::: MISSIONARY STAMPS - Style 236.05 Comparisons :::
|
Back to Grinnell Missionaries.
|
Comparisons Of Genuine Strikes With Grinnell Strikes
Style 236.05: U.S. Postage Paid at bottom
|
This page will demonstrate the postmark of style 236.05 found on the Grinnells is
unlike any genuine strike of that style. Three types of that style have been
noted on stamps or covers (See
Honolulu Foreign Mail Postmarks to 1886).
This page will also show the Grinnell postmarks apparently were made from a metal
device rather than from one of the old wooden devices ordered in May, 1851, by
Postmaster Henry Whitney. Specifically, the appearance of the strikes on the
Grinnells shows the device used to make them was machine tooled where the devices
used for the genuine marks were hand cut. Also, one poorly inked Grinnell strike
exposes lines characteristic of a metal device. Anyone seeking to establish these
postmarks as genuine must explain how, notwithstanding the points shown here, the
postmarks on the Grinnells were made from one of the wooden devices in the Honolulu
Post Office in the early 1850's.
The Three Genuine Types and the Grinnell
|
Feb. 25, 1852
|
March 31, 1852
|
May 11, 1852
|
August 16, 1853
|
Nov. 9, 1854
|
|
|
Nov. 3, 1855
|
March 5, 1856
|
|
|
July 26, 1856
|
June 27, 1857
|
|
Grinnell No. 43, dated JAN/7
|
|
|
From his correspondence ordering the postmarking devices in May, 1851, we know
Postmaster Whitney ordered four devices to be made with U. S. Postage Paid
at the bottom. We also know only three devices have been recorded on stamps or
covers. These facts generate the following questions:
Was Whitney's order fulfilled completely or did he receive only three devices of this style?
If four were received, was the fourth device ever used?
Was the fourth device lost and later used without authorization?
Did a genuine fourth device produce the postmarks of this style we see on the Grinnells?
I doubt if answers to the first three questions will ever be found.
- We know how many devices he ordered but we can only assume the answer to the
first question is that his order was filled completely. No record by Whitney has
come to light to tell us who made the devices or how many he actually received.
We can be reasonably sure they were made somewhere in the Eastern part of the
United States by one of the standard postmark makers of the day. They probably
arrived in February, 1852. The earliest known use was February 20, 1852.
- For answer to the second question, we can only say we have seen no usage.
Many stampless covers and quite a few stamped covers survive from this time frame
and only three distinct varieties of style 236.05 can be found among them.
Trying to rule out absolutely the chance there are covers or stamps bearing a
genuine use of a fourth style of 236.05 is an insurmountable hurdle, but no
evidence of it is found in the many examples seen from this period.
- As to the third question, we can say it is possible, but maybe it is
improbable. Possibly the presumed fourth device made what is classed today as a
forgery. If so, it would represent an unauthorized use of a genuine device. One
could think the assumed fake illustrated below was made by the genuine fourth
device. I don't believe the following image is the "lost" fourth device, but
once we begin to speculate, nearly anything is possible. At least this forgery
is strikingly close to the genuine postmarks.
Presumed fake of style 236.05 "postmarking"
an 1888 reprint of the 5¢ Kamehameha III (Scott 10r)
|
|
So far as the fourth question goes, with confidence, we can say the postmarks on
the Grinnells do not represent the missing fourth device. The Grinnell
postmarks are just too different. The enlarged images below show many of these
differences. Qualified people who have seen the Grinnells also comment on the
brightness and "redness" of the color, missing any hint of the orange found in the
genuine postmarks.
Attention focused immediately on these postmarks. B. W. H. Poole, a Los Angeles
stamp dealer, saw the Grinnells in November, 1919. He took Col. Taylor of Pasadena
to see them in the vault of the Los Angeles Trust Company and Col. Taylor brought
along his Missionary stamps. Without carefully inspecting the stamps, Col. Taylor
noted the bright red color of the postmarks and thought it was wrong. Poole
speculated they were so bright because they had been kept away from light. Soon
afterward, Poole notified John Klemann about the "virgin find" of Missionaries and
Klemann hurried to Los Angeles. He agreed to buy them and by December 13, 1919, he
was back in New York allowing his special client, Alfred Caspary, to select all he
wanted. Monday morning, December 15, Caspary had Klemann on the phone to return
the Grinnells. Among things convincing him they were clever forgeries were the
postmarks, in particular style 236.05 where he noted the color, letter fonts and
letter shapes were all wrong when compared with others in his collection.
Comparing the black and white images to the genuine postmarks, the general
appearance of the Grinnells is uniformly clean, sharp and neat. The letters are
too well formed for hand-carved letters in boxwood. The device appears to be
machine tooled. Specific differences include:
- Distance of "U. S. Postage Paid" from the outer circle
In the Grinnells, the letters of "U. S. Postage Paid" are set closer to the
outer circle than any of the known genuine types.
- Font Size of "Postage Paid"
In the Grinnells, the font size is remarkably smaller than the three genuine
types. The letters in the Grinnells seem machine tooled, more evenly shaped and
cleaner.
Grinnell 43
|
236.05(I)
|
236.05(II)
|
236.05(III)
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Details of the words Postage Paid also
show there are no similarities of shape.
Grinnell 43 or 45
|
236.05(I)
|
236.05(II)
|
236.05(III)
|
|
1st "P": none of the genuine types is close
|
|
|
"o": all genuine types are a larger font and oval in shape
|
|
|
"s": all genuine types are a larger font and open inner spaces
|
|
|
"t": no genuine type is close to the Grinnell
|
|
|
1st "a": the left side of the Grinnell is too rounded
|
|
|
"g": the Grinnell has too tight a curve on the bottom tail
|
|
|
"e": type III, the closest shape, is still quite different
|
|
|
2nd "P": on the Grinnell the rounded top joins the leg nearer the base
|
|
|
2nd "a": the inner space of the Grinnell is rounder
|
|
|
"i": the dot above the "i" is much higher than in styles II and III; style I has no dot
|
|
|
"d": the inner space of the "d" is rounder in the Grinnell
|
|
|
- Shape of "U. S." letters
The letters are shaped differently in the Grinnells. Look particularly at
the "S" with the balls at the ends - completely different from the fish hook ends
in the real postmarks.
|
- Letters in "HONOLULU"
In particular, the first "O" is clearly seen to be wider and rounder in the
Grinnell.
Grinnell 43 (top) and 41 (bottom)
|
|
|
236.05(I)
|
236.05(II)
|
236.05(III)
|
|
|
|
|
- Details of the letters in "HONOLULU" show the Grinnell device produced sharper
and cleaner letters.
Grinnell 41, 43 or 45
|
236.05(I)
|
236.05(II)
|
236.05(III)
|
|
"H": none of the genuine styles have angled legs; none look so clean and sharp
|
|
|
First "O": none of the three genuine styles has the same inner oval of the Grinnell
|
|
|
"N": type III of the genuine is close, but the angles are tighter than the Grinnell
|
|
|
Second "O": style I of the genuine is close but lacks the full top of the Grinnell
|
|
|
First "L": none of the genuine types have the same angled toe
|
|
|
First "U": much narrower inner space in the Grinnell
|
|
|
Last "L": none of the styles are shaped like the Grinnell and none have the thick cap
|
|
|
Last "U": styles I and II have thick left stems as in the Grinnell but have much thinner right stems.
|
|
|
|
Grinnell No. 45 reveals a double lined outer circle on the device used for marking
the Grinnells. Note the double outer line and the outlining on the letters.
Boxwood devices show none of these signs. Some genuine postmarks are also poorly
inked. Examples of poorly inked letters are shown below alongside the images of
Grinnell No. 45. The day and month type used in these devices were metal. An
example of a poorly inked JUNE from a genuine 236.05 (III) strike shows
characteristics similar to this poorly inked Grinnell strike. It would seem the
Grinnell marks were applied with a metal device.
|
|
|
Back to Grinnell Missionaries.
|
|
|
Copyright © 1999 - 2004 POST OFFICE IN PARADISE. All rights reserved.
|