By James G. Baird
Something which seems rather remarkable to me is the enormous gulf which appears to exist between what I shall call (tongue in cheek) “serious philately” dealing with adhesives and the “not-all-that-important” (the tongue is still there) collecting of meters, precancels, permits and the like. Somewhere it is written that for a “collectible” to be “old” – and therefore desirable – it needs to have been around 100 or more years. In point of fact, we are about to turn the corner on the twentieth century and it seems about time that some of the features of twentieth century postal communications which are unique to it begin to receive the attention which they deserve. They have served the communications purposes which they were designed to effect well and long.
Whether the artifacts – the precancels, the postage meter franked envelopes, the printed permit envelopes and other media – have collectible value is for the market to determine. But that they have played an important part of twentieth century postal communications cannot be denied. They deserve some respect, by which I mean that they deserve some serious research; and that the research be reported.
Readers may well be pleased to learn that we do not propose to deal with all of these fields for study in one sitting. Discussion in pages which follow will be confined to the early development, regulation and use of precanceled stamps.
However, first, a few words as background may be helpful. In the early decades of the twentieth century, enormous growth was experienced by the postal system in terms of the sheer volumes of mail that it was called upon to process and deliver. As will be seen in the accompanying graph (Figure 1), the increase in mail volumes handled by the U. S. Post Office Department between 1900 and 1923 (there are no data for the years between 1914 and 1922) was approximately 14% per annum .
Given the labor intensive nature of mail handling, routing and delivery, such increases imposed enormous burdens on the postal system. As a consequence, inefficiency in terms of the timely delivery of mail became a serious problem. For one class of customers, business concerns, such inefficiencies were of great consequence. Lost time in business communications inevitably translates into loss of potential profit.
In this regard, it is important to remember that in the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth century, businessmen had no real alternative to the use of the mails for communications with suppliers, customers and others with whom it was necessary that they communicate in the conduct of their business activities. The development of alternative communications media – including the nascent telephone industry – would wait for several decades.
Unfortunately, there are no reliable statistics available which allow one to distinguish between first class mail volumes originating with private citizens as opposed to business concerns. But second-, third- and fourth-class mail essentially served business alone. In any event, it is left for us to simply offer the judgment that a very great volume of mail has historically originated with business mailers. Further, although it would appear that the largest percentage of commercial mail probably originated with concerns mailing a few pieces per day, there is also evidence that a significant percentage of gross mail volume has historically originated with a small number of very large mailers. While quantification is difficult, it is conceivable that a few (perhaps two to three thousand) large business mailers may have historically accounted for as much as 30% of annual mail volumes. Something which seems to have been lost upon philatelic writers – and therefore upon philately as a field of study itself – is the enormous impact which these large business concerns as users of the posts had upon the system.
In order to overcome the inefficiencies which were created by ever larger volumes of mail handled by business concerns and the postal system alike, several technological “innovations” were introduced to help speed the mails. Although each offered advantages, and suffered disadvantages, in sum they were designed to assist the mailer in preparing outgoing mail at his place of business; and to help speed it through the largely manual processing steps necessary to send it on its way through the postal communications system. Primitive by today’s standards of advance, the improvements to which we refer changed, quite literally, the face of mail in the twentieth century.
In order of their occurrence, the innovations were: (1) implementation of a standard set of regulations governing the precancelation of stamps, commencing at the turn of the century; (2) the development of the permit mail system – which was instituted in April, 1904; (3) the development of coil stamps and related high speed affixing machinery, first introduced in December, 1906; and finally (4), the development of the postage meter (very early in the first decade of the century) and (the later) authorization of metered mail by the Post Office Department in September of 1920.
With the exception of coil stamps (a subject with which we have dealt extensively in this Journal), each of the other innovations was largely designed to prepay other than first class mail. In 1900, third and fourth class mail accounted for approximately 12.25% of all mail handled as a percentage of pieces delivered. By 1926, third and fourth class mail accounted for more than 18.5% of mail delivered. Further, in the thirty-six years between the introduction of postage meters in 1921 and 1957, Post Office revenues generated by metered mail grew to exceed revenues from the sale of all stamps and postal stationery. These are just two examples of innovation, accounting for as much or more than half of twentieth century mail volumes, which mainstream philately has largely ignored. In so doing, it has turned its back on the twentieth century postal system and the relevance of social factors which shaped it.
Turning now specifically to precancels, there are several essential ingredients to reaching an understanding of how the practice of precanceling stamps was officially adopted and integrated into the United States postal system.
First, the development and use of precanceled stamps is best described to have been an evolutionary – rather than revolutionary – process. As the term would suggest, a precanceled stamp is nothing more than a stamp which has been canceled before being affixed to mail. As such, the idea of precancelation is probably as old (give or take a day or a month or a year) as are stamps themselves.
For this reason, it is impossible for the postal historian to fix the date of origin of precancelation precisely. In this regard, precancels differ significantly, for example, from the introduction of metered mail into the postal system. The latter event introduced a new technology, substantively different in a multitude of ways from anything that had preceded it; and can be traced in terms of specific things which happened at specific times. In contrast, precanceled stamps assert only a difference of form; and evolved out of a chaos of events and practices which occurred over decades into something different – but also very much the same.
A second thing which needs to be grasped is why precancels evolved at all.
In a few words, precanceling stamps saved time and labor by reducing the number of times which a piece of mail had to be handled in the flow of events at and between the private business concern which originated the mail and the addressee. While in fact the amount of effort saved on a single piece of mail might well be minute, when multiplied by one, five, ten or a hundred million, the cumulative labor savings for postmasters and the resulting efficiencies realized by mailers were enormous. Stamps canceled in bulk, as it were, before being affixed to mail, eliminated the necessity to hand- or machine-cancel them, of course. But beyond that, other economies were achieved as well.
Further explanation is perhaps best given by example. In The Story of Our Post Office by Marshall Cushing, which was published in 1893, there is a particularly detailed “first person” explanation offered as to why precanceling stamps became indispensable to both mailers and local postmasters alike. It is told by an employee of H. H. Warner & Co., a patent drug manufacturer (“Warner’s Safe Cure”) which was located in Rochester, New York :
[It] is in the mailing of pamphlets that we use the mails to the greatest extent. We mail between seven and eight million pamphlets each spring and fall. . . . We use the names of heads of families to send our pamphlets to, and generally renew the list about once in two years. As fast as the lists come in, they are looked up in the Postal Guide to ascertain if each place the list comes from is a post office, and to guard against duplicate lists, for they come from every state and territory in the Union. The lists are then taken by girls and the names written on wrappers, which are used to wrap the pamphlets in. Each name is generally written four times, on four different wrappers, as it can be done quicker, and this is enough for four mailings. About five hundred writers are generally employed, the writing being done for the most part by the thousand. After the wrappers are written they are separated into states for the postal clerks. Since April, 1887, during which month we sent out four million pamphlets (which blocked the mail so that the superintendents from Washington and New York came to our office to ascertain what could be done to handle our mail without so much work on the mail trains), we have worked our mail in our own building. . . . Cases were built especially for the purpose of routing our mail; and about two weeks before we commence mailing, the superintendent of mails is notified, and postal clerks are sent here to work the wrappers. When we mailed the old way, that is, previous to 1887, we would ship the sack of mail to the state which we wanted it to reach, and the postal clerks through whose hands this sack went were required to handle each piece in the sack in order to route it. Now the postal clerks come to our building, and route the wrappers before they are sent out, and as all the wrappers addressed to one place are tied together, they can route all the names in that place at one time, which is a great saving of time and trouble, as the sack in which these wrappers are put is shipped to the route in the state to which it is addressed, and the pieces it contains are not handled until they reach the route marked on the sack. It not only saves the postal clerks much labor, but also the pamphlets from being handled three or four times. . . .”
“After the wrappers are worked by the postal clerks, they are ready to be stamped. Stamps are cancelled in the sheet by the post office officials, thus saving to the Post Office Department the cost of twelve men to cancel, which was the number necessary to cancel the stamps on our pamphlets previous to 1887. The stamps are put on the wrappers by girls, who become very expert. The smartest girls will average about 25,000 stamped wrappers a day, although we have two in our employ who have put on 27,500 each, working nine hours. After the wrappers are stamped, they are tied in bundles of 250 each, and looked over by an expert to see that each wrapper is stamped. . . .”
“The wrappers are then ready for the mailers. The mailing is done by girls, who sit at their work with pamphlets before them and an open mail sack at their left hand. They become very expert in wrapping the pamphlets. . . . The force employed in our mailing room consists of two hundred girls and five men. The largest number of pamphlets ever sent out by us in one day was 220,000, requiring 880 mail sacks to hold them. The average number mailed during our busy season is 100,000 each day. This makes about a carload and requires $1000 worth of one cent stamps to send them out.”
While the text above offers an excellent example of the magnitude of the problem experienced by many large mailers of the day (and their postmasters), in one significant way it could be misleading.
Many business concerns did not present such huge quantities of mail in what were in effect single mailings that the postmaster came to them. In fact, a moderately large business mailer might deliver only five, ten, or twenty-five thousand pieces of mail. However, where the post office at which the mail was originated was a small office, such an event could easily swamp the post office staff.
Consider the steps necessary to process and cancel mail in the post office. Mail would arrive in sacks, be dumped onto what were known as “facing” tables – at which the mail matter would all be arranged facing the same way with the stamp in the same corner. When this step was completed, the mail would go to the canceling machines (or be hand canceled if the post office wasn’t large enough to have a machine), and from there to sorting tables where it would be manually sorted for sacking and further routing. Where a mailer could use precanceled stamps, two steps – facing and canceling would be avoided. Further, sacking could also be accomplished by the mailer. While the burden in this case might not be greatly eased upon the mailer, it would ease the burden on the post office and speed the mail along toward delivery.
That many post offices were in desperate need of whatever efficiencies they could muster is exemplified by the Chicago post office at the turn of the century. It is easy to forget, but Chicago’s place in the economy of the United States 100 years ago was enormous. With Saint Louis a distant second, Chicago was an essential hub of commerce and communications between cities on the east coast and virtually everything west of the Mississippi. As such, it was a huge mail center. We find this note in a publication of the day: “More mail was handled on Tuesday, March 12th [1901], at the post office here than at any time previous in the history of the office. It amounted to 154 ton. Of the local mail ten ton were letters, seventy-six ton were second class, and 68 ton were third and fourth classes. The opening of the Spring trade was the cause for this, as was noted by the large number of circulars and catalogues sent out by business houses.” (Weekly Philatelic ERA, March 23, 1901) Discounting the second class mail altogether, if the first, third and fourth class matter averaged one-half ounce, the Chicago post office was called upon to handle about five million pieces of mail that day.
A second way that the account relating to H. H. Warner in Rochester may mislead is that it would leave the reader with the impression that precancelation of stamps early in the history of their use involved a cooperative partnership between local postmasters – the “line organization” of the post office – and “staff level” higher-ups in Washington. There is a good deal of evidence that in fact this was not generally true. Indeed, early on, officials of the Post Office Department seem to have done what they could to suppress the practice of using precanceled stamps. As late as August of 1901, several years after (we believe) the Post office Department had begun to “unofficially” regulate precancel usage, we find this note from a Syracuse, New York newspaper:
“The cancellation in sheets of postage stamps for use on third and fourth class mail matter, thereby saving much labor for the post office clerks and sometimes a few hours delay in handling, as permitted by the Post Office Department under certain restrictions, was recently called to the attention of several prominent local manufacturers and merchants who have requested of Postmaster Dwight H. Bruce the privilege of having their stamps canceled before placing on such mail matter.
Postmaster Bruce has written the department and has received from Third Assistant Postmaster General Edwin C. Madden an explanation of the system. Precancelation is not favored by the department, nor is it permitted except in rare cases, where the quantity of third or fourth class matter mailed by a particular firm or individual each day for a period of consecutive days is too large to be promptly handled in the ordinary way.
Mr. Madden wrote General Bruce that if he would furnish a statement of the names of firms in this city mailing large quantities of such matter and the number of pieces mailed by these individual firms each day, the matter of granting permission to cancel in sheets the stamps sold them would be given due consideration. If the manufacturers can be accommodated under the regulations of the department the Syracuse post office will perform its part in the arrangement.” (Mekeel’s Weekly Stamp News, August 1, 1901)
An obvious question is why Post Office Officials would have been opposed to the practice of precancelation. The answer probably lies in a difference of priorities between the line and staff function personnel in the Post Office Department. Line organization members – postal employees out in the field – had to deal with the burdens of performing the service of delivering the mail; for which they were held to some degree accountable by their customers, most prominent of whom would have been their large business mailers. On the other hand, staff organization members – bureaucrats in Washington – had an entirely different focus. Their accountability was to the Congressional Committee to which they reported.
Across a span of time which now amounts to almost 100 years, it is somewhat difficult to understand why staff officials did not readily embrace precancelation, but explanation is probably found along two lines of reasoning. The first was virtually axiomatic in large, bureaucratic organizations – of which the Post Office was certainly a prime example at the turn of the century. It was that change from established procedures was de stabilizing and something to be avoided. One must remember that the Post Office Department was then, as it is now, a huge organization employing a largely unskilled manual work force spread out across every town and city and state of the union. The only way to run such an organization, it was thought, was “by the book”. And the book, when it was written, didn’t contemplate precancels.
Second, people at staff levels in Washington had to worry about “protecting the postal revenues,” which was probably as much a political issue as a fiscal one. Stamps were intended to prepay mail, and from the beginning they were canceled to prevent them from being re-used. No one would put a canceled stamp on an envelope to prepay a letter charge because one of the immutable laws of nature was that the post office wouldn’t accept a letter franked with a “used” stamp. Suddenly changing that – making it acceptable under certain circumstances for mail to pass through the system without being canceled at the post office of origin, – seemed to upset a balance which had from the beginning been built into the system. One presumes that officialdom feared that devious and criminal elements might figure out a way for the Department to be deprived of its revenues by re-using precanceled stamps. And a “used” precancel stamp doesn’t look any different on an envelope than an “unused” one. So Washington did what it did best: it dragged its feet.
Nevertheless, as noted in the Syracuse report, the force of reality out in the field made it necessary for the Department to ultimately give in and commence regulation of the practice.
The question which has been on the minds of precancel collectors for almost 100 years is, simply, when did the department commence this regulation? The answer is that no one knows for sure; and, in the absence of some startling revelation, it may be that we will never know for sure. One of the reasons is that inasmuch as the Department didn’t “favor” precancelation, it did not widely publish regulations. Official Post Office Department publications – the Postal Laws and Regulations, the Postal Guides and Daily Bulletins – to which historians would normally refer – are altogether silent on the subject of precancelation until the year 1911.
Please note that the argument is not being made that there were no regulations. Indeed, the allusion in the Syracuse article to the Post Office Department allowing precancelation “under certain restrictions” and Postmaster Madden’s reply to the postmaster’s request to use them makes it clear that the Department had formulated some policy. However, precancelation seems to have been regulated sub-rosa, as it were. As the article further suggests, early authorizations were handled by correspondence. This further explains the difficulty which historians face in tracing early regulatory effort. All of the files and correspondence of the Third Assistant Postmaster General had been destroyed before anyone thought to look into the matter. As a result, it is necessary to look elsewhere for answers.
In some measure, answers may well be found by researching original documents bearing precanceled stamps; and by careful study of information offered in the philatelic literature which was contemporary to early precancel usage. In truth, much of the work necessary to establish a clear understanding of precancel history remains undone. What follows is therefore more an outline of the problem than an account of its solution.
The earliest published regulations relating to the precancelation of stamps, which have gone un-noticed for years, appeared not in a Post Office Department publication; but rather in Mekeel’s Weekly Stamp News in its January 10, 1903 edition. The full text read as follows:
Through the courtesy of Ernest R. Ackerman, New York, we are enabled to submit a list of the provisions of the use of precanceled stamps. We believe that heretofore this order governing use of precancel stamps has not been published. The Departmental order reads:
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT,
Office of the Third Assistant Postmaster-
General, Washington, D. C.
Conditions governing the use of Precanceled Postage Stamps:
1. Application for the privilege of using precanceled stamps, upon third and fourth class matter, must be addressed to the postmaster at the office of mailing, by the patron desiring the same, accompanied by a statement showing the approximate number of pieces to be mailed and the average number to be mailed daily. Such application should be forwarded by the postmaster, with appropriate recommendation, to this office for proper action.
2. Precanceled stamps may be used for the payment of postage on third and fourth class matter only.
3. The postmaster must know definitely upon what character of mail matter the precanceled stamps are to be used, and should not accept other matter having such stamps affixed.
4. The name of the post-office and State, and, if mailed at a station, the proper designation of such station, as well as two parallel heavy black lines, one above and one below the name of the office must appear across the face of each stamp.
5. Regulation canceling ink, furnished by the Department, must be used in the cancelation of stamps in sheets. The use of any other ink to precancel stamps is absolutely prohibited.
6. Postmasters must refuse to accept matter, bearing precanceled stamps, offered for mailing by any person or persons other than those to whom this special privilege has been granted.
7. The privilege of using precanceled stamps will be extended only to patrons mailing at least 50,000 pieces of third or fourth class matter during a month, each day’s mailings to approximate 5,000 pieces.
8. Precanceled stamps bearing the name of one post-office will not be valid for postage at any office other than the one named on the face of the stamp.
9. Stamps may be precanceled only at the office of purchase.
10. Postmasters will be held responsible for abuses that arise at the respective offices in connection with the use of precanceled stamps, and for any loss of revenue resulting from failure to exact full prepayment of postage, by stamps securely affixed, on all matter mailed by firms or individuals to whom this privilege of using precanceled stamps is given.
EDWIN C. MADDEN,
Third Assistant Postmaster-General
There are several things to be said about this document. Foremost, the regulations are not dated. Whether this was simply an oversight by the publisher, or whether the PM’s order carried no date is obviously unknown to us. In any event, its omission is of no small importance in terms of historical reconstruction. We shall return to this in a moment.
No less striking (to the writer) is the fairly high-handed tone of language in which the regulations were drafted. There is certainly nothing of enlightened twentieth century marketing management in the repeated use of the word “privilege” and imperative verbs such as “will be”, “must”, etc.. It is worth pointing out that the net effect of precancelation was to lift a part of the burden from the post office system. It is easy enough to see that there must have been a strongly different point of view between people in the field (the people who did the work of mail processing); and those who wrote policy.
In the balance of this article, it will be our intent to address questions which arise about the practice of precancelation up to the time when the regulations which are offered above were published; that is, prior to 1903. However, it seems appropriate to look beyond 1903 and point out that, of course, precancelation would become more and more accepted by postal authorities in succeeding years up to the present time. The “force” was with precancelation because it made sense vis-à-vis the essential service to which the Post Office Department was dedicated: the efficient delivery of mail. In fact, shortly after the regulations which we quote from Mekeel’s were published, a new set were published under date of May 26, 1903. The new regulations are to be found in the introduction to the first general precancel catalog which has survived, published by Messrs. Smith and Duck in January, 1904. The new regulations read as follows:
CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF PRECANCELED POSTAGE STAMPS
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT,
Office of the THIRD ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL,
WASHINGTON, D. C., May 26, 1903
Under the following conditions the privilege of using precanceled postage stamps will be extended to patrons who will mail
(1.) At least 25,000 identical pieces of transient second-class, or third or fourth-class mail matter during a month, at the rate of at least 1,000 pieces each day of mailing; or —
(2.) In a single day at least 5000 identical pieces of such matter on which stamps would ordinarily have to be canceled by hand.
1. The patron desiring the privilege must make an application addressed to the Postmaster at the office of mailing, showing:
(1.) The class or character of the matter to be mailed; a sample to be submitted to the Postmaster, if practicable.
(2.) The number of pieces to be mailed.
(3.) The period during which the mailings will take place.
(4.) The average number of pieces to be mailed each day.
The Postmaster should forward the application, with an appropriate recommendation, to the Third Assistant Postmaster General. He should state whether the matter is such that stamps thereon could be canceled by the canceling machine (if his office is supplied with one), or would require canceling by hand.
2. The name of the post office and State (together with the name of the station, if mailed at a station), and two parallel heavy black lines, one above and one below the name, must be printed in the cancellation of the stamps.
3. Stamps may be precanceled only at the office of purchase, under the supervision of the Postmaster or a sworn employee of the post office.
4. Regulation canceling ink, furnished by the department, must be used in the cancellation of the stamps.
5. Postmasters should require the mail matter on which precanceled stamps are used to be presented for mailing in such manner as to permit of easy inspection, and must, before dispatch, inspect the same to ascertain that —
(1.) The stamps are used on the matter for which the privilege has been granted.
(2.) The matter is offered for mailing by the patrons to whom the privilege has been granted.
(3.) The matter is presented for mailing at the post office named on the stamps.
(4.) Each piece of matter is properly prepaid at the rate of postage prescribed by law for the matter enclosed.
(5.) The pieces of matter are identical.
(6.) The stamps are securely affixed and properly precanceled.
6. Authority of the Department for use of precanceled postage stamps does not carry with it any allowance by the Third Assistant Postmaster General, nor necessitate an allowance by the First Assistant Postmaster General, for the expense of precancelation. It is expected that this allowance will be met by the present resources of the post office, or that patrons to whom the privilege is extended, in consideration of the convenience and advantages afforded them thereby, will arrange for the precancelation.
7. Precanceled postage stamps may not be used without special authority in each case having been obtained from the Department.
IMPORTANT NOTE.
Attention is especially directed to the following provision of law: “All postage . . . at post offices shall be accounted for as part of the postal revenues; and each Postmaster shall be charged with and held accountable for any part of the same, accruing at his office, which he has neglected to collect, the same as if he had collected it.” R. S. Sec 4051; Sec. 373, P. L. & R.)
Postmasters will be held responsible for abuses that arise at their respective offices in connection with the use of precanceled stamps, and for any loss of revenue resulting from failure to exact full payment of postage at the rate prescribed by law, by stamps securely affixed and properly precanceled. Great caution should, therefore, be observed in recommending the granting of the privilege.
Any irregularity in connection with the use of precanceled postage stamps coming to the attention of any Postmaster, whether occurring at his office or at any other post office, must be promptly reported to the Third Assistant Postmaster General.
Postmasters must keep a record of the name of the patron, the number of pieces and class of matter mailed, and the period during which the mailings take place, so as to be able to furnish that information promptly upon call from the Department.
This circular supersedes all previous instructions and conditions concerning the use of precanceled postage stamps.
Edward C. Madden
Third Assistant Postmaster General
A good deal might be written comparing the two sets of regulations; and speculating on what might lie behind some of the wording. However, we are content to point out that in the later regulations, the number of pieces per month to be mailed by a “patron” in order to receive authorization was reduced to 25,000 from 50,000; and the number of pieces per day to not less than 1,000 (from 5,000). The fact that the regulations also stipulated that authorization might be granted in those cases where 5,000 identical pieces were to be mailed in a single day which would “ordinarily have to be canceled by hand” was probably intended to address two issues. First, it would allow small post offices, ones without canceling machines, to realize the benefit of precancelation. (One wonders which would be easier: canceling 25,000 pieces by machine – or 5,000 pieces by hand.) Second, the provision would have allowed more effective use of precancels on fourth class mail which frequently consisted of samples and small packets of merchandise which could not be processed by canceling machines in any event.
As a final word on published regulations, on April 1, 1909, new rules were promulgated to reduce the number of identical pieces in a mailing to 2,000. The requirement for a monthly or daily minimum mailing was dropped altogether. These significantly less restrictive regulations were no doubt promulgated to encourage efficiency and save labor. Washington had gotten the message. In effect, line organization realities had overcome staff inertia.
Having firmly “anchored” the implementation of precancel regulations to not later than January 10, 1903 (the date on which the first set of regulations recited above were published by Mekeel’s), we now turn to an examination of precancel practices previous to that date; and, somewhat hypothetically, to exploration of the question of just when official sanction of the practice may have commenced. Having studied written precancel history to its earliest limits, we will try to extend our understanding through an examination of postal artifacts: precanceled stamps themselves.
As has been previously pointed out, the idea of precanceling stamps is probably very nearly as old as is the idea of prepaying postage by use of stamps. No one really knows who thought to precancel the first stamp, and it probably isn’t all that important. However, sometime between the late 1870’s and the mid- 1880’s, the practice began to gain in popularity with a few scattered postmasters. We base this assertion on the existence of a significant number of reasonably well identified (by city of origin) printed precancels which are found on 1870’s and 1880’s issues; some of which were carried right up (and into) the twentieth century.
Into the late years of the nineteenth century, most precancelation was accomplished by simply applying inked lines or some other geometric pattern upon stamps while they were still in multiple pieces – generally sheets. The act of precancelation was variously accomplished by drawing an inked brush across rows of stamps; by use of a pen and ruler; by using a hand stamp (sometimes even a post-canceler); or – where large numbers of stamps were needed – by means of a printing press. Very often, single stamps precanceled in this manner are completely indistinguishable from stamps which were canceled on cover. Others, where there is a distinctive pattern or marking, are easily identifiable as having been precanceled; and can often be placed as to place of origin. Precanceled stamps which fall within this “class” of postal artifacts are known to collectors as “bars and lines”. A grouping of them, each reasonably identifiable as to place of origin, is shown in Figure 2.
A point worthy of note is that only a few stamps prior to issues of the late 1880’s demonstrate precancelation in a form other than lines and geometric patterns. Further, there are almost no examples which were demonstrably precancels where the city or state of origin is a part of the design. One presumes that bars and lines may have been adopted because they were easy to apply manually as well as by printing press (using what are known as “printer’s rules”); and perhaps because the result appeared very much like a post cancel. We don’t know. What we do know is that local post masters had developed a labor saving innovation which suited their purpose; and began to employ it. The postal artifacts which are representative of this activity are random in the aggregate, even if ordered in the purpose which they served.
However, commencing in 1898 or 1899, there began to be a gradual transition in the appearance of precanceled stamps from the random pattern of bars and lines seen on early issues to more standardized patterns in which the city and state of origin were spelled out. Sometimes, bars or lines were included. Other times, they were not. More important, during this period, there is to be seen a gradual exercise of central authority and control over the process of precancelation.
Stamps offered in Figure 3 serve as examples of the markedly different patterns used in several cities before patterns which conformed to the regulations offered above were adopted. The first row of stamps were precanceled for use in Rochester, and most probably were used by the Warner Company. Rochester is known to have used two separate “bar type” patterns which were then replaced by a conforming design showing city and state name with lines above and below. The second row of stamps in the illustration shows similar transitional series for Saint Paul and Ravenna, Ohio, respectively.
Please note that the change-over from bar and line type precancels to conforming patterns was not always smooth; and that the transition did not by any means happen overnight. Some cities, whether or not they had used bars and lines before (which may reflect our knowledge rather than fact), adopted patterns which showed city name only with or without bars or lines; and others used patterns with city and state names shown – but without lines. A few also employed fanciful precancels. One explanation for non-conforming patterns, incidentally, is that virtually all precancel devices used through the 1903 issue were produced by or at the direction of local postmasters; so design criteria stipulated by the regulations were, in effect, interpreted as the local postmaster saw fit. It must also be remembered that printing and plate-making resources available to postmasters varied widely; and that plates and other precanceling devices, once made, were generally used until they wore out.
In point of fact, however, the trend was very strongly toward the adoption of conforming patterns. Subsequent to 1903, “universal electroplates” began to be supplied from Washington; thus speeding compliance.
But let’s return to the question of just when regulations began to come into force. Recall, please, that the article quoted above from a Syracuse, New York newspaper in August, 1901, referred to Post Office Department regulations. So we know that Washington’s “invisible hand” was working at least that early. Indeed, regulations (those offered or others) may have been issued on a “need to know” basis as early as the Fall of 1898 if we are willing to accept that the idea of including a city and state name on the face of a stamp between lines or bars might reasonably mark the first exercise of central authority. The reason is that it has been reported – but not absolutely established – that in September or October of that year, a Boston publication, Youth’s Companion, was mailed employing precanceled stamps similar to the one shown in Figure 4. The stamp appears to meet the criteria established by the regulations – and goes somewhat further by adding a few additional lines. So a Boston usage may have been the first case of the use of officially regulated precancels. More research with regard to this usage is called for.
In any event, on May 26, 1900, The Metropolitan Philatelist offered the first listing of precanceled stamps which we have seen, illustrating nine different types. We reprint the article, offering a photograph (Figure 5) of stamps which demonstrate the precancels illustrated in the article:
Pre-Cancelled Stamps
Labor saving devices connected with the post office are always of interest to our readers, and where the scheme shows on the stamps the interest is of additional value to stamp collectors. About fifteen months ago a large eastern firm notified the post office that they proposed mailing several million circulars which would, of course, strain the service of the largest office in the country. To lighten the labor, it was suggested that the stamps be supplied in sheets already cancelled, and as all important firms keep their list of correspondents by towns and States, it would then be able to deliver the mail in sacks ready for delivery to the proper trains without any additional work to the P. O. The advantages of the plan was [sic] at once apparent, and has been copied at various offices from time to time. The following examples have come under our notice:
- Attica, Ind., 1¢ horizontal
- Boston, Mass., 1¢, 2¢ horizontal
- Burlington, Vt., 1¢ vertical
- Danbury, Conn., 1¢ horizontal
- Lynn, Mass., 1¢ horizontal
- Milwaukee, Wis., 1¢ vertical
- Minneapolis, 1¢, 4¢ diagonal
- Moline, Ind., [SIC] 1¢ horizontal
- Racine, Wis., 3¢, 5¢ vertical
We annex representations of the style of type used with the rules, where any, which is [SIC] used as an additional cancellation.
As will be seen, seven of the nine examples include the city and state of origin along with bars or lines. An eighth, originating at Minneapolis, omits the state name. Explanation for this non-conforming pattern may be that the printer was unable to accommodate both the long city and state names with type available to him; that the precancel was originated outside of the regulations – or simply that the postmaster ignored the requirement for the state name. The ninth stamp illustrated, from Milwaukee, simply doesn’t meet the test. This Milwaukee design, incidentally, is the first precancel which we find specifically mentioned in the literature. It was discussed in notes which were published in Mekeel’s Weekly Stamp News of January 12, 1889. The pattern may be an anomaly; or may suggest that initially, city and state name without lines or bars may have been called for in the regulations. In any event, we would conclude that inasmuch as seven or eight of the nine precancel examples were in general compliance with the regulations published three years later, it is more than likely that the same or similar regulations must have been in force as of the date of publication of the list (May, 1900).
Interestingly, there are a class of precancels which are rather unique in that they generally complied with the regulations which have been discussed thus far, but which added a new dimension to the information which was conveyed on the face of the stamp. More specifically, they were dated as to month and year of use. Known broadly as the “classic dated” precancels, they may well be the most beautiful and fascinating of all early precanceled stamps.
Classic dated precancels issued from sixteen cities have survived. In addition, four stations – one located in New York City and three in Boston – issued dated types, thus accounting for a total of twenty issuing offices. For ease of reference, the reader will find graphic representation of the months in which dated types were issued from the various post offices concerned in Figure 6. The cities (stations) have been vertically listed in the left column of the chart in the order of earliest-to-latest introduction by month and year. As will be seen, the preponderance of cities issuing dateds used them during the Christmas and Spring seasons of 1901 and 1902. Representative examples of a number of the cities listed are offered in Figure 7.
Presumably, the earliest issuance of a dated type was on January 2, 1901 at Lindsborg, Kansas. This particular example is truly a mystery. Lindsborg was never known to issue a precancel before that date; and did not afterward. As such, it may well be of philatelic origin.
The last of the dated precancels, save those which were issued in Binghamton, New York (which continued to date their precancels through October, 1915 – clearly long after dating ceased being required) were used in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Springfield, Ohio in November of 1902. So, at the outside, whatever regulations these precancels complied with would have been in effect from January, 1901 through November, 1902: a period of 23 months.
Here are a few broad observations about the dateds. First, ten of the listed cities (or stations) had not issued precancels before they issued dateds. Seven of the city post offices and two stations (Roxbury and Saint Elmo) shown in the bar graph as having used dated precancels had issued conforming but undated precancels before they issued dateds. This is known because in January, 1902, at which time all of the cities which we have just singled out were still using dateds, The New York Philatelist published a listing of precancels then known to exist. Since undated conforming patterns for each of the cities are on the list, it would appear that the regulations had been changed.
Please note the use of the word “appear” in the last sentence. The same list in The New York Philatelist chronicled 57 known precancel types, many of them from cities which never dated their precancels. Since they were not dated – and most precancel covers do not otherwise provide date of usage information – we can’t know specifically when they were in use. They may have been used before the dating regulations were enacted; having fallen into disuse during the time that dating was required. Or they may have been used during the period that dating was required of the other cities- either with or without the knowledge of the Department. We don’t know.
To add to the confusion, we don’t know with any certainty why the “dating” regulations may have prescribed in the first place. Conventional wisdom would have it that dating precancels was intended to solve one of the great fears of the staff at the Post Office Department: that precancels might be reused, thus depriving it of postal revenues. This hypothesis certainly makes sense. The regulation would have been true to form in the sense that this was something which Washington worried greatly about. It is also true to form in the sense that it would have been completely insensitive to the realities faced by people in the line organization; and to users as well. What were they to do with precancels dated in July; but needed for use in August? In short, the idea must have been a royal pain . . . .
It is possible, incidentally, that dating may have been driven by an altogether different concern. We have always been fascinated with the “minimum number of pieces” clause in the early regulations. Recall that the first set of regulations reproduced above required that a business firm applying to use precancels had to meet a test of mailing a minimum of 50,000 pieces per month. In requiring that precancels be dated, the Department may have provided a mechanism by which a “check” on the minimum could be implemented; and, indirectly, a means to discourage businesses from making application to use precancels in the first place. This would have been consistent with the Department’s expression that it did not “favor” precancelation in the first place.
In conclusion, while we are left to speculate about why dating of precancels was required, we do know that the practice passed rather quickly from the scene. Whatever purpose may have been intended to serve, it would have been an “unnatural” one as far as line post office officials and users were concerned. In early January, 1903, the publication date of the first set of regulations offered above (and a month after the last dated precancel would have presumably been used) there was no provision for dating.
Referring back to the bar graph illustration again, it will be noted that Lindsborg’s January, 1901 usage notwithstanding, the earliest usage shown is that of Chicago. For a city of its size and importance, Chicago in fact lagged many other cities in adopting precancel usage. This, in spite of the fact that we have argued rather forcefully that need for efficiency drove line officials to adopt precancelation; and that Chicago was clearly one of the most “overwhelmed” of post offices in terms of ever increasing mail volumes.
However, in one regard, Chicago’s late adoption is of some benefit in the sense that the philatelic press of the day had become “tuned” to the issue and, accordingly, chronicled the event:
Chicago prides herself upon the expedition of her business methods, and is constantly devising new means to hurry things. The latest effort in this direction has been crystallized in a petition forwarded by the local postmaster to the authorities at Washington, in which he asks permission to sell one cent stamps already cancelled, so that the delay caused by the cancelling process at the post office may be avoided. The scheme contemplates the advance cancellation of the stamps in large quantities, for sale to firms which send out circulars daily. Postmaster Gordon has made a canvass of a number of downtown firms, and says they are almost unanimously in favor of the project. (Weekly Philatelic ERA, December 29, 1900)
The precancellation of stamps was put in effect at the Chicago post office Feb. 21st. This will facilitate the handling of mail matter from the large mail order houses. The first sheet of stamps was presented to Postmaster Gordon and the first order was for 410,000 stamps. Chicago did not want pre-cancelled stamps but was compelled to have them because of insufficient help at the P. O. (Weekly Philatelic ERA, March 2, 1901)
Mr. Doughty . . . states he has the 1¢, 2¢ and 15¢ with “Chicago – Illinois” in two lines, with black line above and below, and has seen the 3¢, 4¢ and 8¢. He also has the 1¢, 6¢, 10¢ and 15¢ with same cancellation with “3-1” for date between the lines “Chicago” and “Illinois.” (Weekly Philatelic ERA, March 30, 1901)
Some inquiry has been made as to the 50-cent pre-canceled stamps that were mentioned as having been used at this post office [Chicago]. Fifteen hundred stamps of 50-cent denomination were used by a mail order house here. During February and March over one million pounds of pre-canceled matter were sent from Chicago. The superintendent of mails says: “The use of pre-canceled stamps has been of great value to this division, and I trust that the system will be continued and augmented in future.” (Mekeel’s Weekly Stamp News, April 11, 1901.)
Indeed, the practice of precancelation was greatly augmented. The 1940 Hoover Brothers catalog, the last general catalog (offering all known precancel types and the issues and denominations on which they were to be found) listed ________ different precancel types on issues through the 1903 Washington “shield stamp.”
List of Illustrations:
1. Graph of Mail Volumes
2. Grouping of Bars & Lines Examples
3. Transitional Showing of Bars/Lines to Conforming Patterns
4. Fanciful Precancels
5. Boston Type 1
6. Metropolitan Philatelist List Collection
7. Bar Graph
8. Dateds