Let’s pause here for a moment and consider what Soze is saying.

She seems to think that the service codes (1B, 4A, etc.) located on the postmarks are error codes that indicate which head and die needs servicing. Therefore, a postmark without these codes would not indicate that they were hand delivered necessarily, on that the machines they were run through didn’t need any servicing.

I’m still working on verifying this, but I think we need to strongly consider this as a possibility along with hand delivery.

Soze, correct me if I am wrong.

That’s certainly what I think but you should verify with the experts to make sure as I could be wrong.

Soze

Browsing old posts and came across this post again. I think you are right. I believe that’s exactly what it’s saying: the sectional is under 940 zip. South San Francisco rather than simply San Francisco. Interesting.

Hopefully, we’ll get direct confirmation (finally) of where the Sectional Center was from the reply Chaucer gets to his e-mail to Mr. Swaim, the ex-SF Postal Worker who was working the floor at Rincon in the 60s/70s. Fingers crossed!

Browsing old posts and came across this post again. I think you are right. I believe that’s exactly what it’s saying: the sectional is under 940 zip. South San Francisco rather than simply San Francisco. Interesting.

Nudged by Soze, I’m having another look at this.

This post shows the excerpt from the 1969 Post Office directory that first led me to the suspicion that maybe the SCF could have actually been somewhere in the area covered by Zip code 940.

To compare with this, then, I’ve looked for similar, current information to see whether it supports this idea.

On an archived (2008) page of the USPS website, I found an appendix to the ‘Domestic Mail Manual’ which "lists every 3-digit Zip Code prefix for mail destined to 3-digit, 3-digit scheme, and sectional center facility (SCF) destinations." (Unhelpfully, the up-to-date 2019 online DMM doesn’t include this list, but I can’t see any indication that these particular prefixes have changed.) Pulling out the ones of relevance (and ignoring the ‘3-digit scheme’, whatever that is):

The ‘U’ for 941, 943 & 944 means "Unique 3-digit city" – San Francisco, Palo Alto and San Mateo, respectively.

All of this seems consistent with how the Zip prefixes were described in 1969. Here is the same on a map, with 940 highlighted.

As can be seen, 940 covers San Mateo County (minus San Mateo City, 944) and a small portion of NW Santa Clara County (minus Palo Alto, 943).

But then, if these are the modern Zip prefixes, how does this square with the fact that we believe the current location of the San Francisco SCF to be 1300 Evans, 94188? Is even this perhaps not the case?

It’s all so confusing.

It’s all so confusing.

Okay, this is how I’m going to propose it works, in terms of how the Zip code prefixes were allocated in the first place – just a ‘proposition’, sure, but I hope an intelligent one.

You take a broad geographical (‘sectional’) area that you intend to have under one Sectional Center Facility, and you give this whole area a ‘starting’ prefix. In our case, this ‘sectional’ area would initially include all of:

• San Francisco;[/*:m:sc6o0m1d]
• San Mateo County, including San Mateo City; and[/*:m:sc6o0m1d]
• NW Santa Clara County, including Palo Alto.[/*:m:sc6o0m1d][/list:u:sc6o0m1d]

This whole ‘section’ is then given the (starting) Zip prefix, 940.

Then, you pull out the major cities (population areas) from this broad ‘940’ section and, because you don’t want the prefixes to cover too broad a population area, you assign to these Zip prefixes that continue the numbering from the ‘section’ prefix.

• San Francisco: 941;[/*:m:sc6o0m1d]
• Palo Alto: 943; and[/*:m:sc6o0m1d]
• San Mateo City: 944.[/*:m:sc6o0m1d][/list:u:sc6o0m1d]

But – according to the way the prefixes were allocated, in line with this proposition – these are still 940 sectional prefixes, or rather subdivisions thereof.

Essentially, I’m suggesting it works as a hierarchy:

• 940, incorporating
• San Francisco: 941;[/*:m:sc6o0m1d]
• Palo Alto: 943; and[/*:m:sc6o0m1d]
• San Mateo City: 944.[/*:m:sc6o0m1d][/list:u:sc6o0m1d][/*:m:sc6o0m1d][/list:u:sc6o0m1d]

Looked at in this way, 941 is still part of the ‘940 section’; 943 is still part of the ‘940 section; etc.

Accordingly, there is then no reason to suppose that the system of allocation would require the actual physical SCF to be located somewhere that would have a 940 Zip-code. A San Francisco (941) location would do.

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

 

All a bit too confusing indeed,

I don’t wish to bring this subject up but i keep reading here that machine in question is thought to be a Pitney-Bowes Mark II, This is Despite none of the postmarks having the 2 marks which are characteristic of the Mark II?

I read this might be explained by the fact that the machine is in fact a Mark I?

Edit, yes for stine letter, could the lack of marks be a clue?

Or have i missed something entirely?

All a bit too confusing indeed,

I don’t wish to bring this subject up but i keep reading here that machine in question is thought to be a Pitney-Bowes Mark II, This is Despite none of the postmarks having the 2 marks which are characteristic of the Mark II?

I read this might be explained by the fact that the machine is in fact a Mark I?

Or have i missed something entirely?

Hi Simplicity.

Forgive me. The reference to the possibility that the cancellations may have been made by a "P-B Mk I" was mine and – I apologise – was offered as a rubbish joke, missed by all (*crickets*).

That said – and you are very observant, and on the ball – we do need to find some explanation as to why these two bars are sometimes missing.

I say ‘sometimes’, because they are there on a number of the envelopes:

These are, in order (top to bottom):

• the ‘Stine’ letter;[/*:m:3tim1mu2]
• the ‘Dripping Pen’ letter; and[/*:m:3tim1mu2]
• the ‘Exorcist’ letter.[/*:m:3tim1mu2][/list:u:3tim1mu2]

Looking for an explanation as to their absence sometimes, it might help first if we mentally split the postmark into the ‘dater’ and the ‘cancellation’. And these are, in fact physically separate. As you can see, the cancellation in all three cases with the two bars is a generic ‘wavy line’.

I’m going to suggest that the wavy cancellation is what comes with the P-B Mk II as standard and, according to how it fixes on the machine, includes the two bars on the other side of the dater.

But these are often removed and replaced by what are called ‘slogan’ cancellations:



These examples are from the first Examiner letter and the ‘My name is…’ letter.

I’d suggest, then, that the likely explanation is simply that, when you add in a non-standard cancellation, you lose the two bars.

There are still some examples of wavy-line cancellations that don’t seem to clearly show the two bars, but this is probably just poor inking, or something like that.

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

 

Ok I’m promised myself that I was not getting involved in this again but best-laid plans of mice and men :-

You have 3 Hand Cancelled letters, One of which is the Belli letter which is Not to the SFC and is in completely different writing than usual. Tom Voigt is adamant that two letters were intercepted at source and as such would not have gone through the mailing system, logic would dictate that the two which he is refering to are the "Little List" & "Bus Bomb" letters. These coincidently are the only two with Sunday postmarks.

Also are we saying that EVERY other letter went through a machine which happened to have an error code at the time, did all machines at the time show codes (i.E. to enable staff to monitor how close the machine was to needing to be fixed), or was this only when a machine had a specific error.

Just to be clear, I showed the machine canceling expert only the postmarks, not the cancellation lines. He concluded, based on the postmarks alone, that these were all made my a common Pitney-Bowes Mark II. I never showed him the entire envelope with cancellation marks. That might mean nothing, but I wanted full disclosure.

I have still not heard from Mr. Swaim. I will alert you all as soon as I do.

<Accordingly, there is then no reason to suppose that the system of allocation would require the actual physical SCF to be located somewhere that would have a 940 Zip-code. A San Francisco (941) location would do.>

Los Angeles in the chart has only one zip code in the right hand column, and that is in italics. In the San Francisco listing the military bases are not in italics. In my view the description explaining what the three digit codes in italics represent is either flawed or incomplete.

Ok I’m promised myself that I was not getting involved in this again but best-laid plans of mice and men :-

You have 3 Hand Cancelled letters, One of which is the Belli letter which is Not to the SFC and is in completely different writing than usual. Tom Voigt is adamant that two letters were intercepted at source and as such would not have gone through the mailing system, logic would dictate that the two which he is refering to are the "Little List" & "Bus Bomb" letters. These coincidently are the only two with Sunday postmarks.

I have only ever seen it asserted that two letters were intercepted at source, but have never encountered any evidence presented for this assertion, unless I’ve missed something.

In any case, were it in fact the case that two letters were so diverted from the mailing system, then they would not have received any postmark whatsoever. Allegedly they were simply removed from two separate mailboxes, identified at source, and handed to LE. The ‘Little List’ and ‘Bus Bomb’ letters both have postmarks.

Also are we saying that EVERY other letter went through a machine which happened to have an error code at the time, did all machines at the time show codes (i.E. to enable staff to monitor how close the machine was to needing to be fixed), or was this only when a machine had a specific error.

There are no error codes.

[Edit: spelling]

The ONLY source for the information on the interception of any Zodiac letters by postal workers is Tom Voigt. Tom has provided no information on his source for this, nor has he weighed in on this matter to my knowledge.

I wish he would.

Ok I’m promised myself that I was not getting involved in this again but best-laid plans of mice and men :-

You have 3 Hand Cancelled letters, One of which is the Belli letter which is Not to the SFC and is in completely different writing than usual. Tom Voigt is adamant that two letters were intercepted at source and as such would not have gone through the mailing system, logic would dictate that the two which he is refering to are the "Little List" & "Bus Bomb" letters. These coincidently are the only two with Sunday postmarks.

Also are we saying that EVERY other letter went through a machine which happened to have an error code at the time, did all machines at the time show codes (i.E. to enable staff to monitor how close the machine was to needing to be fixed), or was this only when a machine had a specific error.

Cragle, the understanding is that the Pitney Bowles machines showed the 2-digit codes as part of their standard postmark.

If the two letters were intercepted at the source, it’s hard to justify why they received a postmark.

I guess one explanation might be so as to not alert the Zodiac that the letters had been intercepted?

Sorry to clarify are you saying the letter/ number code is not an error or service code, or that postmarks only showed these codes when there is an error. No error = No code.

Also are you sure that the intercepted letters would have gone straight to the police. Forgive my ignorance but would it not be the Postal inspectors who saw these first ?

Sorry to clarify are you saying the letter/ number code is not an error or service code, or that postmarks only showed these codes when there is an error. No error = No code.

The former. The Pitney-Bowes face canceller had no facility for flagging error codes in the postmarks. The evidence for this is summarised here.

Also are you sure that the intercepted letters would have gone straight to the police. Forgive my ignorance but would it not be the Postal inspectors who saw these first ?

You are right here. It would have gone to the postal inspectors, but still wouldn’t have been given a postmark, IMO. The reason I would assume this is that a postmark is legally defined to show the date on which a letter comes into the possession of (specifically) the Sectional Center Facility. I have to assume any intercepted letter would not make it to the SCF processing, nor would it be the intention for it to do so, unless it subsequently cleared inspection. But this is, to be clear, just my supposition.

8 Dragon Card 4-28-70

Ok explain this one ? I promise I’m not being obtuse

Also Is it not a federal offence to open mail without a warrant, I understand that there are certain circumstance when this is bypassed. Surely though it would have been quicker and easier for when it had been intercepted, which at this point only Z and the Postal worker would have touched it, gets hand cancelled (no need to physically touch) and then hand delivered to the SFC, thus meaning no laws broken. Minimal handling of the letter, and the quickest way of reading its contents.

Or am I wrong ?