One other observation (and, apologies for blitz-posting but I’m a bit excited ).

The first two of the three letters that were apparently hand cancelled were:

• The ‘Bus Bomb letter of 09 November, 1969; and[/*:m:262p55z8][*]The ‘Belli’ letter of 20 December, 1969.[/*:m:262p55z8][/list:u:262p55z8]

Both of these were sent with a piece of Stine’s shirt.

The Bus Bomb letter was 6 pages and (together with Stine’s shirt piece) was mailed under 2 x 6¢ postage, which seems reasonable. The Belli letter was 1 page plus a piece of shirt, and was mailed under 6 x 1¢ postage – again, reasonable.

So it looks like, when compared to all the previous letters which seem to have had extra postage on them, these appear to be the first two letters not to do so.

Likewise, the hand-cancelled ‘Little List’ letter of 26 July, 1970 – at 5 pages and no shirt piece – was sent under 1 x 6¢ postage and didn’t get an ‘excess required’ (or whatever) stamp on it.

Does all of this, then, support the idea of mailing through a small counter post office, at which you would expect the letters to have been weighed and correctly stamped?

“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)

 

I’m guessing the Belli letter, for one, would have required more than 6 cents postage, due to the weight. The Little List letter might have as well.

That would mean they likely weren’t handed to a clerk and hand cancelled.

On the other hand, it’s possible they were handed to a clerk and the clerk weighed them and they were under the limit (and possibly the clerk themself applied the stamps after determining the weight, which was common).

It would be good to confirm if there were other explanations for the 3 letters not to contain 2-digit codes, besides the explanation of being handed to a clerk and hand-cancelled.

I’m guessing the Belli letter, for one, would have required more than 6 cents postage, due to the weight. The Little List letter might have as well.

I don’t know how it works (or worked) in the US, but if they were overweight for the 6 cents postage, then wouldn’t this have required the excess to have been paid by the recipient of the letter, Belli in one instance, and wouldn’t the requirement for excess have been stamped on the letter to advise the postman or woman to request it? It would, and does, work like that in the UK?

If so, there’s no evidence on the envelope of the Belli letter (nor the little list letter) that this was the case.

Technically that would be true, but in reality it rarely worked that way. Similarly the USPS policy would be not to deliver a letter without a zone or zip code in the address, but in the case of Z those got delivered as well.

Similarly the USPS policy would be not to deliver a letter without a zone or zip code in the address, but in the case of Z those got delivered as well.

Now this is something that has already been bugging me, and it would cause a problem to think that it would have been accepted over a counter without having the zone code added. I don’t know whether that would constitute a fatal problem for supposing these three letters were hand cancelled.

Certainly, I was just having a look for examples of stamps that could be confirmed as done by hand, and from the rough time and location we’re interested in.

I came across these two examples, both from the website of the Universal Ship Cancellation Society (here).

The first is from Mare Island, but likely (from appearance) a civilian, rather than a military, mailing:

The caption accompanying this specifically reads (emphasis added):

Recommissioning cover, cachet artist unknown, shipyard hand stamp postmark.

The second is from later, 1983:

with:

Cover commemorating loss of Tullibee, cachet design by Budd Arrington, Vallejo hand stamp cancel.

To me, even as regards the later one with the Zip code, these seem to have the form that we are seeing in the three SF examples, without machine codes.

So am I to understand that because the postmarks didn’t have a machine code then they were likely hand stamped?

Soze

So am I to understand that because the postmarks didn’t have a machine code then they were likely hand stamped?

Soze

That seems to be the most likely scenario, yes.

Just to aid comparison of the two forms of postmark that we have discovered, here are two (one of each) from Zodiac mailings.

The one on the left is from the ‘Dripping Pen’ card and cipher. We are at the point where we are able to say without doubt that this is a machine cancellation. From some examples for 1969 posted earlier, we can also say that the overall form was clearly standardized across the US at the time.

The one on the right is from – well, you can see where it’s from – is not just missing the machine/die code, its format is different in other distinct ways: 1.) State down at the bottom 2.) date (month, day) at the top 3.) AM/PM in between.

I’m not, at this stage, wanting to suggest it’s a done deal. But, to then find similar examples to the one on the right that collectors are able to straight-out identify as "hand cancelled," I strongly lean towards this being the case with our three examples.

But, we do need to confirm it or otherwise. So it might be another telephone call or e-mail that is required.

I will reach out to my guy tomorrow.

The hand stamp was used for two things:

1. To cancel excessive postage.
2. For collectors

I suppose, should a single machine office (and there are some) ever have a machine to go down, they might have a third reason for using the stamp. I’ve never seen it though and I worked in a one machine office. I should clarify here that I’m talking about metered mail. Different from what’s been discussed and not at all like what we see.

The error codes are just that error codes. It means that machine (either one through eight or thirty) and die A or B needs serviced. If a post mark doesn’t have a machine error code it simply means that machine the envelope went through doesn’t need serviced. No offense but at this very moment I want to watch the movie conspiracy theory because that’s what this is. All answers are here in this thread from beginning to end. A good chunk from you guys. And for some reason you don’t want to accept it. Make the call. Send the email. I cant wait..

Soze

Soze,

No offense but can you explain what you mean? I’m not following and I’m not understanding your frustration.

Soze,

No offense but can you explain what you mean? I’m not following and I’m not understanding your frustration.

I’m not frustrated. If I were frustrated I wouldn’t have bothered summing up thirty something pages. I’m really more dumbfounded. Somewhat Shocked.

Soze

Soze,

No offense but can you explain what you mean? I’m not following and I’m not understanding your frustration.

<<The error codes are just that error codes. It means that machine (either one through eight or thirty) and die A or B needs serviced. If a post mark doesn’t have a machine error code it simply means that machine the envelope went through doesn’t need serviced.>>

Soze, are you sure about that? That would be at odds with what the experts said, unless I misunderstood something.

In re-reading the statements from the two experts, they essentially agree that the two-digit codes denoted the machine or head, plus the die.

So they are telling us what the codes WERE.

However, it is not clear if they are saying the 2-digit codes were applied to all letters that passed through the machines.

In re-reading the statements from the two experts, they essentially agree that the two-digit codes denoted the machine or head, plus the die.

So they are telling us what the codes WERE.

However, it is not clear if they are saying the 2-digit codes were applied to all letters that passed through the machines.

http://postalhistorycorner.blogspot.com … er-in.html