Ron
Member 
Inactive
Posts: 317 
What I collect: Collecting US, Canada, Poland, Liechtenstein and a boat load of topical themes.
|
Post by Ron on Sept 1, 2016 14:16:18 GMT
Granted this is a matter of opinion but the US Sc#2521 is certainly a strong nominee for the title of "America's Ugliest Stamp". The Postal Service issued its nondenominated Make-Up Rate stamp on January 22, 1991, in Washington, DC. One of these stamps, plus twenty-five cents of additional postage, equaled the F-stamp rate. It could be used only in conjunction with other denominated or letter-rate stamps because it did not contain the phosphorous ink necessary for processing on Postal Service automated cancellation equipment.
The stamp was designed by Dick Sheaff and printed on an offset press by the American Bank Note Company. ~Postal Bulletin (February 7, 1991)
For some bone headed reason the USPS used 17 words to say, "four cents". Postal Service spokesman Art Shealy said at the time, "It's not a very pretty stamp, we admit that up front." I agree with Mr. Shealy.  |
|
tomiseksj
Moderator 
Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
Posts: 6,263
What I collect: Worldwide stamps/covers, Cinderellas, Ohio Prepaid Sales Tax Receipts, U.S. WWII Ration ephemera
|
Post by tomiseksj on Sept 1, 2016 15:22:47 GMT
The design represents a clear a case of function over form.
This excerpt from the January 21, 1991 New York Times article Interim Stamp Uses 17 Words Just to Say 4 Cents provides insight as to why simply saying "four cents" was not a viable option.
From my perspective, the 2009 Simpsons set (Scott 4399-4403) would also be candidates for the "ugliest" distinction.
|
|
scb
Member
Inactive
Now at 100,000+ worldwide stamps, and progressing one stamp at a time towards the 200K
Posts: 313
|
Post by scb on Sept 2, 2016 6:22:12 GMT
Beauty (as well as ugly) is always in the eye of the beholder... I recall getting my first copy of this stamp sometime in early 1990s and wondering what it was all about for years. Even on worldwide scale this kind of 'text only' design for a stamp is pretty unique.
But yes, a big "4" would have made it much simpler and more elegant.
-k-
|
|
SWH
Departed
Rest in Peace
Posts: 43
|
Post by SWH on Sept 2, 2016 6:42:34 GMT
Which can make an ugly stamp into a very interesting stamp............ Thanks, Steve for providing the context of this issue. Makes it all the more interesting.
|
|
nickmang
Member
Posts: 51
What I collect: ww used definitives and commemoratives
|
Post by nickmang on Feb 9, 2018 13:08:59 GMT
Is this stamp catalogued? It is the first time I see it
|
|
Anping
Departed
Rest in Peace
Posts: 533
What I collect: Hong Kong, Aden & States & odd stuff I like.
|
Post by Anping on Feb 9, 2018 14:50:33 GMT
I for one wouldn't consider this nondenominated make-up rate stamp to be the ugliest out of the US stable. I actually think it quite interesting and if received on a mailing would certainly be eye catching. Its certainly got an interesting story behind its production. I was intrigued by the comment made by tomiseksj about the Simpson's stamps. I had to look on eBay to see for myself. Oh dear! What a grotesque set of stamps. I would expect this sort of thing from one of those unheard of countries like Upper Bwangodulee. (I made that up BTW). It would seem that the USA, like GB, produce new issues that veer from the sublime to the totally ridiculous. |
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,652
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Feb 9, 2018 15:53:12 GMT
Is this stamp catalogued? It is the first time I see it Yes, indeed, it is in the catalogue, because it is a postage stamp, no matter how unconventional or unusual it looks. Below is the listing from the 2006 Scott Standard Catalogue. This make-up rate stamp is listed as #2521.   |
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,652
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Feb 9, 2018 16:20:56 GMT
I for one wouldn't consider this nondenominated make-up rate stamp to be the ugliest out of the US stable. I actually think it quite interesting and if received on a mailing would certainly be eye catching. Its certainly got an interesting story behind its production. I was intrigued by the comment made by tomiseksj about the Simpson's stamps. I had to look on eBay to see for myself. Oh dear! What a grotesque set of stamps. I would expect this sort of thing from one of those unheard of countries like Upper Bwangodulee. (I made that up BTW). It would seem that the USA, like GB, produce new issues that veer from the sublime to the totally ridiculous. For what it's worth (probably not much!), I agree with you. I don't think that this is the ugliest US stamp, either. Beauty or its lack thereof, is of course, always in the eye of the beholder. As I have special fondness for the printed word, I don't find the stamp ugly. Steve's ( tomiseksj) comment about function over form seems right to me, but I also think that the stamp has to be viewed in its historical context. The USPS was at that time using letter-designated (F, G, H, etc.), non-denominated stamps, which was, I think, confusing to the general public. So, they felt obligated to explain what was really just a 4-cent stamp because of the letter-designated stamps in use at that time. |
|
Anping
Departed
Rest in Peace
Posts: 533
What I collect: Hong Kong, Aden & States & odd stuff I like.
|
Post by Anping on Feb 9, 2018 18:39:42 GMT
Perhaps someone could explain the designations F, G and H (and indeed any others). I take it that these indicate levels of service in respect of zones, or am I miles off?
|
|
|
|
Post by jkjblue on Feb 10, 2018 4:51:25 GMT
|
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,652
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Feb 10, 2018 6:15:33 GMT
It looks it could use a good soaking, in any case....  |
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,652
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Feb 10, 2018 6:53:32 GMT
Perhaps someone could explain the designations F, G and H (and indeed any others). I take it that these indicate levels of service in respect of zones, or am I miles off? Well, Anping, it is a reasonable question! I am by no means particularly knowledgeable in the area of modern US stamps and postal rates -- I suspect that Steve ( tomiseksj ) could probably do a much better job, as he always seems to know where the right resources are to explain things. My thinking has always been that the various letter designations simply corresponded to the domestic rate for a 1-ounce letter, but I wasn't 100% sure. So, I looked through the Scott Catalogue tonight, and that does indeed seem to be the case. The A rate stamp was issued in 1978 and corresponded to the 15-cent domestic 1-ounce letter rate at that time. It appears that each time the rate increased, the letter-designated stamps advanced one more letter in the alphabet: A = 15 cents (1978) B = 18 cents (Mar-1981) C = 20 cents (Oct-1981) D = 22 cents (1985) E = 25 cents (1988) F = 29 cents (1991) G = 32 cents (1994) H = 33 cents (1998) In looking through the catalogue, it appears that the letter-designated domestic first class rate stamps ended with "H". After that, there are still non-denominated stamps, which are just inscribed "US FIRST CLASS". In the more recent years, the stamps are inscribed "FOREVER" and are perpetually valid for first-class domestic postage, even if the rate increases. |
|
angore
Member
Posts: 5,331
What I collect: WW, focus on British Empire
|
Post by angore on Feb 10, 2018 12:26:57 GMT
I consider the makeup rate more interesting that ugly. Also do not consider the Simpsons as ugly. I group the Simpsons with the Harry Potter and other Super Hero stamps as money grabs. In the past we did not get sheets of characters from "Moby Dick".
There are a lot of recent stamps with unattractive designs like Delicioso and some of the Love Stamps.
|
|
Anping
Departed
Rest in Peace
Posts: 533
What I collect: Hong Kong, Aden & States & odd stuff I like.
|
Post by Anping on Feb 10, 2018 21:09:45 GMT
Thank you Beryllium Guy for your rely. This answers my question. So this was purely for domestic 1 oz US postage. |
|
mikeclevenger
Member
Posts: 887
What I collect: Ohio Tax Stamps, Ohio & Georgia Revenues, US Revenues, US FDC's, & Germany Classics
|
Post by mikeclevenger on Feb 11, 2018 14:16:08 GMT
I consider the makeup rate more interesting that ugly. Also do not consider the Simpsons as ugly. I group the Simpsons with the Harry Potter and other Super Hero stamps as money grabs. In the past we did not get sheets of characters from "Moby Dick". There are a lot of recent stamps with unattractive designs like Delicioso and some of the Love Stamps. If I never get another "LOVE" stamp on an envelope, I will be happy. I think we all have enough of them in our extras to last a lifetime. |
|
Ryan
Member
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,720
What I collect: If I have a catalogue for it, I collect it. And I have many catalogues ....
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 11, 2018 21:29:14 GMT
I think my own least favourite USA stamp is the kitten & puppy stamp from 1982. Yeesh, kitsch overload ....  And to be a contrarian, one of my absolute favourite USA stamps belongs to the Love series - the 2016 quilled paper heart by Yulia Brodskaya.  Ryan |
|
|
|
Post by dgdecker on Feb 12, 2018 4:26:31 GMT
As others have stated, « beauty is in the eye of the beholder ». I find the stamp more « boring » than ugly. They story as to why it was issued in the first place is most interesting. As I start my way through my US stock I am certain I will find something that I may find « ugly »
David
|
|
