Message Board

New York

This cover from Savannah GA in 1867 has the distinctive "Due 1" straightline handstamp of New York City. However, this cover is destined for Maine.

Baltimore "Steamboat" with "Due 1" in Circle

This is the Baltimore "Due 1" in Circle that seems to match the examples on the New York "Steam Boat" covers.

New York "Steam Boat" with "Due 1" in Circle

The "Steam Boat" marking does seem to be New York City. This is an ugly example docketed from Savannah GA sent by coastal steamer to Scott, Cortland Co., N.Y.

However, I had thought the "Due 1" in Circle was a Baltimore marking at first glance as with David's cover.

Postal History Sunday

This week's Postal History Sunday is available to all who might enjoy reading it.
Featured cover is below.

Steamboat 1

Dave, I am of two minds about your cover. Well, more like one and a third minds. The straightforward interpretation is that it is an incoming port letter, with the steamboat rate of two times two, making one cent due on top of the three cents. (Non contract steamer.) The lack of a postmark suggests that it did indeed come into and never left Germantown. This is logically the correct interpretation.

The loose end here is whether little newby Germantown (the date is likely 1863-1866) would have such handstamps. (A quick search did not turn up the contemporary markings for New York City and Albany, which this should be plated against. I may have reference material I will try to check.)

The discovery of the the difference in rating contract and non contract, probably not widely appreciated, even amongst specialists, allowed me, for this period, to collect the contract carrier loose letters (classic way covers) and pass on the non contract material outside my range of interest.

What follows is from section 31 of the 1863 law.

and if for delivery within the United States shall be rated with double rates of postage, which shall cover the fee paid to the vessel; no fees shall be allowed for letters collected by a carrier on a mail route.

Grove City Iowa

Dominick - please put your cover on the census site - that is exactly what the site is intended for. Thank you.

PS - the Helbock guide is a general guide for an example over the whole period. It is NOT intneded to be an "real" indicator of number of known examples. Maybe useful to some as a general value guide but worthless to me. It is NOT based on number of known covers.

GROVE CITY IOA 1864 - 1871

Good day all, I have a question about a CDS. GROVE CITY IOA its documented in Richard Helbock as a S/I 7 (five or less known) was this classification given because of the full window of the DPO 1864 - 1871? I ask because the town became a ghost in late of 1868 when the whole town got up and moved due to the RR. if the Scarcity Index is based on the full lifespan and not the actual usage window, would this CDS still have a S/I of 7 rather then 9 ( two or less known) being of a three year shorter window. I want to share the cover and a full recreation of the CDS since its not documented with an image.

Steamboat 1

Thanks Richard!

Cover to Germantown, NY

David,

Germantown, NY was as listed in Post Office Guide in 1862 (actually, 1825 to present) in Columbia County on the Hudson River.

The 1c fee is correct if handed into a post office by a non-contract person.

The 1863 Law states - "up to two cents" but the 1863 instructions here
state:

From 1864 Instructions to PM: . Postmasters are authorized to pay for ench letter addressed to the United Stlltes by any other sea-going vessel from a foreign port two cents, and for each letter addressed to the United States brought by any other vessel on inland waters, or brought coastwise from one domestic port to anotber, one cent; but to entitle the carrier to such payment, the letters must be promptly delivered to the post office upon arrival.

PHS

Postal History Sunday is available to all who might enjoy reading it.
Rob

And David,nothing is coming to mind at first glance for me.  But I'm not as in tune with that area, so that may mean little. 

Steamboat Due 1 - help with rate

Can anyone explain the Due 1 rate marking on this cover?  The steamboat rate should be 2¢ during this period.  The STEAM BOAT marking appears to be the New York City marking and the cover is addressed to Germantown, NY, a city on the Hudson River.  
I don't see Germantown listed as a port on the NYC-Albany route in Feldman's book.  Could it be some sort of drop 2¢ + steamboat 2¢ rate?  The backflap is sealed, so I don't think it is a circular rate. 

Boston 2026

Richard, thanks for the mention.
Years ago, Yamil asked if I would be part of the Court of Honor, showing my colonial material to correspond with the theme of the show. I loved the idea as my letters could be seen in a special area, and I could appear as PMG Dr. Benjamin Franklin. For 8 days, I paraded around the floor, gave a lecture or 2 and met dozens of fellow collectors willing to be shepherded through my section of the COH (Roger Brody, Chip Ahrens and Mark Schwartz shared their gems). I felt privileged to be included and enjoyed every moment. What's the hobby all about anyway ? My thanks to the entire team at Bo2026.
Tim

Grand Prix Nominations

For a reference one can check the awards for several FIP shows and see how many exhibits were nominated for each Grand Prix. The typical number is 3 to 4 and depends on the number of exhibits entered and what they scored in points. The common thread is if there were enough exhibits that qualified, then the usual number were nominated.

Thur, Sept 10, 2026 6PM (NY) ecent applications of Spectroscopy in Philately with Richard Judge

Joint he BESG when we host Richard Judge for “Recent Applications of Spectroscopy in Philately” and discover how spectrometry can reveal the hidden chemical “fingerprints” of inks, pigments, paper and gum—differences the eye alone may never see.

? Thursday, September 10 ? 6 PM Eastern

If you've ever looked at a stamp and wondered “How do we really know?”—this presentation is for you.

Sometimes the stamp's chemistry tells a story its appearance cannot.

Totally Free as always - https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/7817808350010/WN_JVOELC-PRGObUnOqXJGD4g

I call time out please

There is no point of further discussion on this board about what has past.

I would be happy to host exhibits from Gordon and Dan should they wish to have them available to the public. I will await receiving an online exhbit from Tim O'Connor to represent Colonial Mails (as I believe it is a much better exhibit than the Vern Morris exhibit).

Boston 2026 consequence

Yamil,

If your sanguine advice isn't a sermon, what might be?

You were first to criticize the jury action, so no one else should. You opposed securing FIP patronage, so no one else should favor it. You decided to seek FIP patronage, so no one else should complain about the violation of FIP GREXes and GREVs.

Unlike you, I regard Scott Trepel's resignation from APS as a calamity for the society. Loss of advertising from the leading American philatelic auction firm, loss of membership referrals, the example it sets for the most important present and future prospective benefactors of the society, all bode ill going forward.

I doubt that a court will read the GREX and GREV as you do. The clear intent, taught to every FIP judge when I was one of them, was to submit the Grand Prix choice to a secret ballot of the entire jury. The only plausible exception is when there is no qualified competitor (and in the past that has led some FIP juries to refrain from awarding the Grand Prix). The GREX and GREV do not provide an exception to a secret ballot of the entire jury.

I agree with Scott about the harm this judging sham has caused to Gordon and Ronda, both emotionally and probably financially. So I am not prepared to let it rest. If action is not taken before the next APS election, and if I am still sentient, it will be an issue.

My last comment on the Boston 2026 judging

Ken, when did I say that anyone on this board used the word "conspiracy"?

Two of the four individuals appointed by APS president, Dr. Mark Banchick, to investigate the decision of the GPN jury team whom with I spoke, mentioned the words "to rule out a conspiracy."

It is curious that you used the inflammatory term "sermon" referring to my post when you are known to pontificate more than anyone on this board.

Also, I am guilty of being a cynic, but I simply don't believe that you are entering this discussion with the best interest of the APS in mind.

In reading the GREX, you clearly have misinterpreted its application. When it says that "the jury teams shall propose exhibits that received at least 96 points," regarding the Grand Prix, it is plural because it refers to the GPN and GPI. It doesn't say "all the exhibits receiving at least 96 points'" or "at least two exhibits receiving at least 96 points" (or anything in between). It is the jury's prerogative to determine the number of GP candidates.

A majority of the FIP board members were part of the Boston 2026 jury and (unfortunately) no one raised an objection when the GPN jury team decision was announced, nor they pointed out any irregularities, then or later.

The APS board is powerless to remedy what happened to Gordon (or for that matter, to Vern's second exhibit which also obtained 97 points or to Dan R. and Dan K.'s exhibits).

Some of the GPN jury team members have already been swiftly relieved of their APS leadership positions (fairly or not), and no other retroactive measures will change the outcome. So other than moving forward to prevent similar controversies in the future, further discussions on this subject are a waste of time.

In the absence of public recognition, all four worthy candidates for the GPN are left with the admiration from their knowledgeable peers for their accomplishments, which is worth something. I hope they continue to share their wonderful material.

Boston 2026 remedy

Yamil's sermon to forgive and move on fails to address the palpable injury to Gordon Eubanks, which is my principal concern that lingers after this snub. The Linn's article makes clear that Mark Banchik is complicit, as a member of the Boston jury who declined to nominate a competing candidate for the Grand Prix. As I wrote when the scandal first broke, following the proper APS procedure would have removed him from controlling the investigation, but he did nevertheless appoint a committee to investigate. The question going forward is, did the committee recommend a way to make Gordon whole, and whether or not it did, will the APS Board take action to do so? That was the essence of Scott Trepel's demand, which Banchik brushed off.

Assigning blame and shame for the Boston 2026 scandal

Who here has alleged a conspiracy? No such claim is required for members to expect and demand accountability. As an APS life member and former officer, that is my expectation and my demand. 

The Boston 2026 jury plainly violated General Regulations of the FIP for Exhibitions (GREX) and General Regulations of the FIP for the Evaluation of Competitive Exhibits at FIP Exhibitions (GREV).

GREX Article 43 states: "For the award of Grands Prix for other Competitive Classes [other than for the Grand Prix d'Honneur], the jury teams shall propose exhibits that received at least 96 points. The award of a Grand Prix shall be carried out by a secret ballot of the full jury. In the event of a tie, the vote of the President of the Jury is decisive."

GREV 5.6 states: "The Grands Prix are awarded to the exhibits receiving the most votes in secret ballot from among those exhibits achieving at least 96 points."

Neither is ambiguous; both require that exhibits (plural) be proposed, and that a secret ballot be held to determine the winner. (In the secret ballot, nothing compels a jury member to choose among the proposed exhibits. All qualifying exhibits are eligible.)

One can understand that a secret ballot for Grand Prix National would have been superfluous in the event only one exhibit qualified by achieving a score of 96 points, as occurred at Dubai and Macao. But that was not the case at Boston 2026.

Boston 2026 judging controversy

As president of Boston 2026 World Expo I feel the need to clarify some of the comments posted on this forum and answer several questions.

Jury selection was made by a four member panel of international North American judges in consultation with the organizing committee (OC) and, as per FIP rules, with the FIP show consultant and ultimately with the FIP board.

This was a very lengthy process started in October 2025 and not finalized until a few weeks before the start of the show. The OC had a number of concerns about the judging process and the workload distribution. At the end, the judging process itself was flawless, according to the feedback received from the members of the jury and the FIP board.

Boston 2026 signed a contract with the APS board nearly a decade ago which required the submission of quarterly updates to the APS board. These of course included financial statements. There were also two APS board members in the eight-member Boston 2026 corporate board. I made PowerPoint presentations at every APS/APRL joint board meeting over the last several years, reporting our progress and sharing our plans.

Aside from that, the APS board had no direct involvement with the organization and execution of the exhibition. But let me make clear that there is a blurred line dividing the upper level of many philatelic organizations, since in general, and out of necessity, only a handful of individuals wear multiple hats and have multiple leadership roles.

I was a member of the APS board of vice presidents until a year or so before the start of Boston 2026.

Once the show started, the APS board, the Boston 2026 OC and the FIP board had no influence whatsoever over the decisions of the National Grand Prix jury team. Its decision to select only one candidate for the GPN, which I was the first person not in the jury to complain about, did not violate any of the exhibition or FIP rules. However, in my opinion, it reflects poor judgement on the part of the GPN jury team, particularly when there were several worthy contenders that achieved the same or similar scores as the GPN winner.

Also, practically every member of the 43 person jury could have raised an objection, especially the other North American jurors (there were a total of 13 of them). This was disappointing to me.

To claim that there was an APS board conspiracy to achieve this result in my view is completely absurd. I see it as a lapse in judgement by a small group of well-intended individuals who have served organized philately for many decades.

Instead of continuing to try to assign blame, we should focus on ways to ensure that similar controversies don't happen again and to offer recommendations to improve our international judging corps.

NOT precedents

Checking the Dubai and Macao palmares with the assistance of another member of this community, it seems clear that in both of those shows the Grand Prix National was awarded to the only qualified exhibit in each of them. Neither was an instance of a scoring team refusing to nominate a qualified exhibit. 

Therefore, Scott Trepel's challenge has not been answered by Peter McCann, Mark Banchik, and Kirk Gillis. The shame and blame on the judging team are fully merited. This was NOT a situation called for by FIP rules previously unenforced.

Boston 2026 scandal continued

Throughout the Linn's article, Peter McCann, Mark Banchik, and Kirk Gillis cite FIP exhibitions in Dubai and Macau as precedents for awarding Grand Prix National prizes to single exhibits without competing candidates and without secret ballots of the full juries.

Can someone here confirm that those were true precedents, that each of those shows snubbed competing exhibits that had sufficient qualifying points to be nominated? or did they award the National prizes to sole qualifying exhibits?

Boston 2026 scandal

"Trepel resigns from APS over Boston 2026 controversy" is the title of Jay Bigalke's six-page report in the 21 September issue of Linn's Stamp News, pages 8-13.

Bigalke included this statement by APS president Mark Banchik: "Historically, the APS has not exercised the degree of direct oversight of these [decennial FIP international] exhibitions that many members understandably assumed it did."

That is untrue. After the Pacific 97 committee irresponsibly squandered decades of accumulated patrimony in bankruptcy, the APS Board adopted a policy that APS would have oversight of the committees designated to organize future FIP internationals in the United States, and that no contracts could be executed without prior approval of the designated APS representative assigned to the organizing committee, who reported each action to the APS Board. The Washington 2006 exhibition followed that procedure, and at least the initial 2016 organizing committee (awarded originally to Columbus, Ohio, but later transferred to New York City). By the time the New York committee was approved, I was no longer a member of the APS Board, so I have no information as to whether the policy was implemented there. 

How to tell if a signature is real

Some useful tips are here.

Changes at Siegel

From an email received:

"I am writing this email while overlooking the Grumeti Reserve in the Serengeti in Tanzania. It is a breathtaking view.

Over the past week, I have seen the movement of many different animals in this beautiful part of the world, which sets the tone for this message.

As many of you know, Charles Shreve and I have worked together to make Siegel even better during the past 14 years. We have had many successful collaborations and exciting sales, including the record-setting Gross sales.

However, just like life in the Seregenti, things change. A few months ago, Charles and I both agreed that it was time for Andrew Titley to step into the role as director of Siegel International, and we made that announcement a few weeks ago.

I had hoped Charles would continue to guide clients through the sale process with the Siegel troop making everything go smoothly and successfully. I just received an email from Charles, informing me that he is moving on from Siegel. I do not know more than that as I write this, but I wish him well.

All communication intended for Charles should be sent to me or to Andrew. We have an exciting sale season ahead. The players may change, but life continues.

Regards,

Scott Trepel

Grumeti Reserve

Wednesday morning, September 2"

Overland

Rainer, The Cairo endorsement might have led the London post office clerk to bag it with mail to Egypt.

7 August 1929 Zeppelin Round the World Cruise cover to Baghdad, Postage rate question

Ken, thanks very helpful.

Now i need to find out why the cover was struck with the “Received By Overland Mail” cachet which was only struck in Baghdad in case a cover, Intended to be carried by Airmail was carried by the Overland Mail.
In that case the cover must have been unloaded, maybe by mistake, either at Alexandria or Gaza and then, because of the higher fee paid, handed over to the Overland Mail to be transported to via the Syro-Iraqi desert to Baghdad, handed over to the Iraqi Post who added the cachet and then delivered it to the recipient in Hillah.

US to Iraq via Graf Zeppelin

Rainer,

Despite the sender's London-Cairo endorsement, that route had been changed. The listed air mail Route 3 to Iraq effective 28 June 1929 was London-Paris-Basel-Genoa-Ostia-Naples-Corfu-Athens-Crete-Alexandria-Gaza-Baghdad-(Basra and onward to India).

The air fee for Route 3 to Iraq was 9¢ per half ounce in addition to required postage. Required postage was $1 for the Zeppelin flight from Lakehurst to Friedrichshafen plus 5¢ UPU surface postage for a letter that weighed up to one ounce, total $1.14.

If your cover weighed one half ounce or less, it is overpaid by 5¢, but the sender might have (wrongly) thought that one additional 5¢ surface letter rate of postage was required for transport from Friedrichshafen to London.

If it weighed more than one half ounce, it is underpaid.

7 August 1929 Zeppelin Round the World Cruise cover to Baghdad, Postage rate question

I’m not usually a fan of Zeppelin covers, but when it’s addressed to Iraq like this one is—and it even has a “Received By Overland” handstamp, meaning the cover was carried via the Syro-Iraqi desert to Baghdad where it received tis cachet —I just couldn’t resist. Plus, the date on it, August 21, 1929, might be the earliest known date.

Can anyone help me figure out the US postage?

I learned that the rate for such Zeppelin covers was $ 1 plus 5 cents foregoing fee (whatever that means… but why the cover is franked with $ 1.19?

AI

Thank you, Ken, for posting that article. As a surgeon who has medical questions, I have found that Gemini and ChatGPT cite sources like Reddit as often as they cite peer-reviwed articles in medical journals. And when they do cite peer-reviewed journals, it's often minor ones rather than the ones that are the most reputable. (Obviouisly, there are different levels of scrutiny and expertise in peer review). But what is particularly disturbing is when I actually bother to check the reference that the chatbot cites, it often fails to say what the chatbot claims that it said. This isn't to say that the chatbots are always wrong or misleading. But the problem is that you never know. In any case, I now understand these problems better as a result of the article that you posted.

The perils of trusting artificial intelligence

are well explained in this report.

Exhibit Grader - Judging team

@LawrenceHaber

Thank you very much! I'm so glad you find it useful!

@Everyone

This weekend brought a couple of hopefully interesting updates.

First of all, every evaluation is now actually run 3 to 5 times behind the scenes, independently from one another. The results are then averaged. This approach is intended to lessen the impact of an occasional particularly weird evaluation.

So now EG responds not just with an overall score and corresponding medal, but also with an average score for each criterion. This should be particularly useful for seeing where the evaluations had more trouble reaching a consistent conclusion.

Next, I opened up the reviewer persona and defined a handful of them. One of them, called Team Catalog, is the reviewer we've been using so far: Very strict. There are three more.

Each "team" of reviewers has its own approach to evaluation. One follows the regulations to the letter, another is more tolerant, one may be concise while another is more talkative.

They "try" to mimic what an actual judge does when reviewing an exhibit. Some judges spend only a few minutes on certain pages, while others spend a lot more time and are very thorough. Some provide a lot of feedback, while others are more to the point. Some give a lot of weight to census or rarity claims, while others are more trusting.

I tried to model these differences through the concept of a "judging team"

Grading is parallelized, so hopefully these changes haven't increased evaluation time too much...

Let's see how it goes!

Exhibit Grader

I think that this exhibit grader is a tremendous accomplishment and can be an invaluable tool. I fed a one-page exhibit into it and have a few comments:

The exhibit is on the 1908 10¢ special delivery stamp. On my title page, I defined my scope to "show the development, rates, markings, and unusual uses."

I requested an APS rather than FIP grading, and I got the following comment: "Some collateral and postal-history discussion occasionally competes with the primary traditional study of stamp production and usage." The comment stuck me as reflecting more of an FIP perspective than APS. Thought perhaps rather than specifying "unusual uses," maybe I should have left it as just "uses". Maybe I will refeed with that change.

FYI, last time out in a WSP show, this got 84pts and the computer gave it an 88.

Regardless, an extraordinary tool, especially since I have a couple of exhibits in process, and this could save me so much time. The feedback is rational and totally balanced.