Auctions: Helmholz & Remick Futures Contract

This 1899 Chicago Board of Trade contract shown sold on Sunday, December 11 on Ebay for $32.88.  Compare this with the stamps used as examples in the price discussion for used documentary revenues in this post on December 13.  While those used stamps have little value, those on this small futures memorandum of sale are a different matter.  $32.88 is not a fortune, but it is +30x the value of the same stamps off cover and without distinguishing cancels. 

The bidding for this item was interesting.  It appears that three collectors or dealers placed "snipe" bids.  All three snipers have an extensive Ebay sales or purchase history as indicated by the number of transactions. 

Clearlly, by this bidding pattern, this is a document wanted by advanced collectors and dealers of material catering to those collectors.  I can't be sure why this item was so popular with those sniping bidders, but I can take a guess:

Two special characteristics of this piece may have driven the final sale price above $30:

1.  The cancels are special:  big clear ornamental shields that neatly tie the stamps to the piece.

2.  The memorandum has a statement regarding documentary tax requirements at the upper right.  It reads:

STAMP TAX

For each one hundred dollars in value or fractional part thereof ONE CENT.

Immediately below this statement fall the stamps with a total of 15 cents in face value.  This contract sold for $1500.  The guidance regarding the stamp tax requirements is scarce; this document was used at the Chicago Board of Trade; I would guess that other CBOT traders might have used similar documents. 

Another Triply Taxed Bill of Exchange

As I reviewed documents in anticipation of resuming to blog after a two month hiatus, I discovered that I had not finished a series of blogs about foreign bills of exchange. We featured a number of interesting bills both incoming to, and outgoing from, the United States during the series. To review those prior blogs and the varied countries and territories included in the series, go here.

I had planned to conclude the series by blogging about two triply taxed bills of exchange, one from Bob Patetta's collection and one from mine. Trying to feature them both in a single blog became laboriously difficult. Realizing that it likewise would be laborious to read, at the last moment I decided instead to blog about them separately.

I featured Bob Patetta's triply taxed document here, and then moved on to another subject. Actually, I had delayed blogging about my triply taxed document hoping to receive comment regarding the questions raised about Bob's document, especially info about the then Swiss cantonal tax rates pertinent to my document as well. Enough background, time to look at the document at hand; and I'll again ask about the Swiss tax rates as my query remains unanswered.

The Western State Bank Of Chicago

Sight Draft of The Fred Knapp Company

March 27, 1902

Although reduced at left, enough of the sight draft remains intact to extrapolate the likely missing text using wording standard to similar drafts. Here's the full text, with the proposed missing wording in red:

At Sight ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pay to the

Order of The Western State Bank of Chicago~~~~~~~

~~~One Hundred Forty-three and no/100~~~Dollars

Value Received and charge the same to account of ___

The draft was written personally by Fred H. Knapp, in his capacity as Secretary and Treasurer of The Fred H. Knapp Company. It's unclear however to whom the draft was addressed other than to say it was to a company in Fribourg, Switzerland whose name ends with the letter "p".

Today's Standard Knapp, Inc. traces it's roots back to the Fred H. Knapp Company and it's interesting to note the company's website mentions having manufacturing licences in Switerland as that provides a tantilizing hint that Knapp might have set up European operations in Fribourg by 1902 and this draft might have represented a payment to that operation. At least the name Knapp ends in the letter "p"!

Reverse of Knapp Draft

Showing US and Swiss Revenues

and most of the Transit Endorsements

That the draft was taxed 8c by the Western State Bank, whose cancel obliterates the four R164 battleship documentary issues, suggests the amount was $143 as the tax for outbound bills of exchange, as this draft was considered, was 4c per each hundred dollars in value or fraction thereof.

Apparently the Brits taxed transient Bills of Exchange passing through their banks a flat fee of one penny as both Bob Pattetta's draft fo $1,000+ and this one of $143 were taxed the same, one penny. The tax rate in the Swiss Canton of Fribourg however must have been a variable rate as Bob's $1,000+ draft was taxed 140 centimes and this $143 draft just 20 centimes.

Triply Taxed Bills of Exchange

One of the joys of blogging about the taxed documents of the Spanish American War era has been corresponding and trading notes with other collectors. In the course of blogging about bills of exchange, Bob Patetta and I discovered we both possessed bills of exchange that had been taxed in three countries: The United States, Great Britain, and Switzerland. As "philatelic hat tricks" so-to-speak, they hold prized status in our respective collections.

Bob's is in the form of a Customer's Bank Draft; mine was written as a Sight Draft. Initially I thought it would be fun to include both in the same blog, but decided instead they deserved separate attention. Here's Bob's example.

To accomodate all the transit endorsements plus an explanatory note, a piece was added, (at right on front view), so the document is elongated to the degree that it's hard to show in its entirety. I've done so, for the record, in the first two illustrations below, and will discuss the draft from the next set of four detail scans.

The First National Bank of Wallace, Idaho

Customer Draft of John Ritz

August 3, 1898

Patetta scan

Reverse of Ritz Draft

Showing Swiss Revenues and Transit Endorsements

Patetta scan

Detail view of Ritz Draft

Showing US and GB Revenues

Patetta scan

The draft was written by John Ritz, Wallace, Idaho to Fredrik Ritz, Buren an der Aare, Canton Bern, Switzerland. As best I can determine, 5,260 Swiss Francs equated to slightly more than US$1,000. At 4-cents per $100 in value or fraction thereof, the proper tax rate for singly written bills of exchange, the US tax was 44 cents (11 x $.04), so Ritz overpaid the tax by 1-cent. The US stamps are pencancelled "J R" with a further date stamp of "AUG 3 1898" added by the Wallace Bank. Also note what appears to be an internal bank tracking number, 9909, within the the oval cancel at upper right:

The First Bank of Wallace

No. 9909

Wallace, Idaho.

As the endorsements on the reverse will show, the draft passed through the Hanover National Bank in New York to the Union Bank of London which taxed the draft One Penny atop the US stamps. Cancelled:

UNION BANK OF LONDON

19 AUG 1898

LIMITED

Detail of Top Portion of Reverse of Ritz Draft

Showing Swiss Revenues and Two Endorsements

Patetta scan

Incredibly the draft apparently reached Bern the next day, August 20, the date of the Marcuard & Co. cancel shown below. Marcuard & Co. added the Bern Canton revenues, shown above, totaling 41 centimes. We'd appreciate receiving comment at 1898revenues@gmail.com from anyone able to explain the Swiss tax rates.

If you look closely at the Pay Hanover National Bank Or Order endorsement of the First Natl Bank of Wallace, you'll note it has been overprinted with a three-tiered boxed ENDORSEMENT ERASED cancellation with wavy lines in the top and bottom tiers. Again, we'd appreciate comment from anyone who could explain which party may have added that cancel and why.

Detail of Middle Portion of Ritz Draft

Showing Three Endorsements
Patetta Scan

The above middle portion of the draft shows the tranmittal endorsement from the Union Bank of London to Marcuard & Co. in Bern as well as Marcaurd's subsequent endorsement to an unknown entity in Buren:

Payez a l' ordre de la

???????? der ???????? Buren

Valeur en compte

Berne, le 20 Aout 1898

The final endorsement is important as that's the party that ultimately would have communicated with Fredrik Ritz. Again, we seek comment about that unknown party.

Detail of Bottom of Ritz Draft

Showing an Explanatory Note
Patetta Scan

Finally, we'd appreciate hearing from anyone who could translate the text of the note written at the bottom of the draft.

Despite the questions raised it is a wonderful piece demonstrating taxation in three political realms and our thanks go to Bob Patteta for providing the scans.

An Incoming Bill of Exchange

When I saw this rather bedraggled first of exchange, directed to a U.S. company from Mexico City, at a stamp show my heart beat a bit faster due to its date - July 1, 1898. That feeling quickly dissipated when I saw that the Mexican revenue was canceled on that date, but the U.S. revenue not until July 6. I bought it anyway.

The dating formed a logical sequence, as the bill was issued in Mexico City and sent to New York for payment. The U.S. stamp was added by a representative of the Hidalgo Mining Company, possibly in Pittsburgh on the 6th of July, as there is an undated handstamp on back indicating payment from the Lincoln National Bank of Pittsburgh to the Seaboard National Bank of New York. The Seaboard National marked the instrument as paid on July 7th.

All well and good, but the tax paid was not sufficient. In the Compilation of Decisions Rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, January 1899 it was clearly stated, "Checks drawn in a foreign country, but payable in the United States, taxable 2 cents on each $100 or fraction thereof." The tax on this $996.65 bill of exchange would have been 20 cents. But at least one bank found it necessary to ask the IRS for that ruling.

It really isn't clear from reading the War Revenue Act what the proper tax should have been - two cents like a check cashed in the United States or twenty cents like a bill of exchange written in the United States - so the Hildago Mining Rep can be excused for adopting the cheaper view. If only the timing had been such that he had added the stamp on July 1.....

Outbound Bill of Exchange from US to Mexico

Consolidated Kansas City Smelting and Refining Co.

22.58 Silver Peso Bill of Exchange to Mexico

July 13, 1898

The Consolidated Kansas City Smelting and Refining Company was a huge conglomorate of numerous companies by 1898 including the Mexican Ore Company ( bill signed by their cashier), and the El Paso Smelting Works (cancel on US stamps). Without the documentation that likely accompanied this payment it's hard to tell who was paying for what other than someone involved with the CKCS&RC was sending 22.58 Pesos to someone in Mexico.

Because 22.58 Peso is less than $100 yet the bill was taxed 4-cents with a pair R164 battleship revenues, it's likely that only a single copy of this bill was issued. The relevant tax was 2-cents per $100 on each copy if bills were written in sets of two or more, or 4-cents per $100 if written singly. The bill was also taxed 4 centovos in Mexico by the Banco Comercial de Chihuahua in Juarez, just accross the Rio Grande from El Paso.

Today Juarez is one of the most violent cities in the world due to the Mexican drug wars, but in 1898 there was an open border between Mexico and the United States.

El Paso Smelting Works cancel:
E.P.S. Works
JUL 13, 1898

Two More Bills of Exchange from Japan

$280 Bill of Exchange

Tajimi Trading Company, Tajimi, Japan to Shigetsugu Amano, Boston, Mass.

September 19, 1900

Bob Patetta scan

Similar to the Japanese bill of exchange previously considered, both of the bills shown today were written as four month sight drafts payable through the Tomi Bank in Tajimi, Japan. The Tomi Bank then routed them through the One Hundred Bank in Toyko who sent them on to the Brown Brothers & Company in Boston for collection from the importers to whom they were addressed. The reverse of the draft above is not shown, but the transmittal endorsements are nearly identical to those of the other drafts.

The tax on bills of exchange inbound to the US was 2-cents per $100, or fraction thereof . So both were properly taxed six cents; the $280 bill above bears 2- and 4-cent battleship revenues and the $300 bill below has a pair of 3-cent battleships. That both bills were taxed 2-sen in Japan, the same as the $200 bill shown previously suggests the Japanese tax was a flat 2-sen per bill regardless of its amount. We invite any reader able to confirm the Japanese tax rate to comment below.

$300 Bill of Exchange

Tajimi Trading Company, Tajimi, Japan to T. Huruta, Amano & Co. Boston, Mass.

December 24, 1901
Bob Patetta scan

Reverse of $300 draft showing transmittal endorsements and

the 3-cent, R165, battleship revenues
Bob Patetta scan

B. B. & Co.
JAN/21/1902
BOSTON
Bob Patetta scan

The US stamps on these two bills again were applied by Brown Brothers. The paperwork that most likely accompanied the bills is not present, but most certainly the Brown Brothers and the banks in Japan charged fees for processing them, perhaps deducting them from the payment amount at each step.

Foreign Bill of Exchange - Japan to US

$200 Foreign Bill of Exchange - Japan to US

Written by Tajimi Trading Company, Tajimi, Japan

April 15, 1902

Bob Patetta scan

The trail of this bill of exchange is easier to trace than the one from Germany considered in our first blog about bills of exchanges inbound to the United States from foreign countries. In this instance it appears the Tajimi Trading Company is requesting a transfer, or perhaps a payment, of $200 from its branch office in Boston, Massachusetts to its home office in Tajimi, Japan.

In 1900 the Tajimi Trading Company was a major exporter of Japanese pottery and other ceramics with offices in Boston and New York. Their store in Boston was located at 63 Summer Street. Today the City of Tajimi is still known for its ceramics; it hosts the Mino International Festival every three years.

Reverse Side Transmittal Handstamps

of Firms Processing the Exchange

Bob Patetta scan

The Bill of Exchange was initiated by the Tajimi office of the company on April 15, 1902 requesting payment of $200 AT FOUR MONTHS SIGHT from its office in Boston. The payment was requested through the Tomi Bank in Tajimi.

Following the endorsements on the back of the bill: Tomi Bank referred it to the One Hundred Bank(OHB) in Tokyo; and OHB requested payment through the Brown Brothers & Company in Boston. Brown Brothers was a major international merchant banking company that had offices in many major cities in the US and Great Britain. Today's Brown Brothers Harriman in Boston traces its roots to B. B. & Co.

Referring again to the front of the bill, Brown Brothers apparently presented it to Yuto Takata, of the Boston office of the Tajimi Trading Company to whom the bill was addressed, on May 13, 1902 as his signed "ACCEPTED" endorsement of that date appears in the upper left corner of the bill. The penned notation "stps 4¢" obviously refers to the 4 cents tax due and "Sept 13" is the due date for payment , four months after May 13 the "at sight" date.

The two 2-cent R164 battleship revenues, paying the applicable tax of 2-cents per $100 in value were affixed and cancelled by Brown Brothers. I'm not able to decipher the Japanese markings, but the 2-sen Japanese revenue stamp had been applied earlier in Japan, I suspect by the Tajimi Trading Company.

The final endorsement on the back shows Brown Brothers effected payment back through channels on September 15, likely after receiving payment from Mr. Takata.

Detail of Stamp Cancellations

Cancel on the US R164 Battleships reads:

B. B. & Co.

MAY/13/1902

BOSTON
Bob Patetta scan

Our thanks again go to Bob Patetta for providing another interesting usage from his collection of 1898 revenue documents.

Foreign Bill of Exchange - Germany to US via Great Britain

This bill of exchange is written in the form of a bank draft. The trail of its payment is hard to follow because it was routed though numerous banks in three countries. The applicable US Spanish American War tax, two cents per $100 in value, or fraction thereof, for bills of exchange inbound to the US from a foreign country is easy enough to understand. But without the documentation and payment instructions that most certainly accompanied this draft, we don't know who was paying whom, or for what purpose. The draft itself offers scant information, just a reference to a March 20, 1900 letter of credit.

From a fiscal history standpoint we note that when it was received by the London Agency of the Deutsche Bank of Berlin, they paid the one penny British tax. And when the National Bank of Burlington, Iowa ultimately received and paid the draft they properly taxed it two cents with an R164, 2-cent battleship documentary, the proper amount for a payment less than $100. The standard conversion rate at the time for a British Pound was $4.85; so 20 Pounds = $97.00.

20 Pounds Sterling Foreign Bill of Exchange - Germany to US

Written as a Sight Draft by Oberrheinische Bank - Heidelberg

August 8, 1900

I count ten handstamp markings on the draft, six on the front, and four on the back. It went from the Heidelberg branch of the Oberrheinsche Bank; to their Mannheim branch; to the Deutsche Bank of Berlin; to the National Provincial Bank of England where the trail seems to go cold. The Union Bank of London and the Continental Bank of Chicago were listed on the draft as correspondent banks, but the draft doesn't appear to have been routed through either of them. In fact the Chicago Bank reference was crossed out at some point. So how it actually got to the National State Bank of Burlington, Iowa is unclear.

Happily it nonetheless made its way into philatelic hands as it is a nice example of a combination usage of two country's revenue stamps.

Reverse Side Transmittal Handstamps of Oberrheinische Bank

and September 14, 1900 Payment Handstamps of

National State Bank, Iowa

AT LEFT:

Nat'l State Bank

SEP 14 1900

Burlington, Iowa

AT RIGHT:

DEUTSCHE BANK of BERLIN

25 AUG 1900

LONDON AGENCY

Deutsche Bank "D" "B" perfin

The draft itself bears perfins for the numbers "25" and "8" (through the reference to the Union Bank of London). The Deutsche Bank in London probably added those, a likely reference to the date they processed the draft, August 25, 1900.

We'd like to show other examples of multi-country tax stamp combinations and invite anyone having examples involving 1898 US revenues to send scans of them with a brief description to 1898revenues@gmail.com.