Bottom: Cut In But Identifiable (in at left, touched at right)
Left: Cut In (most deeply along bottom left plume)
Right: Clear (barely clear at upper ornaments due to careless separation)
Unused (no gum). This single 7R1E was originally the left stamp of a strip of three, Positions 7-8-9R1E, with a larger top margin (see Ashbrook Special Service, p. 377). In an outrageous act of philatelic desecration, Sir Nicholas Waterhouse, an English accountant who obviously had a robot-like interest in numbers and lacked any normal human feeling either for his responsibility as a philatelist or for the preservation of important United States ephemera, cut apart the single from the adjoining pair, thus ensuring that his name would forever be inscribed in the annals of philatelic infamy. In an attempt to ameliorate the Waterhouse outrage, the severed pair has been kept with the single since 1955.
Ex Ferrary, Gilbert sale 4/5/1922 in Paris, as a strip of three, realized $278, purchased by Arthur Hind, the millionaire New York plush manufacturer, who also purchased the unique British Guiana One-Cent Magenta in the same sale. For a chatty firsthand account of Hind’s acquisition and Waterhouse’s subsequent desecration, see Ashbrook Special Service, p. 377.
Ex Hind, Charles J. Phillips sale 11/20/1933, still as a strip of three, realized $2,500 vs. $5,000 stated Scott value, selling to “Burris”(Maurice Burrus) according to SBA notation. Ultimately purchased by the desecrater Waterhouse. The single was donated by Waterhouse to the Red Cross in World War II and sold in 1943, purchased by Spencer Anderson, a dealer. Anderson sold it through the Baltimore dealer Perry Fuller to Ms. Metta Heathcoate.
Ex Heathcoate, whose collection was purchased by the Weills of New Orleans in a private treaty transaction around 1955 (some also offered in a Bruce G. Daniels sale).
Ex Rudolf Wunderlich, Siegel#484 1/29/1976, lot 146, realized $57,500 vs. $22,500 Scott value, purchased by Weill. Reported in Linn’s 6/14/1976 to be the highest price ever paid (at auction) for a single U.S. postage stamp up to that time. Weill also purchased the separated pair of 8-9R1E in the same sale, lot 146A, for $4,500 vs. $2,950 Scott value.
Ex “Concord” (this collection was presented as the 1994 Rarities sale), Siegel#759 5/19/1994, lot 28 (single and adjoining pair combined as one lot), realized $170,000 vs. $221,500 Scott value, purchased by Charles Shreve as agent for “Monte Carlo.” Subsequently exhibited at Anphilex in 1996 by “Monte Carlo”
This irregular block of eight consists of a standard block of four (Positions 4-5/14-15R1E), with a strip of four (Positions 6-9R1E) attached to the upper right of the block. This is the largest multiple, unused or used, containing Position 7R1E. Even with the disfiguring crease in 7R1E, it is one of the most important 7R1E pieces extant.
Original gum. Sharp vertical crease through the right ornaments of 7R1E breaks the paper, ending in a tear through the bottom right plume and in the top sheet margin. The crease is so strong it almost separates the pair of 8 and 9R1E from the main part of the multiple. A light diagonal crease is also present in the bottom half of the 7R1E. Vertical creases also affect Positions 4, 6, 9 and 14R1E. There is a tear in the top of Position 4 along the crease. There is also a small tear in the sheet margin above 8R1E. A small piece of foreign black matter, like an inclusion in appearance and in the shape of a reverse C, is stuck on the gum of the 8R1E.
Known as the Lapham block after Henry G. Lapham and his son, Raymond. Lapham may have acquired the block when he purchased the Armitage collection of United States.
SBA notes state that one Michaels wrote him on 8/1/1937 stating that he was in the Honolulu office of an individual named Reid who claimed to own the Lapham block and that he had paid $8,000 for it.
Owned by Dr. Leonard Kapiloff in the 1980’s and offered to me in trade for two items from the Neinken collection, which I declined.
Christie’s sale 10/12/1989 (Weill Stock), lot 27. This block was in the Weill Stock sale, but it belonged to Dr. Kapiloff. It did not meet reserve and passed at $110,000, but was sold for $105,000 after the sale to a collector, who was then unable to pay for it.
Christie’s sale 3/9/1992, lot 170, offered on behalf of defaulting buyer in previous Christie’s sale. Realized $80,000 vs. $252,350 Scott value. Purchased by a collector who still owns it as of 2001.
PFC 214585 (1989) “Previously hinged with vertical creasing, rust spots, the right pair (8-9R1E) mostly separated, and with tears in Positions 4 and 7”.
PFC 512281 "IT IS GENUINE, PREVIOUSLY HINGED, WITH VERTICAL CREASING AND A FEW TONED SPOTS; POS. 4 (SCOTT 5A) WITH A VERTICAL TEAR AT TOP LEFT; POS. 7 (SCOTT 5) WITH A REINFORCED VERTICAL CREASE ALONG THE EDGE OF THE DESIGN AT RIGHT, ENDING IN TEARS AT TOP AND BOTTOM."
In its original condition: Small surface scrape at right. Creased and toned. The scrape appears along the right margin to the right of Franklin’s chin. The crease breaks the paper and is visible in photographs, extending down the U of U.S. and along the blue background of the vignette portrait to the left of Franklin’s head.
After cleaning: Toning removed and other improvements to paper. In my opinion, the paper has been affected by chemicals, becoming dull yellowish white and with an abraded appearance, particularly at bottom. The color, which was a typical Plate 1 Early Blue, is now somewhat dull and faded.
The recent sales history of this stamp shows the market effect of careful restoration work. After improvement to lessen toning and hide the vertical crease, the stamp realized $25,000 more than the hammer price just two years earlier.
PFC 326495 (1988) “small surface scrape at right and is creased and toned”.
As reported in Linn’s 9/28/1998, p. 24, this stamp was discovered in May 1998 in an album of otherwise negligible worth by an unnamed dealer who had it verified by Stanley Richmond, proprietor of the Kelleher firm in Boston. Richmond had the stamp submitted to the PF and then offered it for sale.
Kelleher sale 11/10/1998, lot 339, realized $55,000 vs. $175,000 Scott value.
Bennett sale 11/7/2000, lot 68, realized $80,000 vs. $175,000 Scott value, described as dramatically improved since its discovery.
The David Wingate Collection, Siegel Sale 1180, 4/11/2018, lot 31
Described by SBA as having “bad thin spot in the center—under the ear—in the hair”.
No discernible cancellation. Described by PFC as having “faint manuscript cancellation”. No gum. See notes below.
The history of this stamp illustrates the enormous influence of expert certification on the classification of a stamp. Although this stamp has no obvious signs of either a cancellation or cleaning, it has been certified as a used (and, sometimes, cleaned) stamp.
SBA’s notes state that the stamp was borrowed by Dr. Chase from an unknown owner and sent to SBA in 1923 for examination, but there is no statement as to what either Dr. Chase or SBA concluded at that time. However, SBA illustrated the stamp in Vol. 1 of his 1938 treatise (p. 119, illust. 15T), and referred to it as “An unused single in an eastern collection...” The stamp cannot be identified from the illustration, but SBA’s notes confirm that the illustration 15T is this stamp.
The stamp was later sent again to SBA, this time by the PF, on August 11, 1947, with the request that he opine whether it was an unused copy. SBA’s equivocal reply stated that his, “quartz lamp did not show any traces of cleaning but that there were slight traces in the back of the head. It was problematical whether the copy had ever been used. My personal opinion is that it had.” [Emphasis in original]. In reply, Boggs of the PF stated that, “From the ultraviolet and infrared photographs that we have, it would be very hazardous to say that it was unused.” In short, although SBA?wavered from his published opinion that the stamp was unused, he did not squarely abandon it, and the PF representative could not provide any objective finding of usage. Thus, there was nothing to support a conclusion that the stamp was either used or cleaned, only the subjective “personal opinion” of SBA and the feeling of the PF representative that “it would be very hazardous to say it was unused.”
The Siegel #807 2/3/1999 catalogue description states, “no visible trace of a cancellation.” It further states that there are “a few tiny, very faint spots. The same sort of spotting is found on the two original-gum examples of Scott 5. We believe it is quite possible that this stamp is unused...” The Siegel reference to “two original-gum examples” is not supported by examples confirmed in this census.
The David Wingate Collection, Siegel Sale 1180, 4/11/2018, lot 32
Submitted as PFC 636 (1947) but withdrawn prior to certification.
PFC 15774 (1962) states “cleaned and thin”.
PFC 299353 (1996) issued to Raymond H. Weill Co. states “small thin spot and a faded manuscript cancellation”. This PFC was misplaced prior to Siegel “Argentum” sale in 1999 and another was issued on 1/29/1999 (see next).
PFC?335649 (1/29/1999) issued to Raymond H. Weill Co., submitted as having “faint manuscript cancel”, PFC states “Genuine with a small thin spot”.
Ex Henry C. Gibson (prior to 1930).
Ex Edward F. Lawrence Jr. (circa 1950’s).
Ex “Argentum”, Siegel #807, 2/23/1999, lot 25, realized $62,500 vs. $31,000 Scott value. The Siegel description incorrectly quotes 1996 PFC, which was misplaced before the stamp was consigned. Another PFC (1/29/1999) was issued prior to the auction (submitted as “faint manuscript cancel” and certified “Genuine with a small thin spot”).
Faint red and manuscript cancels, which are so faint they barely show in illustrations. SBA notes indicate Capt. G. N. Usticke, owner of Stanley Gibbons Inc. (NYC) and a recognized philatelic authority, considered this stamp as unused, and possibly SBA did also.
Acquired by Usticke shortly before December 17, 1941.
Barr 12/22/1941 sold for $750, but possibly not sold.
Ex Katherine Matthies, Siegel #439 11/14/1973, lot 58, realized $5,750 vs. $7,000 Scott value.
Siegel #466 2/20/1975, lot 12, realized $5,750 vs. $7,000 Scott value.
Shown by Manning in CAPEX ‘78 (“Only about fifty are known to exist today...”)
Kelleher sale 1/20/1988, lot 207, realized $15,000 vs. $22,500?Scott value.
Bennett sale 6/22/2001, lot 2026, realized $40,000 vs. $40,000 Scott value.
Lake Shore Collection, Siegel Sale 888, 12/7/2004, lot 7, realized $57,500 hammer versus $45,000 Scott value.
PFC (2001) states “Faint manuscript and red cancellations” and “small corner margin crease at top right and tiny surface scrapes at bottom right”. 2001 Bennett sale describes “couple microscopic surface abrasions, invisible to the naked eye and mentioned only for accuracy”.
PFC 43713 (1974) “Genuine with a small corner crease at top right”.
PFC 368601?(2001) as “Faint manuscript and red cancellations” states “Genuine with a small corner margin crease at top right and tiny surface scrapes at bottom right”.
This 7R1E was cut from a strip of three, Pos. 5-7R1E, at a point after issuance of the 1989.
Perry B. Hansen Collection, Siegel Sale 963, 10/28/2008, lot 84 - realized $28,000 hammer versus $85,000 Scott value
PFC and before the Siegel?4/20/1991 sale. The absence of top and bottom margins brings this 7R1E single within the SBA definition of “A Type I before the type characteristics were destroyed by separation”.
PFC 389 (1946) for strip of three, stating “cleaned”.
PFC 51826 (1975) for the strip of three, no reference to cleaning.
PFC 215275 (1989) issued to David Zlowe for strip of three, no reference to cleaning.
The strip of three plated and signed by SBA on 4/26/1946 for Paul Bluss of NYC.
Siegel 1991 Rarities #737 4/20/1991, the 5R and 6R sold as single stamps, lots 247 (realized $3,250) and 248 (realized $2,600), each with a PFC.
Described repeatedly as having “small faults.” PFC states “small filled thin spot, a hinge stain at top, and a repaired scissors cut into the design at bottom left.” The 1994 Bennett description states that the hinge stain has been removed. From the face the scissors-cut does not appear to be into the design.
SBA notes say it has a stitch watermark, which has not been mentioned elsewhere.
Black Boston small “Paid” grid (inverted). The earliest and latest dates of use of this cancel are 7/12/1851 and 1/15/1852, as reported in the Blake-Davis Boston Postal Markings book (p. 132). The latest date was also reported in Chase (1942 revision, p. 346).
John A. Fox sale 4/26/1960, lot 478, for $610 vs. $1,250 Scott value.
Siegel 1992 Rarities #745 10/3/1992, lot 341, passed at $5,750 vs. $17,500 Scott value.
Displayed at Sachs booth, ASDA Mega-Event, 5/8/1993.
Bennett sale 5/1/1994, lot 312, hammered at $5,750 vs. $17,500 Scott value.
Golden Oak, Sale 6/29/1995, lot 73, realized $8,250 vs. $15,000 Scott value.
Offered in Valley Stamp Co. net price catalogue 10/1995 for $11,500.
Siegel Sale 1014, 10/12/2011, lot 1035 - $15,250 hammer versus $85,000 Scott value.
Siegel Sale 1040, 3/26/2013, lot 1180 - $17,500 vs. $75,000 Scott value
PFC 227015 (1990) issued to Siegel. States filled thin, hinge stain at top, and scissors-cut into design at bottom left.
PFC 530318 "IT IS GENUINE, WITH TINY THINS, A COVERED INTERNAL PAPER BREAK IN THE "A" OF "PAID" AND A SMALL SCISSORS CUT AT BOTTOM LEFT."
SBA notes say John A. Fox wrote to him on 3/24/1939 that he obtained this stamp from Eugene Klein “several years ago”.
Slightly odd fuzzy impression at top caused by alleged “slippage”. Dark Plate 1E color. SBA called this shade “Paris Blue”. Tiny corner crease at tip of bottom left corner (described by Siegel in 1976) has been trimmed out.
Indistinct strike of black Boston large “Paid” grid
SBA note on back “This is The Type I” on 1/19/1953.
Ex Karl Burroughs, Kelleher sale 2/26/1944, lot 181, realized $670 vs. $1,000?Scott value
Kelleher sale 6/1/1946 (Borhek collection), lot 72, realized $575 vs. $1,000 Scott value.
Harmer Rooke sale 1/13/1953, lot 23, purchased by Jack E. Molesworth who sent it to SBA for opinion.
Siegel 1976 Rarities #489 3/31/1976, lot 31 (“tiny corner crease” trimmed out after this sale), realized $10,500 vs. $7,750.
Ex Jonathan W. Rose, Siegel #814 9/28/1999, lot 2077, described “unusual impression with slight doubling caused by slippage”, realized $52,500 vs. $31,000 Scott value. Description also contains frequently repeated statement in Siegel sales pertaining to 7R1E: “The census compiled by Mal Brown contains at least 80 unduplicated records of Scott 5... There are probably no more than ten examples existing outside of the Brown census.”
The deep cutting-in of both top and bottom margins bring this copy within the SBA definition of “A Type I before the type characteristics were destroyed by separation”. Two thin spots and a tear at right center.
Black Boston large “Paid” grid
As reported in Linn’s 6/23/1997, this stamp was found in 1997. It was purchased for $15 (as another Scott number) from a dealer’s stock at Pacific ‘97 by Richard Cellar.
PFC 318317 (1997) states “tear at right center and two thin spots
This stamp has not been examined for condition. It is currently owned by the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia as part of the Harry L. Jefferys bequest.
Black grid, part of a cds (possibly French transit) and line that appears to be part of French decimes due hand-stamp.
This stamp was in the Harry L. Jefferys collection, which was later donated to the Franklin Institute. Some of the Jefferys collection was deaccessioned in 1951 and 1952 Harmer Rooke sales, but this stamp is still owned by the museum.
Originally with major peeling-off of design at top left as part of a strip of three, Pos. 7-9R1E, used on piece. The peeled-off design included key elements of the 7R1E double transfer. Subsequently there was a major facial restoration that filled in the missing design. This is the most substantial of any known facial repair to a 7R1E stamp. Removed from the piece and made a single by separation from the strip. Walter Mader of the Ivy & Mader (formerly of Siegel firm) wrote on 3/13/1989:
“Dear Jerry, you asked me how I found the above illustrated 7-9R1E strip of three on piece. Well, I was performing an appraisal for a major trust co. here in NY—nothing too high powered—maybe $15,000 to $20,000 and doing the proper job as I always do, I rummaged through a small envelope marked ‘used U.S. and Foreign’ to make sure there was no value hidden therein. At a glance it looked like less than $1—but by sifting through the contents the strip was revealed to me. I knew immediately it was from top row plate one early and said to myself that it sure would be a kick if it turned out to be 7R1E. “The rest is history”. Unfortunately this one is damaged although nowhere near as bad as the other one I found about 15 years ago. Vertical strip of three 7/17/27R1E with only a trace of 7R1E remaining.”
Siegel #709 5/22/1989, lot 1321, as a strip, realized $6,250 vs. estimate $2,000-$5,000.
Ivy Shreve & Mader sale 12/15/1990, lot 4110, as a strip after repair, realized $10,000 vs. $31,000 Scott value.
Drews sale 11/22/1996, lot 111, unsold vs. $27,500 Scott value.
Ivy & Mader sale 3/20/1997, lot 91, as a repaired single, realized $13,500 vs. $29,000 Scott value.
Siegel Sale 1040, 3/26/2013, lot 1181 - realized $18,000 hammer versus $75,000 Scott value.
PFC 210645 (1989) before facial restoration, stating that the 7R1E is defective.
PFC 235340 (1990) issued to Dana Okey for strip after major restoration, noting the repair to 7R1E.
This single was cut from a strip of 7-8-9R1E, presumably for monetary gain. A 4mm tear at left of 7R1E has been so cleverly sealed as to be overlooked by the PF and auction describers. The 1986 PFC notes “small filled in thin spots” but does not mention tear, although the SBA records at the PF note the fault. When I read the PFC, I notified the PF of its error, but my letter was not answered. I notified Siegel of the tear prior to the October 2000 auction, and as a result the catalogue description included the statement “small sealed tear not mentioned on accompanying certificate”.
Percy G. Doane sale 3/20/1937, lot 30, as a strip of three, sold for $270.
Ex George R. M. Ewing, Harmer Rooke sale 6/18/1940, lot 73, strip of three (described with crease between 7 and 8R1E), sold for $200 to Ernest R. Jacobs. The strip was previously sold to Ewing by Ezra Cole for $450. Referred to as the William S. White strip.
Simmy sale 9/11/1986, lot 165, as a single, no mention of tear. Possibly unsold.
Ivy sale 12/12/1986, lot 55, no mention of tear, realized $8,200 vs. $21,500 Scott value.
Bennett sale 2/11/1996, lot 436, realized $13,500 vs. $17,500 Scott value, description notes “small, expertly sealed tear”, the first time this fault was noted in auction.
Ex Raymond Fox, Siegel Sale 829 10/18/2000, lot 35, realized $27,000 vs. $37,500 Scott value.
PFC 157675 (1986) issued to Simmy’s for the single, “Caution” handstamp, describing “small filled in thin spots” without mention of the tear.
One of the few examples showing four clear even margins. Until the 1995 Siegel sale, the harsh description of defects, which are not apparent on the face of the stamp, evidently lowered its realizations.
PFC states “defective and repaired”. My examination revealed four thins at top, extending into tops of top curved ornaments, possibly resulting from careless hinge removal. I also noted a pressed crease in top margin. I did not see any repair in my examination, and the Siegel?1995 description states the same. Shade described by Siegel as “bright early”.
Light black grid.
Manning sale 9/23/1983, lot 29, realized $6,500 vs. $18,500 Scott value.
Ivy sale 3/18/1988, lot 114, realized $9,500 vs. $22,500 Scott value.
Ex William H. Kelley, Ivy sale 3/16/1989, lot 46, realized $11,000 vs. $22,500 Scott value. Purchased by Dr. LeBow.
Siegel Sale 771 12/13/1995, lot 1186, realized $19,500 vs. $15,000 Scott value.
The Dr. Edward and Joanne Dauer Collection, Siegel Sale 961, 9/23/2008, lot 4 - $32,500 hammer versus $80,000 Scott value.
PFC 208604 (1989) issued to Dr. Robert H. LeBow, stating “defective and repaired”
The 7R1E stamp was cut from a pair of 6-7R1E before the Siegel 2000 Rarities sale. Scott Trepel, president of the Siegel firm, admitted his role as the “cutter” at the request of the consignor. The realization in that sale was a particularly high price for a single without four full margins, but the stamp is sound and the market in 2000 was very strong. In the same sale, the formerly-attached 6R1E realized $5,500 vs. $5,000 Scott value. Question: would these stamps have done as well or better if the pair had been left intact?
Light strike of distinctive large black grid of San Francisco, used sometime during the period from 7/1/1851 to 3/30/1855 when the 6c transcontinental rate was in effect and normally paid by a 3c pair. This cancel conveniently obliterated both stamps at once.
Ex Dr. Chase, Kelleher sale 5/22/1925, lot 52 as part of reconstructed strip of six.
Ex George Willard, Sam Paige sale 6/6/1953, lot 1, the pair realized $865 vs. $1,250+?Scott value (offered with adjoining pairs from strip of six—see next note re Ishikawa).
Ex Ishikawa 1c 1851-57 collection, Sotheby Parke Bernet sale 6/24/1980, lot 101. The pair was part of a reconstruction of the entire top row of Plate 1E. Included in the reconstruction were two other pairs apparently cut from the same pane and bearing the same large black grid of San Francisco (Pos. 4-5R1E and 2-3R1E). The reconstruction of 11 stamps (two overlapping copies of 2R) realized $24,000 vs. $20,805 Scott value.
Kelleher sale 9/30/1986, lot 218, the pair realized $20,000 vs. $27,000?Scott value.
Siegel 2000 Rarities #824 5/13/2000, lot 88 as a single, realized $62,500 vs. $37,500 Scott value.
Corner crease at upper left. SBA wrote, “small tear or more likely a small scissors cut at right side... I failed to discover any evidence of repair with the exception that someone may have added the black smudge marks to cover up the cut. I failed to discover anything wrong with the copy under my Hanovia lamp... The copy is a very pale blue shade, hence does not show up to advantage but the cancelation [sic] is very light and in my opinion this is quite a fine copy.”
Referred to by SBA as “Maj. Harris copy”.
Harmer Rooke sale 5/23/1950, lot 15, realized $225 vs. $1,000 Scott value.
Siegel 1977 Rarities, Sale 510 3/23/1977, lot 34, realized $13,000 vs. $8,750 Scott value, described “negligible crease entirely in sheet margin, tiny cut almost clear of design at bottom right corner”.
Kelleher sale 5/2/1995, lot 386, realized $18,000 vs. $15,500 Scott value.
Offered in June 1995 by Richard Champagne for $29,000.
McCree Collection, SPG 12/10/2004, lot 14 - $52,500 hammer
Hall Collection, Siegel Sale 1096, 4/28/2016, lot 9 - $45,000 hammer
PFC 2499 (1950), no mention of defects.
PFC 89920 (1980) with “Caution” handstamp, stating “genuine with small faults and a repaired lower right [sic].” Submitted by Sotheby Parke Bernet.
PFC 294769 (1995), stating genuine with a small corner crease entirely in the margin. No mention of the “small faults” or of “repair” at lower right.
According to an article in the 8/3/1998 Linn’s, this copy was a “recent” discovery by a Texas dealer, John Murray. It was in a large lot of pages of U.S. issues that had been torn from an album of stamps collected in France by several generations of the same family. The U.S. pages had been part of a larger group sold as one lot. After Murray made his discovery, he sent the stamp for certification by the PF and PSE.
One of the few examples with four clear margins showing the complete design.
Tiny tear in top margin clear of design. The tear extends downward from the margin above the T of POSTAGE.
Caspary sale catalogue description states: “few minor age stains” but this may refer to lower two stamps of the strip, as no such stains are noted for the 7R1E. PFC states “light horizontal crease across the bottom.” This is ironic, as the owner’s purpose in desecrating this beautiful vertical strip was to eliminate the crease. I have a firsthand account of this event from a witness, a noted philatelist and a friend of Clifford C. Cole Jr.’s, Dr. Thomas Kingsley, which I quote verbatim:
“...You are familiar with the Caspary vertical strip of 3 (Pos. 7/17/27R1E)—described by Harmer with a horizontal crease—implying that it involved 7R1E. [JSW note: the Harmer description said the crease was in the 7R1E]. Cliff purchased the strip at the sale at a ‘good’ price because of the description. The crease actually involved the top of 17R1E. Cliff covered over the lower two stamps with a design copy of the Neinken [JSW note: Ashbrook] drawing of 7R1E because the lower part of the strip was unattractive. (It was mounted this way in his collection for 30 years). A year before he sold his collection, he called me to his home to help ease his nerves—he was about to sever the strip along the line of the crease, which he did, destroying a VF example of Type IIIa (17R1E). He missed the crease, however, by half a millimeter and then had to cut away the final tiny strip from the bottom of 7R1E, which he did successfully (and with perspiration). His 7R1E in the first sale of his collection is, therefore, ex Caspary sans 17 and 27!”
Repaired: The blue background in the medallion on either side of Franklin’s head has been scraped and filled in with blue ink. The red bars of the cancellation have been extended at the left of Franklin’s head. My examination of the stamp indicated it is also toned.
SBA analyzed this stamp as follows in a letter to Dr. Chase on February 11, 1942: “I think that there was [sic] some spots of gum on the face of this stamp and that this gum became damp and adhered to the back of an envelope which laid on top of this cover in a bundle. When pulled apart the blue ink in front and back of the head on the 7R (where the spots of gum were) pulled away from the stamp and left two damaged spots. Someone attempted to touch up these spots with the result that the stamp is probably worse than it was. There was no damage to the paper.” SBA also described this stamp and the cover from which it came in his Special Service on pp. 102-103 (the cover was an unsealed envelope to Henderson N.C.).
New York City red square grid.
SBA referred to this stamp as the “Brooks copy” after Harold C. Brooks, who tried to persuade SBA to sell it for him, but SBA refused. Brooks then turned it over to Ezra Cole, who sold it at a much-reduced price as a damaged copy.
Ex Henry B. Close, Eugene Costales sale 6/23/1952 by order of J. W. Scott. The catalogue did not note repaired scrapes. Costales made an announcement at the sale after the defects were brought to his attention. Scott was announced as the buyer at $420 vs. $1,000 Scott value. See SBA Special Service, pp. 102-103 .
Ex Isleham, Siegel #662 5/25/1986 (Ameripex), lot 1041, described as “minor corner bend, couple trivial toning specks (show on back only)”, but an announcement was made at the sale describing repaired scrapes. Realized $6,500 vs. $22,000 Scott value.
Offered by Richard Champagne in June 1986 for $29,000.
PFC 295406 (1995) stating “with small covered over surface scrapes in the vignette”.
Red ink smeared over red cancel to change appearance after theft from New York Public Library’s Miller stamp collection.
Benjamin K. Miller collection, bequest to New York Public Library.
According to a report in Linn’s 10/29/1984, this stamp was among 153 items stolen on May 7, 1977, from the B. K. Miller collection then on exhibit at The New York Public Library on Fifth Avenue in New York City. The FBI announced recovery of 81 items, including this stamp, and stated that all of the recovered items could be traced to Lambert W. Gerber, a dealer in Tamaqua PA. A search of Gerber’s business records after his death failed to reveal how he came into possession of the stolen stamps.
Offered in Lambert W. Gerber’s Philatelic Gems catalogue, Vol. 10, for $21,500. Gerber is reported to have died in August 1981.
The stamp is currently at The New York Public Library, off exhibit indefinitely.
Originally given PFC 287182 (1/24/1995) incorrectly stating that this was 7R1 Late. My opinion was later requested by the submitter, and I verified that the stamp was 7R1 Early. It was then resubmitted to the P.F. and certificate 287182 was reissued stating it was 7R1E.
Sold later in 1995 for approximately $24,000 by Valley Stamp Co.
The 7R1E has been cut from a pair of 7-8R1E in the 1983-84 period. The stamp has repaired tears at top and bottom. PFC for the pair states “creasing and improved defects”, without indication as to which stamp has these defects.
Siegel #600 7/14/1982, lot 319, as a pair, realized $6,750 vs. $20,000 Scott value. Siegel description states “small faults, slight toning (mostly on Pos. 8R1E)”. Probably returned by Weinberg after PFC 111389 described “improved defects”.
Siegel 1983 Rarities #618 4/23/1983, lot 28, offered as a pair, realized $6,250 vs. $21,250+ Scott value. Siegel description states “creases & ‘improved’ faults (couple skillfully mended tears), slight toning (mostly on Pos. 8R1E)”.
Simmy sale 3/28/1984, lot 88, offered as a single, probably unsold.
Kelleher sale 10/2/1984, lot 319, realized $6,750 vs. $20,000 Scott value.
PFC 111389 (1982) issued to Irwin Weinberg for the pair, “Caution” certificate stating “with creasing and improved defects”.
The only available illustrations of this stamp are low-resolution halftones in Siegel sale catalogues (see Sale/Ownership History below). From these it appears that the bottom margin may cut in slightly on the right plume.
Black Mobile Ala. cds
Siegel Sale 268 3/25/1964, lot 48, realized $3,100 vs. $1,400 Scott value.
Max L. Simon Collection, Siegel Sale 292 10/27/1965, lot 8, realized $3,750 vs. $2,250 Scott value.
Siegel Sale 347 2/4/1969, lot 107, realized $5,000 vs. $4,500 Scott value.
Siegel Sale 1037, 12/10/2012, lot 1392 - realized $29,000 hammer versus $75,000 Scott value.
Slight surface scraping mentioned on 1977 PFC but not mentioned on 1999 PFC. The 1999 Siegel description did not note scrapes in catalogue, but announced the fault at the sale.
Part of black cds reading “24” and “Ala.” (Mobile)
John A. Fox sale 3/14/1958, lot 161, realized $1,050 vs. $1,250 Scott value.
Sotheby Parke Bernet sale 11/21/1977, lot 18, realized $7,500 vs. $10,000 Scott value.
Shreve sale 10/23/1998, lot 47, realized $21,000 vs. $30,000 Scott value, sold to Richard Champagne (then sold privately to Dr. Carmen A. Puliafito). Shreve description notes “couple tiny and really trivial surface scrapes”.
Ex Dr. Carmen A. Puliafito, Siegel #818 12/13/1999, lot 7, catalogue description and PFC do not mention surface scrapes, but a saleroom announcement noted the fault. Realized $65,000 vs. $35,000 Scott value. Description also contains frequently repeated statement in Siegel sales pertaining to 7R1E: “The census compiled by Mal Brown contains at least 80 unduplicated records of Scott 5... There are probably no more than ten examples existing outside of the Brown census.”
PFC 63076 (1977) notes “slight surface scraping”.
PFC 333392 (1999) “Genuine”, does not note surface scraping.
Dark blue shade. Tiny corner crease at top left and small tear at bottom.
Black New York Large Slug in circle used on circular-rate mail. SBA?states, “I believe it was used only on printed circulars as I have never seen its use on a Drop Letter.” The Large Slug handstamp is rare and was used during only part of the period of 7R1E. SBA?states that the earliest use he had seen was 11/5/1851 and the latest 1/1/1852. It is always found in black. See SBA book, Vol. 2, pp. 75 and 115.
Purchased in 1917 by SBA from D. H. Bacon of Derby CT for $45. Sold to Philip H. Ward circa 1929.
Pictured on p. 358 of the 1851-57 National Philatelic Museum handbook.
Superior sale 10/26/1992, lot 20, realized $9,750 vs. $17,500 Scott value.
PFC 7929 (1957) “Genuine”.
PFC 259529 (1992), stating small closed tear at bottom and a tiny corner margin crease at top left.
Heavy pre-use horizontal crease through the lower part of 7R1E. Small tear. Originally part of a strip of three, Pos. 7-9R1E, used on folded letter from New York 5/19/1852 to Belvidere N.J. Removed from cover and 7R1E cut from strip.
Black “New-York May 19” (1852) cds
This cover was discovered in 1985 by John DeStefanis of the William A. Fox firm in sorting out the estate of Edward Vogt, a New Jersey collector.
William A. Fox sale 3/6/1985, lot 3, realized $9,000 vs. $60,000 Scott value.
Siegel #814 9/28/1999 sale, lot 2263, realized $18,500 vs. $55,000 Scott value, description notes “One of only eight strips of three on cover recorded in the Mal Brown census”.
Nutmeg sale 9/27/2000, lot 1447, misdescribed as being addressed to “Belvidine N.J.”, also mention of “small flts” but no mention of the crease.
Kelleher sale 3/6/2001, lot 255, realized $14,000 vs. $75,000 Scott value.
Strip removed from cover and cut into singles after this sale
PFC 146652 (1985) as a strip of three on cover, stating “creases in all the stamps and tears in the stamps Positions 7 and 9”.
SBA wrote of this stamp as follows: “Because this stamp on this cover is cut into at top and bottom, it does not classify as a Type I, but rather ‘this stamp was a Type I before the cuts at top and bottom destroyed the type’.”
After the cover failed to sell at Christie’s on 9/27/1995, one or more dealers bought it and removed the 7R1E. Sadly, in doing so they destroyed the only recorded 7R1E on a cover with the Philadelphia carrier department’s distinctive red star marking. Considering the cut-into condition of the stamp, removing it was a pointless sacrifice of the more desirable postal history aspects of the cover.
H. R. Harmer 2/13/1967, lot 255, realized $44 (see notes below).
Siegel 1968 Rarities #330 3/28/1968, lot 30, realized $2,700 vs. $4,825 Scott value.
Siegel 1991 Rarities #737 4/20/1991, lot 246, realized $9,500 vs. $30,835 Scott value.
Christie’s sale 9/27/1995, lot 4017, high bid of $11,000 rejected vs. $26,000 Scott value
Sold after auction to dealer(s), who removed 7R1E from the only recorded example of Type I used with the Philadelphia red star carrier marking.
The 1967 Harmer sale was the only instance of which I am aware in which a major New York auction house failed to identify a 7R1E, and it sold as a “sleeper.” I know the circumstances, because I was involved.
The cover was in the collection of an outstanding One-Cent 1851 collector, Morris Fortgang. Fortgang was a close personal friend of Mortimer Neinken. When Fortgang died, Neinken contacted his widow and offered to help her dispose of Fortgang’s collection, but she refused and indicated that she did not wish to have Neinken involved. Instead, she consigned the collection to auction without the benefit of independent specialized expertise in the One-Cent issue. Neinken felt that he had met his moral responsibility to his old friend and was free to bid at arm’s length on Fortgang’s holding when it appeared in the Harmer auction.
The Harmer catalogue described the cover as three Type II stamps. Given the cut-in top and bottom margins, an amateur collector could be excused for not immediately identifying the 7R1E. However, SBA wrote on the back of the cover that it was 7R1E, and someone else also identified the 7R1E (below SBA), so I cannot understand how the auction describer missed this key item.
I traveled to NYC to view the Harmer sale because of my interest in the concentration of One-Cent items in the Fortgang collection. I recognized the 7R1E on the misidentified cover at first glance. After viewing, I visited Neinken in his NYC office. After some preliminary jockeying, we acknowledged to one another that each of us had spotted the cover. Neinken said that he and the dealer Ezra Cole, who also recognized the 7R1E, had formed a partnership to buy it, and said I must desist. Although a junior, I felt that I was entitled to be a partner with a one-third interest in that partnership, and so stated. After some further negotiating over several days, I was told that Cole unreasonably insisted that he must still have a half interest in the cover, regardless of my involvement, and Neinken said he was too beholden to Cole to dispute his position. Accordingly, I gave way somewhat and an agreement was reached that Cole would have his one-half, and Neinken and I each one-quarter. Arrangements were made to have an auction agent bid on it. I anticipated that there might be some other competition, especially in view of the identification on the back. However, the agent bid without any competition from someone else who recognized the 7R1E. We won it for $44!
Cole took possession of the cover, and it was agreed he would try to sell it. However, Cole was unable to arrange a good sale. As a result it was placed in the Siegel 1968 Rarities sale, where it fetched $2,700. Deducting the $540 commission and $44 purchase price, the net was $2,116, which was divided among the three of us according to our interests.
[Editor’s Note: It is ironic that in 1967 the 7R1E cover was sold at auction on the basis of the cover, without recognition of the stamp, and 28 years later, the stamp was removed and sold, without recognition of the cover.]
Siegel 2012 Rarities, Sale 1025, 6/26/2012, lot 71 - realized $28,000 hammer versus $75,000 Scott value.
This stamp was part of a strip of three, Positions 7-8-9R1E, which existed intact through the 1956 Caspary sale. After the Caspary sale, the left stamp was separated by a philatelic desecrater into a single. Siegel sale 11/12/1969 description of single stated “P.F. certificate states ‘genuine in all respects’, there is a tiny marginal crease in U.R. corner just clear of the design.” Subsequent descriptions and PFC do not describe a corner crease, and it would be unusual for the left stamp cut from a strip of three to have a corner crease at the right. The adjoining stamps in the original strip had thins and a tear in 9R1E.
Blue Richmond Va. cds (Nov. 24)
J. C. Morgenthau sale 10/21/1919, sold as a strip of three, realized $270.
Alfred H. Caspary Collection, H.R. Harmer sale 1/16/1956, lot 184, sold as a strip (referred to as the “Warner” strip), realized $875 vs. $1,310 Scott value.
Siegel Sale 62 11/25/1969, lot 74, as a single, realized $6,200 vs. $5,000 Scott value.
Richard Wolffers sale 9/16/1976, lot 181, realized $12,500 vs. $8,250 Scott value.
Offered by Samuel Shaskan in 1991 with net price of $26,000 vs. $23,000 Scott value, purchased by Thurston Twigg-Smith.
Thurston Twigg-Smith Collection, Siegel Sale 835 4/10/2001, lot 21, realized $80,000 vs. $40,000 Scott value.
Scarsdale Collection, Siegel Sale 943, 10/4/2007, lot 2003 - realized $375,000 hammer versus $55,750 Scott value.
Natalee Grace Collection Siegel Sale 1024, 6/7/2012, lot 17 - unsold with $300,000-400,000 estimate
PFC?6716 (1956) “Genuine”.
PFC 55688 (1976) “Genuine” issued to Richard Wolffers.
Survived as part of a pair at least until 1970. Separated from 8R to make a single with faults. Small thin at top and filled thins at bottom. The thins appear to have resulted from handling by an owner at one point after the 1970 PFC was issued, which did not note any thins, and before the 1981 Apfelbaum sale in which they were described.
Stain at upper middle of left margin.
Vahan Mozian sale 7/10/1968, lot 10, as a pair (no sale details), realized $2,800.
Siegel 1970 Rarities #371 3/24/1970, still as a pair, realized $4,000 vs. $5,400 Scott value
Apfelbaum sale 6/26/1981, lot 15, offered as a single.
PFC 33626 (1970) for a pair, Position 7-8R1E. No defects noted.
PFC 102776 (1981) issued for the single, noting “tiny thin spot at bottom”.
PFC 453666 "it is genuine with small filled in thin spots at top and a tiny thin spot at bottom"
7R1E has a small facial scrape at upper right, northeast of the E of POSTAGE. Previous auctions descriptions refer to “negligible trace of thinning” or “tiny shallow thin”.
Three strikes of light blue grid.
PFC 92312 (1980) “tiny surface scuff UR” but no mention of thin.
PFC 308158 (1996) issued to Richard Champagne, states “Genuine” (no mention of fault).
Ex Caspary, H.R. Harmer sale 1/16/1956, lot 182, described “negligible trace of thinning, probably a natural paper flaw”, realized $1,150 vs. $1,350+ Scott value.
Ex Ishikawa 1c 1851-57 collection, Sotheby Parke Bernet sale 9/23/1980, lot 19, realized $16,000 vs. $16,900 Scott value, described “pos. 7 tiny shallow thin and tiny surface scuff”.
Siegel 1983 Rarities #618 4/23/1983, lot 27, realized $19,000 vs. $21,850 Scott value, described “Ty. I has a minute scuff speck (almost unnoticeable), Ty. Ib internal wrinkle”.
Ex Walter C. Klein, Christie’s sale 9/27/1988, lot 24, realized $17,500 vs. $27,250 Scott value, described “both stamps are sound except for a tiny surface scuff at the top right of the Type I and a slight internal wrinkle in the Type Ib (the wrinkle is not mentioned in certificate).
Bennett sale 6/2/1996, lot 403, realized $32,000 vs. $45,000 Scott value.
Drews sale 8/23/1996, lot 195, realized $32,500 vs. $45,000 Scott value.
Ex William S. Floyd, Shreve sale 10/23/2001, lot 17, realized $90,000 vs. $62,500 Scott value, Shreve description mentions previous descriptions of flaws but states none are evident.
PFC 92312 (1980) “tiny surface scuff UR” but no mention of thin.
PFC 308158 (1996) issued to Richard Champagne, states “Genuine” (no mention of fault).
Standard Plate 1 Early Milky Blue color. Slight scrapes or scuffs mostly along top edge.
This pair was originally part of a strip of three, Positions 6-7-8R1E, used on a cover from Alexandria La. to the Buchannon Carroll firm in New Orleans. The cover was dated Nov. 6, 1851. After the 1943 Green sale, the strip was removed from the cover, and prior to the 1961 Newbury sale, the 8R stamp was removed, leaving the 6-7R1E pair. The top sheet margin was trimmed slightly to remove the need to mention faults along the top edge, which are typical of stamps placed close to the edge of a cover. However, a few scuffs impinging on the margins close to the design remained. The removed 8R1E has appeared in the philatelic market several times, having been offered by Wolffers (11/20/1987), Ivy (3/18/1988) and John Kaufmann (5/28/1988).
The removal from the cover and reduction of the strip destroyed one of the few known strips of three with 7R1E in the middle.
Crossed red “PAID” cancels. In my opinion, these cancels make this the most attractive used off-cover pair in this census.
At an early date this pair was part of a strip of three on cover in the Atherton U.S. collection.
Ex Dr. Chase as a strip of three on cover.
Ex “Storrow” and Green, Harmer Rooke sale 6/26/1943 (Green sale Part VIII), lot 77, as a strip of three on cover, realized $710 vs. $2,800 Scott value. Acquired by Green as part of the Storrow collection, which he purchased intact.
Removed from cover and reduced to pair.
Ex Newbury, Siegel Sale240 5/17/1961, lot 89, as a pair, realized $3,000 vs. $1,700 Scott value. No mention of scuffs at top.
Ex “Ambassador”, Siegel Sale 300 4/27/1966, lot 11, realized $6,500 vs. $2,775+?Scott value. No mention of scuffs at top.
Siegel 1971 Rarities, Sale 391 3/23/1971, lot 25, realized $10,500 vs. $2,500 estimate, description notes “slight scrape at top”.
Ex Ishikawa, Christie’s 9/28/1993, lot 86, description notes scuffs and states “Fewer than 100 examples of this stamp are known”, realized $38,000 vs. $15,000-20,000 estimate, selling to Dr. Vernon R. Morris Jr.
Ex Dr. Vernon R. Morris Jr., Siegel Sale 793 9/26/1997, lot 56, realized $62,500 vs. $46,000 Scott value, description notes “few tiny faint surface scrapes in edge of top margin well clear of design”
Ex “J & J” Collection, Siegel 2006 Rarities, Sale 913, 5/13/2006, lot 530, realized $250,000 vs. $150,000-200,000 estimate, description notes “few tiny faint surface scrapes in edge of top margin well clear of design”
Ex “Laila”, Siegel Sale 972 4/27/2009, lot 3014, realized $200,000 vs. $200,000-300,000 estimate, description notes “few tiny faint surface scrapes in edge of top margin well clear of design”
PFC 14233 (1961) for the pair, states “slight scrape along the top”.
PFC 276469 (1993) for the pair, states “very light surface scrape in top margin”.
PFC 440350 "it is genuine, with very light surface scraping in the top margin"
H. R. Harmer sale 1/18/1966, lot 124, realized $2,400 vs. $2,525 Scott value.
Ivy & Mader sale 3/27/1996, lot 26, unsold vs. $45,000?Scott value.
Offered privately to Wagshal on 6/9/1996 at $17,500—offer declined.
Ivy & Mader sale 12/13/1996, lot 73, realized $13,000 vs. $45,000 Scott value.
Nutmeg sale 11/5/1997, lot 71.
Ivy & Mader description comments:?“recent records show that there are two unused and 54 used examples of the Type I, among the used examples are seven used pairs (three pos. 6-7R1E and four pos. 7-8R1E).”?This statement appears to have excluded covers.
This is the only recorded off-cover vertical pair containing 7R1E. Examined and observed a small tear in upper right margin extending into curved ornament opposite E of POSTAGE. Additional defect in the form of an interior tear or thin not visible on the face. PFC notes “repairs and defects”.
Dark blue “Columbia S.C. (Month?) 23” cds
Ex Caspary, H. R. Harmer sale 1/16/1956, lot 183, realized $660 vs. $1,060+ Scott value
Kelleher sale 10/4/1977, lot 363, realized $7,000 vs. $12,500 estimate for pair.
3/1979 private treaty purchase by Roland Cipolla for $11,000.
Ex Cipolla, Barry Reiger sale 4/5/1983, lot 20, realized $7,250 vs. $19,025 Scott value.
Used on front only, 1996 description states “front with sealed tear at bottom left” and “Ty. I stamp shows the distinctive full design characteristics well and without interference from the cancel or poor separation”, but indeed the top part of the design is cut away.
7R1E tied on cover front (no back panels) with 3c Orange Brown (Scott 10). Stamps cancelled by black grids. Red “New Orleans La. Jun. 10” cds and manuscript “Way 5” marking, probably an 1852 from Mobile Ala. SBA notes describe another cover addressed in the same hand to the same addressee, which originated in Mobile Ala. in March 1852.
Ex George H. Worthington, J. C. Morganthau sale 8/21/1917, lot 41, realized $102.50 but returned by the buyer because the lack of a top margin was not described (and there are no photos in the catalog). SBA?bid $88.90. Morganthau reoffered the cover at auction on 9/16/1919, lot 104, purchased by SBA.
Sold by SBA to Philip H. Ward in 1929, who sold it to J. Carlton Wolf of Baltimore.
Sold by Creed of Baltimore 5/21/1940, lot 5, realized $305 vs. $2,000 Scott value.
Shreve sale 9/26/1996, lot 237, realized $7,750 vs. $27,500 Scott value off cover.
PFC 227509 (1993) “Genuine, sealed cover tear at bottom”.
Siegel 1993 description states “few faint toned specks in margin, tiny pre-use margin tear at lower left”. Neither PFC (including 1995) nor the 1996 auction description note these faults.
7R1E tied by black “Pittsburgh Pa. Aug. 12” cds on 1852 printed circular to Harrisonville O.
Signed by Philip H. Ward.
Ex Margaret Woodson Fisher Philatelic Foundation, Siegel Sale 756 11/21/1993, lot 2039, realized $10,500 vs. $25,000 Scott value, description states “few faint toned specks in margin, tiny pre-use margin tear at lower left”, color photo shows stamp and part of cover.
Shreve sale 1/20/1996, lot 676, realized $42,500 vs. $35,000 Scott value, description and accompanying PFC do not note any faults.
William H. Gross Collection, Siegel Sale 1211, 10/29/2019, lot 168 - $22,000 hammer
The cutting into the design at bottom brings this copy within the SBA definition of “A?Type I before the type characteristics were destroyed by separation.” Stamp has a bleached white stain on Franklin’s shoulder and an indication in the same area of a crease or scuff. Color is standard Blue, neither pale nor dark. Cover is slightly reduced at left, also wrinkled and scuffed.
7R1E tied by black “Cincinnati O. Apr. 7” cds on buff printed circular from a Buffalo NY book publisher seeking “agents.”?Sent from Cincinnati to Mt. Vernon IL.
Siegel?1984 Rarities #632 4/14/1984, lot 179, realized $7,000 vs. $30,000 Scott value.
Reiger sale 2/15/1985, lot 57, realized $6,500 vs. $30,000 Scott value.
Siegel?sale 12/3/1985, lot 22, realized $8,500 vs. $30,000 Scott value.
Superior sale 11/16/1987, lot 7, realized $9,000 vs. $30,000 Scott value.
Ivy Shreve &?Mader sale 12/13/1991, lot 51, realized $6,500 vs. $32,500 Scott value.
Superior sale 6/22/1998, lot 121, unsold vs. $37,500 Scott value.
Siegel description states “left ball just touched by tiny nick and minute sealed pre-use tear”
Blue grid ties 7R1E and vertical pair of 90/100R1E (sheet margin at bottom and right, bottom stamp creased before use), making up 3c rate on small white (slightly yellowed) cover addressed in what appears to be a woman’s handwriting to Keene Ky. Matching blue “Springfield Ill. Mar. 4” cds (1852).
Ex William West, Ward sale 4/26/1943, lot 302, realized $375 vs. $2,025 Scott value.
Ex Harold W. Stark, 1955 sale by Ward.
Sold by SBA to George H. Alten in November 1955 for $1,500.
Siegel Sale 784 10/29/1996, lot 2036, realized $32,500 vs. $20,000-30,000 estimate.
Ex “Sevenoaks”, Siegel #799 5/9/1998, lot 64, realized $40,000 vs. $25,000-35,000 estimate.
William H. Gross Collection, Siegel Sale 1211, 10/29/2019, lot 167 - $27,000 hammer
Crease between stamps that does not touch the 7R1E, but touches extreme left side of 8R. [Condition based on personal examination by Scott R. Trepel in July 2001].
Tied by two strikes of black “New Haven Conn.?Mar.”?cds. The circular is dated Feb. 25, 1852, soliciting contributions to the Linonian Society of Yale University.
This is the only known cover bearing a pair of 1c 1851 stamps, one of which is 7R1E. The use of this pair is particularly scarce and desirable. The 2c postage pays the over-500 miles unsealed circular rate, examples of which are rare. Printed circulars generally were not the type of mail that was saved, and most circulars were mailed within a 500-mile radius, which required only 1c postage. Even without the 7R1E, this cover is an unusual postal usage. It is also the only known 7R1E cover with any 2c rate.
Ex Oscar A. Schenck, Harmer Rooke sale 10/17/1950, lot 70, realized $1,150 vs. $1,700+?Scott value.
Ex Mortimer L. Neinken.
Jerome S. Wagshal collection, Siegel Sale 994, 9/30/2010, lot 620 - realized $57,500 hammer versus $75,000-100,000 estimate
PFC 491338 "IT IS A GENUINE USAGE, THE SCOTT 5 WITH AN INTERNAL DIAGONAL CREASE THROUGH FRANKLIN'S HEAD AND ADDITIONAL SMALL FAULTS; THE SCOTT 5A SLIGHTLY AFFECTED AT LEFT BY A VERTICAL CREASE MOSTLY BETWEEN THE STAMPS."
None for the 7R1E. See notes below regarding cover and repair in other two stamps.
Pair (6-7R1E) and single Type II arranged as a strip of three ascending vertically along the left side of the cover, which is addressed to Concord N.H. The stamps are cancelled by black grids. There is a red “Plattsburgh N.Y. Apr. 18” cds and at one time a pencil note at upper right indicated the year date was “1853”. There is a dark round sealing wax stain in the middle of the cover, and spotting/staining along the bottom edge.
Repaired stamps: An irregular oval piece was scraped away about halfway up invading both the 6R1E and the Type II single, which created serious damage in the form of missing areas in both stamps. This area was filled in at one point between its auction appearance on 5/6/1953 and P.F. certification on 9/13/1954. The repair is so skillful that the P.F. was fooled into issuing a clean “Genuine” certificate. The 1954 certificate was issued to John A. Fox, who may have been the person who repaired the stamps or ordered the repair.
Acquired by Dr. Erwin Terwilliger of South Haven, Mich., circa 1939.
Heiman sale 5/6/1953, lot 26, realized $220 vs. $1,500 Scott value. description notes “hole between” 6R1E and Ty. II stamp. It appears that the deceptive repair was made after this auction appearance, possibly by John A. Fox
Edson Fifield sale 5/31/1961, lot 8, realized $____ vs. estimated Scott value of $2,500.
John W. Kaufmann sale 3/29/1975, lot 21, realized $6,200 vs. $12,500 Scott value.
Robert Kaufmann sale 3/11/1982, lot 724, realized $5,500 vs. $27,500+ Scott value.
Peter Kenedi sale 4/2/1985, lot 157, realized $7,250 vs. $30,000+ Scott value.
Kelleher sale 3/17/1992, lot 451, realized $11,500 (possibly not sold) vs. $25,000?Scott value for single on cover.
Bennett sale 9/5/1993, lot 35, unsold with Scott value stated as $25,000 for single on cover or $25,000 for Scott 5-5A pair off cover.
"Lake Shore" Collection, Siegel Sale 888, 12/7/2004, lot 8 - $21,000 hammer
Curtis Collection, Siegel Sale 1084, 11/5/2014, lot 3029 - $21,000 hammer
PFC 5126 (1954) stating “Genuine” issued to John A. Fox.
PFC 258603 (1992) stating “Genuine, righthand stamp position 7R1E”.
PFC 524288 "IT IS A GENUINE USAGE, THE SCOTT 5 (RIGHT STAMP IN PAIR) WITH A SMALL CLOSED TEAR AT BOTTOM AND A SMALL CORNER CREASE AT TOP RIGHT; THE SCOTT 5A (LEFT STAMP IN PAIR) WITH A REPAIR AT UPPER LEFT; THE PAIR LIFTED AND HINGED BACK IN PLACE."
My personal examination of this item detected a small surface scuff at the lower left corner of 7R1E.
A very large and ornate Valentine cover with original enclosure, addressed to Miss Eunice M. Chittenden, Westbrook Conn., with 12c postage paying the quadruple 3c rate. There are three 3c Brownish Carmine stamps in three corners, a pair of 1c (7/17R1E) at lower left and a single 3R1E?(Ty. Ib) on the back flap. The stamps on front are tied by four strikes of the black “Deep River Ct. Feb. 12” cds (the 1c on back is cancelled in pen). This is the only recorded 7R1E on a Valentine cover.
This item has been owned by Dr. Hubert C. Skinner for many years, who acquired it from the Weills of New Orleans. For a detailed article about this cover, written by Dr. Skinner, see Chronicle 164 (November 1994).
Siegel Sale 980, 12/9/2009, lot 2275 — “1c Type I has a small repair at bottom left corner, which is really just a touched up scuff spot, No. 5A with nick and tear at right, No. 8A with scrape and corner crease at bottom right, realized $45,000 versus $50,000-75,000 estimate.
Siegel 2013 Rarities, Sale 1048, 6/25/2013, lot 222 - $50,000 hammer
PFC 429309 "it is a genuine usage, Scott 5 with bottom left corner repair, Scott 5A, on flap, with nick and large vertical tear at right, and Scott 8A with scrape and corner crease at bottom right"
SBA is quoted in the Siegel 1975 Rarities catalogue as stating that the types were “destroyed” by being cut off at top. Description also vaguely states “few tiny creases & age toning spots” without specifying whether on the cover or on the strip (and, if on the strip, which stamps were affected). The catalogue photo is too fuzzy to discern.
Tied by two clear strikes of blue “Skaneateles N.Y. Mar. 13” cds on cover to Dayton N.Y.
Siegel 1975 Rarities, Sale 468, 3/25/1975, lot 19, realized $3,250 vs. $1,000-2,000 estimate.
Siegel Sale 843, 2/27/2002, lot 585, $16,000 hammer versus $80,000 Scott value.
PFC states vertical tear in left stamp (Pos. 6R), tiny tear in right stamp (Pos. 8R), all repaired, lifted and replaced. 1981 and 1987 Siegel?Rarities descriptions note only a closed tear at bottom of Pos. 6R.
Strip tied by indistinct black “North Cumberland Pa.” cds on Jan. 1852 folded letter to Milton Pa., part handwritten and part-printed, dealing with tracts of land sold for taxes.
Reported to be ex Emmerson C. Krug, but not contained in SBA July 1949 private treaty list of Krug collection nor in Siegel sale 5/21/1958.
Siegel 1981 Rarities, Sale 479 4/21/1981, lot 50, realized $50,000 vs. $40,000 Scott value, described “left stamp Pos. 6 has closed tear at bottom”.
Siegel 1987 Rarities, Sale 679 5/2/1987, lot 79, realized $42,500 vs. $60,000 Scott value, described “left stamp has closed tear at bottom.
Siegel 2008 Rarities, Sale 958, 6/7/2008, lot 528 (on cover) - realized $105,000 hammer vs. $75,000-100,000 estimate
The Hanover Collection, Siegel Sale 1122, 4/7/2016, lot 4 - unsold
Siegel Sale 1209, 10/22/2019, lot 1094 - $120,000 hammer
PFC 177630 (1987) states vertical tear in left stamp, tiny tear in right stamp, all repaired, lifted and replaced.
PSE 01186786 (2008) as a single "Genuine, graded XF 90 Jumbo
Each stamp is cancelled by a manuscript tic-tac-toe pattern, which ties the strip on a folded cover addressed to Madisonville Tenn. There is a red “Benton Tenn. Feb. 28”?(1852) cds.
Sent to SBA for examination by Dr. Zaven M. Seron of Tampa Fla. on 2/15/1941. Reported by Brookman as having been purchased by dealer Brookman later that year from Barney Voorhees and sold to dealer Spencer Anderson.
This cover is rightfully considered to be the finest 7R1E piece known to philately. It is the earliest recorded 7R1E usage, four days after the July 1st issue date.
The strip is cancelled by three strikes of the bright red grid with matching “Richmond Va. Jul. 5”?(1851) cds on a light blue folded letter headed “Richmond July 5th 1851” and addressed to Messr. Blow &?March, New York. The strip is not tied, but there is no doubt it originates on the cover. There is a light file fold far from the stamps.
Acquired by Judge Robert S. Emerson, circa late 1936, but not included in any of the Kelleher sales of the Emerson collection.
Ex Saul Newbury, Siegel #264 10/13/1963 (Newbury Part VI), lot 82, realized $12,000 vs. estimate “over $1,000”, sold to the Weills of New Orleans.
Sold privately to Ryohei Ishikawa for his 1c 1851-57 collection, then retained by him for his 1847-69 collection.
Ex Ishikawa, Christie’s sale 9/28/1993, lot 85, realized $150,000 vs. estimate $50,000-75,000, acquired for John R. Boker Jr. by Andrew Levitt.
Traded by Boker to an unidentified collector as part of an exchange for a collection of Waterbury Conn. fancy cancellations.
Strip tied by two strikes of black “Saint Louis Mo. Nov. 21/3” integral-rate cds (“3” representing the rate) on blue 1851 folded letter to Galena Ill. The lower left quadrant of 7R1E is cancelled by the cds.
Ex Samuel W. Richey (according to H. R. Harmer 1/23/1968 auction description).
Ex Barrett G. Hindes, H.?R. Harmer sale 1/23/1968, lot 31, realized $7,000 vs. $6,000 Scott value.
Ex Leonard Kapiloff, Siegel #744 10/3/1992, lot 4, unsold vs. $50,000-75,000 estimate, description states “There are ten such multiples with the rare Type I recorded on cover, including nine strips of three and an L-shaped block of three. Nearly all have faults or have part of the design cut away. Only three of these covers may be considered Very Fine or better: the famous Newbury strip from Richmond, Virginia (now in the Ishikawa collection), a cover from North Cumberland, Pennsylvania (although Pos. 6 has a closed tear), and this cover.”
5mm tear in top margin into S of POSTAGE. Bottom stamp repaired. Spot on Pos. 17R.
Bright red grid on each stamp, somewhat smudged, tying the strip on folded cover to Philadelphia with red “Louisville & Cincinnati Mail Line March 8” route agent’s balloon-style cds. A piece of the bottom stamp (Ty. II) has been replaced. In its present state, the letter is a blank piece of folded paper with no interior writing.
Ex Dr. Carroll Chase, Kelleher sale 5/22/1925, lot 86, realized $311, described with small tear in top stamp 7R1E and corner added to bottom stamp.
John A. Fox sale 4/15/1954, lot 65, realized $950 vs. $2,000 Scott value.
H. R. Harmer sale 1/24/1968, realized $1,800 vs. $6,000 Scott value.
Siegel 1970 Rarities, Sale 371, 3/24/1970, lot 33, realized $2,100 vs. $7,500 Scott value, no mention of faults in description.
Ex Ishikawa 1c 1851-57 collection, Sotheby Parke Bernet sale 9/23/1980, lot 20, realized $36,000 vs. $30,000 Scott value.
Reported to be ex Roland Cipolla, but not included in the 4/5/1983 Reiger sale or in the Classics Society photocopy of his collection.
John W. Kaufmann sale 3/28/1985, lot 430, realized $23,000 vs. $60,000 Scott value.
Siegel 1991 Rarities, Sale 737, 4/20/1991, lot 245, hammered at $21,000 vs. $48,500+ Scott value to Dr. Leonard A. Kapiloff.
Siegel 2008 Rarities, Sale 958, 6/7/2008, lot 527 - $40,000 hammer versus $40,000-50,000 estimate.
PFC 466252 "IT IS A GENUINE USAGE, THE TYPE I STAMP WITH A VERTICAL TEAR AT TOP INTO THE "S" OF "POSTAGE"; THE TYPE II STAMP WITH A PORTION REPLACED AT LOWER LEFT; THE COVER HINGE REINFORCED ALONG THE FOLDS"
Condition Factors Unknown (not examined by Wagshal or Trepel)
Black New York Large Slug in circle used on circular-rate mail. SBA?states, “I believe it was used only on printed circulars as I have never seen its use on a Drop Letter.” The Large Slug handstamp is rare and was used during only part of the period of 7R1E. SBA states that the earliest use he had seen was 11/5/1851 and the latest 1/1/1852. It is always found in black. See SBA book, Vol. 2, pp. 75 and 115
Purchased as a Type Ib and contained in a collection since the 1920’s. The third generation is maintaining the collection. It includes stamps removed from covers in an extensive business correspondence.
Siegel 2008 Rarities, Sale 958, 6/7/2008, lot 526 - $47,500 hammer versus $80,000 Scott value
Position 7R1E, full margins to cut in at top, tied by "Wilmington Del. Sep. 5" circular datestamp on light gray printed notice from Wilmington Iron Works dated September 1, 1851, addressed to DuPont & Co. near Wilmington, stamp with light toning in area of portrait
Siegel 2015 Rarities, Sale 1106, 6/25/2016, lot 3021 - unsold
PFC 511783 (2013) "IT IS A GENUINE USAGE, THE STAMP WITH LIGHT TONING IN THE AREA OF THE HEAD."
Subject of an article in March 9, 2020 Linn's Stamp News describing its discovery as part of an collection bought by Dutch Country Auctions
Dutch Country Auctions Sale 237, March 13-14, 2020, lot 12 "5 Tied to 1852 F/L by faint cds cancel per 2019 PSE Cert, stamp appears undamaged w/ large margins, to in at top, large bottom margin showing full scrolls & top portion of adjoining stamp that shows break in the top line. Drop rate F/L with vertical file folds clear of stamp, overall a desirable cover. This F/L is from an estate find & is new to the market."
PSE 1371702 (2019) "it is a genuine usage faintly tied on folded letter by a black cds cancel, the folded letter sheets with vertical file folds"