Gehrig gpc

[yanks12025]

Can someone explain to why they would stamp it twice within 45 minutes?

[canjond]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Can someone explain to why they would stamp it twice within 45 minutes?

My guess would be the beginning and end of the processing.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by canjond

My guess would be the beginning and end of the processing.

Close.

One of the first steps is canceling. These days they have a machine called a facer/canceller that senses the flourescent ink on the stamp and turns all the mail the right way up then cancels. somewhere in excess of 10,000 pieces an hour.

Back then it was done by hand and sometimes something would get in the machine backwards. Usually they found them during the next step- sorting. Then they'd either cancel it by hand or put it back in the pile to be run through again.

Steve B

[canjond]

Ben - it's a sweet postcard for sure assuming it is authentic (and again, I'm in the authentic camp). However, I thought David was of the opinion it's no good, even postmark aside. I believe above he felt that there were unambiguous signs of the writing being forged?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by canjond

Ben - it's a sweet postcard for sure assuming it is authentic (and again, I'm in the authentic camp). However, I thought David was of the opinion it's no good, even postmark aside. I believe above he felt that there were unambiguous signs of the writing being forged?

Jon, when I first saw the pc, I thought it was good, but wanted to see the reverse. When I saw the "reverse," it "proved that the card had to be a forgery. There is one characteristic of the signature that appears quite rarely in a genuine signature, but it does appear occasionally. Since--based on the reverse--it "had" to be a forgery, I convinced myself that that one "anomaly" was enough.

It isn't enough. I believe the card is good.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Jon, when I first saw the pc, I thought it was good, but wanted to see the reverse. When I saw the "reverse," it "proved that the card had to be a forgery. There is one characteristic of the signature that appears quite rarely in a genuine signature, but it does appear occasionally. Since--based on the reverse--it "had" to be a forgery, I convinced myself that that one "anomaly" was enough.

It isn't enough. I believe the card is good.

like

[canjond]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Jon, when I first saw the pc, I thought it was good, but wanted to see the reverse. When I saw the "reverse," it "proved that the card had to be a forgery. There is one characteristic of the signature that appears quite rarely in a genuine signature, but it does appear occasionally. Since--based on the reverse--it "had" to be a forgery, I convinced myself that that one "anomaly" was enough.

It isn't enough. I believe the card is good.

Thanks for the clarification David.