Monday, November 8, 2010

The Fullerton List: Express Company 010, American Express

This post is part of a continuing series on Richard Fullerton's 1952 Catalog of Railroad Company, Street Railway & Express Company Printed Cancellations on the 1898 U. S. Revenues.

Examples of the cancels, when available, are posted.

Express Company 010:  American Express, Type 1s

In May last year this site considered the American Express Company and its cancels.  Here we put those cancels in the order of Mr. Fullerton's catalog.  To start, this post looks at only Mr. Fullerton's type 1s, which include the initial Type 1 and Type 1A from the catalog's addendum.  Both of these cancels are of the serif type from 1898, with Type 1A having the addition of an "8" magenta handstamp.  Fullerton's types include several that consist of additions of handstamps.  In a revised listing of purely printed cancels this kind of mixed listing with handstamped dating should be revisited.

Type 1:  Two lines of ornamental type in caps and lower case letters.  Caps 4.74mm high.  Initials are 16.5mm long.  Date 189 is 2.5mm high, 5.5mm long and 2mm below.  Square periods. Last figure of year usually added by pen.

1ct   Pale Blue          a.  Dated 189   (1)  roulette




Type 1A:  Same as Type 1 with the addition of a heavt "8".  6.0mm high handstamped at the end of the printed date 189, in magenta ink.

1ct  Pale Blue            a.  Date 189(8)    (1)  roulette

Type 1A,  1ct Pale Blue a. (1)
ex-Tolman

Sunday, November 7, 2010

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.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Whither R157?

R157 is the dark green ten-cent postage stamp of the 1895 definitive series privately marked with a magenta I.R. handstamp by the Michigan Mutual Life Insurance Company of Detroit for use on their life insurance policies for a short period before they could obtain regular battleship revenues. Although these were privately produced, they are listed in the Scott Specialized. Sixty-six copies are reported to exist, according to a recent Spink auction description.

The document below is a mortgage executed in Huron County, Michigan, for $577 in August of 1898. It bears a ten-cent postage stamp, presumably of the 1895 definitive series (the stamp has not been watermarked) marked with a small magenta I.R. Can this be considered as an R157 variety?




The stamp in detail:


There is one major problem. Mortgages under $1,000 were not taxed. The stamp could be paying the tax for a general certificate, which was ten cents, but that was not required for registering a regular mortgage. It does not appear that this instrument should have been subject to any kind of documentary tax.

However, a number of people did not know this was the case, to judge from questions answered in the Compilation of Decisions Rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated January, 1899. In that volume there were several rulings to the effect that mortgages under $1,000 were not taxed unless they were part of more complex financial transactions, and that registration of a mortgage was not subject to tax as a miscellaneous contract. It is possible that the Huron County Registrar did not know this.

It takes a suspension of disbelief to accept this document at face value, but the stamp is tied. The initials on it, H.L. for Hannah Lindsay, appear to be in the same style as her signature within, so it just could be.....

Upper Left Plate Scratch on an R164

I'm not a fly-specker and I don't look at my stamps in a way that I regularly identify plate varietes, but the stamp below is a bit different for me.  There is scratch running from the upper left margin through the upper left corner of the stamp and into the base of 2 that is so large that my naked eyes reconized the flaw.  I know that on the battleship stamps there are numerous plate varieties, though none are catalogued. 


Close up of the scratch.

I would be interested to see other examples of this scratch if anybody has one.  Please send scans to 1898revenues@gmail.com

Friday, November 5, 2010

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.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

The Fullerton List: Express Company 015, National Express Company

This post is part of a continuing series on Richard Fullerton's 1952 Catalog of Railroad Company, Street Railway & Express Company Printed Cancellations on the 1898 U. S. Revenues.

Examples of the cancels, when available, are posted.

Express Company 015: National Express
 
A post from more than one year ago  featured National Express cancels, but with no explanation, background on the company, or order to the cancels.    National Express was owned or controlled by American Express at the time of these cancels.  The exact association between these two firms I do not know at this time. 

Richard Fullerton lists two types of printed cancels which are shown below. 
 
Type 1:  Two line of ornamental type in caps and lower case letters.  Caps 4.75mm high.  Initials are 17mm long.  Date 189 is 2.5mm high, 5.5mm long and 2mm below.  Square periods.  Last figure of the year usually added by pen.
 
1ct  Pale Blue        a.  Dated 189   (1)  roulette
 
 
Type 1 a.(1)
serif, roulette
 
Type 2:  Two lines of plain block type all caps 2.75mm high.  Initials are 18.5mm long.  Dates are 2.5mm high.  Date 189 is 5 1/4mm long, and 1900 is 7.5mm long.  Date 189 is 2.75mm below initials and date 1900 is 2mm below initials.  All date figure "1"s are serifed.  Normally with vertical rectangular periods.  There are varieties of spacing.  Last figure of the year 189 usually added by pen.
 
1ct Pale Blue       a.  Dated 189     (1)   roulette
                                                     (2)   HH
                           b.  Dated 1900   (2)   HH
                          bs. Varieties        (2)  no period after EX

Type 2 a.(1)
1899 roulette


Type 2 a.(2)
1899 HH


Type 2, b.(2)
1900 HH

Type 2, unlisted
1900 HH inverted

*****

Examples of National Express handstamps:

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

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.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Bob Hohertz on 1898 Series Stamped Paper Part 6: Scott RN-X7

Bob Hohertz' series on 1898 stamped paper continues here with examples of Scott RN-X7.  This series has considered the 1898 stamp paper thus far according to Scott number.  This is the last number in the 1898 series:


Scott RN-X7 is listed as being 2¢ “orange,” with a line just below for “pale orange.” Scott would have been much better off just saying “(shades)” after the initial listing, as they do in the listings for other types of revenue stamped paper imprints. There are myriad variations in color that fall under X7, and many of them are not “pale.”

In fact, there is a gradation between yellow and orange that makes it difficult to tell where one leaves off and the other begins.

Figure 36


Figure 36. I do not make any attempt to distinguish between X6 and X7 in my collection, as otherwise identical checks are known to have imprints that vary. These two certificates of deposit were used in the first half of 1899, but presumably come from two different printings since the imprint on one is orange, and the other, yellow.

Figure 37

Figure 37. The imprint on this unused certificate of deposit is pretty clearly orange, to my eyes.


Figure 38

Figure 38. Pale orange, to be sure. If the color were much lighter, it wouldn’t be there.


Figure 39

Figure 39. Apricot?


Figure 40

Figure 40. Almost brown.  Enough on colors. A used X7 catalogs in the range of $1.00, which is meaningless. Here are four examples that would bring much more, considering location, signer, or the type of document.


Figure 41

Figure 41. An unused check with a printed Alaska dateline. The only one currently known.


Figure 42

Figure 42. A check with a Hawaii dateline, used by Oahu College in 1901.


Figure 43

Figure 43. A personal check signed by ex-President Benjamin Harrison shortly before his death.


Figure 44

Figure 44. An imprinted money order. Three are currently known, only one from this company. A philatelic souvenir to be sure, as all surviving money orders from this period are, but if it had not been created we would not have known that the Adams Express Company had used imprinted revenues.

Like color, value is in the eye of the proverbial beholder.

X7a is “printed on back only,” and values are given for used and unused examples. At this point we need to get into the subject of the star-punched oddities.

A number of unused, imprinted checks and drafts are known with a group of four to six star punches arcing through the imprints. Some of these have unusual placement of the imprint, or some other problem, sometimes with the imprint, sometimes with the check or draft itself. A good number of these were printed by William Carrie of Boston, who also was licensed to print the imprints. They may have come from that company’s files, but nobody knows for sure.

In a number of cases the imprints on these star-punched items are in unusual places that do not appear to be required for any logical reason, which is the case for unused X7a's. Those I own or have seen have no vignette on the front to cause the imprint to be moved to the back, and in all cases the imprint is inverted on the back as well. They are not quite printer's waste, but they do not appear to have been prepared for use in that form, either. How should these be treated by Scott? Delisted? Footnoted?


Figure 45

Figure 45. An unused check with a Puerto Rico dateline, (inverted) imprint on the back only, badly miscut and bearing star punches.


Figure 46

Figure 46. Genuinely issued and used checks and drafts are know with the imprint placed on the back to avoid a vignette on the front. This Northern Steamship Company merchant’s draft is one of the most handsome examples known.

X7b is missing from Scott. Quite some time ago it was the minor listing for a parlor car ticket, which now is X7i.

X7c is “printed on front and back.” There was no reason to do this in connection with the Spanish American War imprints, and any such check is due to an error. Again, the unused example is one of the star-punched oddities.


Figure 47

Figure 47. There is no reason this check should have an (inverted) imprint on the back.

At least two used checks exist with an imprint on both front and back. These would have been created by the imprint printer running a sheet through the press the wrong way, noticing the mistake, and then putting it through the right way. There was no reason that this needed to be done, and no reason not to do it. It would have been up to the printer.


Figure 48

Figure 48. This check has complete imprints on both front and back. The one on the back serves no purpose. The other used example has the imprint on the back inverted as well.

X7d is reserved for instruments with the imprint “vertical.” Several users chose to have this done to avoid imprints in the center of the checks. There is no listing for an unused example, but one does exist, with star punches. If Scott is going to list other varieties based on star-punched examples, why not here?


Figure 49

Figure 49. The only currently known unused check with a vertical imprint.


Figure 50

Figure 50. A used example with a vertical imprint at left. Several different users chose this orientation.


Figure 51

Figure 51. The only known example of a check with a vertical imprint at right.

X7e is an imprint with a double impression. I do not know of a used example of a true double impression (run through the press twice,) but that is all that Scott lists. An unused example with the star punches does exist, but again is not used as a basis for listing.


Figure 52

Figure 52. The imprint on this check appears to be a true double impression.


Figure 53

Figure 53. The imprint on this used check exhibits light doubling of the design at lower right. This is probably due to some slippage during printing, rather than a complete second pass through the press.


Figure 53a. Detail of the doubled area.



Figure 54

Figure 54. This is not exactly what we think of as a double impression, but it is obvious that the check went through the press twice. Why, is anyone’s guess.

X7i is the number for the two-cent imprint on a parlor car ticket. Two unused examples are known.


Figure 55

Figure 55. One of the two entire parlor car tickets with a two-cent imprint. It was used for a section, while the other example was used for a stateroom.


Figure 56. Used X7i’s are almost as rare as the unused ones.



Figure 57

Figure 57. X7i is known in golden-yellow, and if the listings were consistent something should appear under X6 for parlor car tickets, in my humble opinion. I'd rather see X6 deleted and "shades" added to X7, with a minor listing for olive under X7.  Also, to be consistent with the way X1, X4 and X5 are listed, there should be a distinction between "used" and "partial" tickets, as the items above show that both exist.


X7g is the listing for inverted imprints. There is no listing for unused copies, and none are known.


Figure 58

Figure 58. Inverted imprints are known on the checks or drafts of nine different users. This is one of the first two recorded examples.

There are several other imprint varieties that could be listed under X7. One is the presence of a twenty centimes French revenue handstamp on the check, along the lines of RN B1d, the American Phototype design with a ten centimes handstamp.


Figure 59.

Figure 59.  Perhaps the most fanciful listing would be for “omitted imprint.” The only way to tell if an imprint is totally omitted is for the check to be attached to one with an imprint, as below. The bottom check in this pair probably was folded under the one above it when the sheet went through the press.


Figure 60


This completes a run-through of the Scott-listed X types. If and when I can decide what the status of the star-punched items should be, I may try to have the catalog changed to reflect what is and is not known to exist.


One final star-punched oddity:

Figure 61

Figure 61. How would you describe the imprint(s) on this check? It looks like it was used to clean the press...