Skip to main content
| Scott Number | 1 |
|---|---|
| Date | June 3, 1851 |
| From City | St Louis |
| From State | MO |
| To City | New York |
| To State | NY |
| Addressee | J. & J. Stuart |
| Cert Author | |
| Cert # | |
| Fake | |
| Quantity 1 | 2 |
| Quantity 2 | 0 |
| Bisect | |
| Others |
Notes
H R Harmer sale Feb 23, 1971 lot 84
Scott #1, horizontal pair, barely tied to folded lettter by red circular cancel, matching red JUN 3 (1851) cds from SAINT LOUIS to New York.
Information from the Thomas J Alexander Papers, American Philatelic Research Library (ARPL), Bellefonte Pa courtesy of Tara Murray & her staff.
Alexander listed as 6/3/51 and 6/5/51 (removed)
Alexander’s notes indicate cover may also be dated JUN 5, but that is crossed out.
However, another entry for June 5, 1851 shows the same cover, with the distinctive paper cut along the bottom edge as being owned by Davidson in Oct 1974 and coming from an unknown sale as lot 662.
I’m inclined to accept the 6/3/dating. Otherwise the St Louis post office used a very misshapen 5 (improperly seated in the cancelling device?). In either case, the two entries are duplicates so I eliminated the entry for June 5, 1851. The internal dateline for the letter would clear up the dating.
Scott #1, horizontal pair, barely tied to folded lettter by red circular cancel, matching red JUN 3 (1851) cds from SAINT LOUIS to New York.
Information from the Thomas J Alexander Papers, American Philatelic Research Library (ARPL), Bellefonte Pa courtesy of Tara Murray & her staff.
Alexander listed as 6/3/51 and 6/5/51 (removed)
Alexander’s notes indicate cover may also be dated JUN 5, but that is crossed out.
However, another entry for June 5, 1851 shows the same cover, with the distinctive paper cut along the bottom edge as being owned by Davidson in Oct 1974 and coming from an unknown sale as lot 662.
I’m inclined to accept the 6/3/dating. Otherwise the St Louis post office used a very misshapen 5 (improperly seated in the cancelling device?). In either case, the two entries are duplicates so I eliminated the entry for June 5, 1851. The internal dateline for the letter would clear up the dating.
