|
|
Post by jamesw on Aug 28, 2015 2:20:11 GMT
Working on some covers tonight, this little envelope postmarked in South Cayuga Ont. on July 3 1883 had me scratching my head. The dealer (or someone) had written on the cover below the stamp - EFO. I've looked but I can't see anything unusual. Can any of you spot it?  I will also note that this 37e was issued in 1873 and in use until 1886 when the next Montreal printing was issued, the year previous to this mailing. So this is a late usage of this stamp, since the next issue had been released the year previous. Also, while the 37e are listed with 11.5 x 12 perf, this stamp is 12 x 12. I wonder how unusual that perf variation is on this stamp? edit - UNLESS the odd perforations ARE the EFO? |
|
|
|
Post by jamesw on Aug 28, 2015 3:17:17 GMT
An interesting (maybe?) bit of trivia about the sender and recipient of this envelope. The letter is intact inside. Though the recipient William Honsberger is addressed by the sender, Salome, as ‘Cousin Will’, they are listed together on the 'Ancestors of Larry & Susan Stitt' website as siblings, the children of Henry and Mary Honsberger of Jordon, Ont. William Honsberger’s wife is listed on the website as Minnie (nee Haist). In the enclosed letter, Salome mentions the name ‘Will’ as Minnies pet name for him. Perhaps 'Cousin' is a pet name these siblings used? OR the website is horribly wrong. home.primus.ca/~lstitt/gdata/pafg401.htm#5125 |
|
Ryan
Member 
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,722 
What I collect: If I have a catalogue for it, I collect it. And I have many catalogues ....
|
Post by Ryan on Aug 28, 2015 7:20:12 GMT
I will also note that this 37e was issued in 1873 and in use until 1886 when the next Montreal printing was issued, the year previous to this mailing. So this is a late usage of this stamp, since the next issue had been released the year previous. Also, while the 37e are listed with 11.5 x 12 perf, this stamp is 12 x 12. I wonder how unusual that perf variation is on this stamp? There were many, many separate identifiable printings between 1873 and 1886. These scans from Ronald E. Ribler's book on the 3 cent Small Queen were something I originally posted on SCF years ago and were restricted to 100 Kb maximum attachment size so they're a bit small but hopefully still legible.   I can't see an immediate candidate for "EFO", either. But sometimes you'll see something like that on eBay with the seller screaming "L@@k SUPER RARE DRAMATIC MISPERF L@@k!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or some such trivial thing. Ryan |
|
rod222
Member
Posts: 9,928
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
|
Post by rod222 on Aug 28, 2015 7:24:04 GMT
I can't see an immediate candidate for "EFO", either. But sometimes you'll see something like that on eBay with the seller screaming "L@@k SUPER RARE DRAMATIC MISPERF L@@k!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or some such trivial thing. Ryan If no other indication can be found, perhaps the prev owner was referring to the mis-perf? |
|
|
|
Post by jimjung on Aug 28, 2015 10:49:18 GMT
I agree that this is the misperf is the most dramatic thing I see on this stamp. The guide dot is also fairly heavy. Nothing much that I see unusual otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesw on Aug 29, 2015 3:11:31 GMT
Thanks again for the chart Ryan. Through the magic of Photoshop, I cleaned it up a bit. Prints out really well on letter size page (horizontally 11x8.5)  While I definitely believe that the stamp on the cover above is #31 on the list, I'm not so sure about their use of Scott/Unitrade numbers. They list the 37c as orange red and dull red respectively. This Shoemaker list shows it as orange, which is closer to the stamp. So I still don't think I have an accurate catalogue number. 37 yes, but the more refined number (a, b, c etc.), not so much. |
|
