation on the stamp on the meadow fire check is a handstamp, so why wouldn't Hunt have used it to cancel the stamp on this check?

There are more questions than answers here, I'm afraid.

To be continued.

Imprint Plus Adhesive - Part 1

Frank Sente and I have been discussing the presence of adhesive stamps on checks or drafts already containing an imprinted revenue. Frank maintains that any check endorsed over to a third party before being cashed was subject to a second taxation at that time. This is based on an interpretation of the law, which reads, "Bank check, draft, or certificate of deposit not drawing interest, or order for the payment of any sum of money, drawn upon or issued by any bank, trust company, or any person or persons, companies, or corporations at sight or on demand, two cents," to require additional taxation each time there is such an order pertaining to a given document. This is plausible, but I have not been able to locate any decision or ruling by the IRS to that effect, while one would think there would be enough confusion on this issue to warrant one.

If any action other than simply cashing a check at the appropriate bank technically required taxation at the point of transfer, it stands to reason that either the requirement was being ignored in most instances, or the public simply did not know about it. However, we do find occasional checks with both an imprinted and an adhesive revenue, and it might be instructive to look at some of these.

The first example is a textbook case. Frank recently traded it to me, but it is best described in his words. "Here is a third party RN-X7 check with an R 164 added for the third party transfer. I call it 'Mrs. Cowles Goes to Washington.'

"Apparently Cowles Brothers writes a check dated September 14, 1899 to Mrs. C.D. Cowles so she has money for an excursion to Washington D.C.

"When in Washington on September 29 Mrs. Cowles presents the check for payment at the West End National Bank.

"The Bank required her to endorse the check so that it becomes payable to them (gives them recourse if a problem arises.) That technical third party transfer of funds via the check makes it taxable once again. Hence the added R 164.

"I'm sure the West End Bank made Mrs. Cowles pay the two cents.

"NOTE: The date info in the bank's handstamp cancel is ALL inverted so the circular wording 'WEST END NAT'L BANK/Washington D.C.' appears inverted. It's a bit blurred, but readable." (Scan enhanced to bring out the cancel - with a rather garish result.)

Frank goes on to mention that the Cowles Brothers firm was an insurance company (agent or broker?) in Statesville, NC.

*****

Not all additional adhesive stamps appear to have been applied for such a clear reason. For instance, the check below was cashed at the National Bank of Commerce in Kansas City rather than the State Bank of Narka, and it was endorsed by J.C. Dale at the time it was cashed. However, the additional stamp bears the initials of the writer, H.M. Hatch, rather than those of J.C. Dale. First, does the fact that it was cashed at a bank other than the one in which the writer had an account cause it to be considered a new "order to pay" and require an additional stamp? Second, it appears that Mr. Hatch simply did not recognize the imprint as paying the tax, so he added the adhesive when he wrote the check. Perhaps this is a case of two wrongs making a right? Or is it as it appears, an unnecessary payment?

The check below is similar. It was written by W.H. Wallace to R.F. Hennig, who then endorsed it over to D. Deutsch, who cashed it at the Sullivan County National Bank in Liberty, NY. It appears that it might have required two additional two-cent stamps, but it only has one, and that one is initialed by Mr. Wallace rather than either of the endorsers or the Sullivan County National Bank.

Frank has a theory which would account for the stamp being added by Mr. Wallace. "Perhaps from prior contact Wallace knew that Henning didn't have a bank account and thus would be unable to personally cash the check unless he presented it to the National Union Bank in Monticello. The check was cashed by Deutsch in Liberty, NY, fifteen miles away. If Hennig perhaps also lived in Liberty, could not have Henning sent him the check (rather than risk cash) by mail and, knowing that Henning would have to make it payable to a third party to cash it, have added, in advance, as a courtesy, an additional stamp to cover that situation? Considering that it appears to indeed by a third party check makes that scenario all the more plausible, at least to me."

An equally plausible scenario might be Henning, not used to having imprinted checks as early as October of 1898, simply put a stamp on it out of habit.

This third example was endorsed by the payee, James Glen, to be paid through the Continental National Bank, Chicago Clearing House on December 7, 1898, but the additional stamp was applied by the writer, David Baker, on December 3. Not only that, but the check specifies that it is payable through the Chicago Clearing House, so it isn't at all clear that there was a second "order to pay" involved. The additional stamp was likely added in error.

At the other end of the spectrum we find the check below with an endorsement rather like that on the Cowles check, but no additional stamp. It was written on Nelson L. Robinson's account in the National City Bank, payable to T. Milton Taylor, Esq. Taylor apparently cashed it at the First National Bank, giving it a specific endorsement, "Pay to the order of First National Bank." There is no extra stamp to pay a tax on this order to pay.

There is one difference between the Cowles check and any of these others. The endorsement on the Cowles check was specifically guaranteed by the bank. Could that have caused it to be a taxable event in some way that does not apply to these other third party checks?

In a similar instance, Joseph Shaw wrote a check to W.S. Mead, who then endorsed it over to Studebaker Brothers. Admittedly, it was not endorsed in favor of a bank, so perhaps nobody thought about any additional tax. And the endorsement was not guaranteed by a bank.

I have far more imprinted checks involving an endorsement to a third party in my collection which do not bear an additional stamp than ones which do. In several subsequent posts I'll show a few more with and without in the hope they will shed some light on the matter.

It is not at all clear that the simple act of cashing a check at a bank other than the one on which it was drawn created a taxable event. An endorsement such as Mrs. Cowles made to a particular bank, who then guaranteed it, may have done that, but I would still like to see an IRS opinion on the subject. How could it have been so clear at the time and so puzzling now?

To be continued.

If it was Good Once.... Attempts to use Civil War Imprints in the Spanish American War Tax Period

Imprints used to pay the bank check tax prior to 1883 were redeemable in that year and were demonetized shortly thereafter. In 1898 a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue clearly stated that, "... stamps issued under acts now repealed can not be used in lieu of stamps required by the war-revenue law of 1898." Some people still tried to use the older imprints to pay the 1898 tax.

This check was written August 31, 1898. The National Exchange Bank of Augusta recognized that the Civil War tax imprint was not valid, and added the two-cent battleship, as it is canceled with their initials. There is no indication that the bank charged the two cents to the account holder.

The check above was written September 15th, 1898, and again the bank added a stamp to pay the tax. On this one it is clear that two cents extra was deducted from the writer's account to pay for it.

Incidentally, the revenue imprint on this check bears a known constant plate flaw, a colorless diagonal slash above the first "N" in "INTERNAL."

In 1898 banks were being encouraged to add stamps to checks presented without them in order to avoid numerous returned checks, but by July of 1899 the Commissioner did an about-face, ruling, "You are advised that banks must not affix stamps to unstamped checks presented, and must return to the drawer any unstamped check presented for payment."

The Rhode Island Hospital Trust either did not hear of the 1899 ruling or decided to ignore it in respect to the April 1, 1901 check above, as the tied battleship bears their handstamp. Additionally, the Civil War imprint has "STAMP REDEEMED" stamped on it, meaning it had been sent in for refund of the tax circa 1883, so the writer was attempting to pay the current tax with an imprint that he certainly should have known was not valid. One hopes his account was debited the extra two cents, but there is no indication that was the case.

Some Additional Notes on Redemption of Spanish American War Imprints

In an earlier blog I discussed the fact that imprinted checks sent in to the IRS in 1901 for rebate of the tax were not returned until sometime in mid 1902 at the earliest. I also expressed interest in finding an example of a check with a redeemed imprint used in the last half of 1902, but should have looked carefully through my own collection before expressing that wish.

The check shown above is dated October 19, 1902. It bears the typical punch indicating that the imprint had been redeemed. There is also a December, 1902 example in my collection. Does anyone have one dated earlier than October?

Bank drafts with redeemed imprint punches are uncommon at best. Most banks would not have wanted to tie up a supply of drafts at the IRS for months. The example below, number 136, was used in 1908. Either the Royal National Bank did not use many drafts, or possibly they decided to use up an older supply when they needed to alter the secondary bank at lower left. Either way, this is an unusual item.

When looking through my collection for 1902 uses it occurred to me to look for the latest use of a redeemed check I could find. 1908 seemed to be the latest until I ran into the one below, dated May 10, 1924. Samuel Makin apparently did not write many checks, and he was a pretty faithful customer of the Sellersville National Bank over some 23 years.