posted 07-15-2023 10:20 AM            

I see that they are all Port Canaveral cancels, and that in comparison to other Port Canaveral cancels in a similar timeframe they look very clean with thin lines. But is that it? Can there not have been two hand cancels in use, one more worn than another?

posted 07-15-2023 11:45 AM            

• Explorer III - March 23 PM 1958 (Sarzin offset)
  
• Vanguard II - February 17 PM 1959 (Sarzin offset)
  
• Ranger 4 - April 23 PM 1962 (Velvatone flocked)

And secondly, I also note that all of the supposed "suspect" cancels are PM as opposed to AM.

posted 07-15-2023 01:56 PM               

For example, the "plugged 9" only appear on Cape Canaveral Orbit covers and ultimately proven to be forged covers, Riser and his rare "covers" only on postal stationary only to certain addresses, etc. proven forged when tagged unused envelopes sold to Riser became rare postmarked space covers

The current discussion on this topic, as in the book, is that Sarzin had a suspect cancel and Sarzin was the supplier of blank postmarked covers to Velvatone. For early covers Sarzin didn't get any envelopes postmarked at Port Canaveral but had buyers for them so he "created" them, so all early Sarzin space covers are suspect as they only have the "clean" postmark.

For later Sarzin covers there are some that have a mix of real and suspect postmarks for the same event - thinking is when Sarzin ran out of the real ones, suspect ones were created - again only Sarzin had thin postmark cancels versus everyone else.

The fact that cover servicers Goldcraft, Space Craft, etc. and individual collectors only received the thick line/smeared Port Canaveral postmarks while Sarzin had nice clean thin-lined, etc. postmarks leads to thoughts of a suspect cancel being used.

This can also be the reason for cachets having information that was unknown at the time of the event to be on the cachet as the postmark and cachet were used together, potentially even years, after the actual event.

posted 07-16-2023 09:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by yeknom-ecaps:
...it becomes suspect.

---

posted 07-16-2023 01:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Axman:
...is this because collectors/buyers are mostly ignorant regarding the forgery, or is it because there is a difference of degree of proof required for astrophilatelic exhibition which doesn't apply to space cover collected material (i.e. astrophilatelists regard it as suspect, whereas collectors don't)?

---

If you were to survey space cover collectors and philatelic jurists the vast majority will not even be aware of the Riser and Orbit "plugged 9" proven forgeries which are MUCH more written/talked about than the Sarzin suspect covers.

If you are a collector and want an Explorer 1 cover in your collection what covers are out there to purchase? Sarzin! When multiple people want it the prices goes up!

posted 07-16-2023 03:00 PM            

So to recap, there are the Riser and Orbit Plugged-9 forgeries (both of which I knew something about) and suspected but not proven early cancels on Sarzin/Velvatone covers (which I knew absolutely zilch about).

posted 07-16-2023 04:22 PM               

• Forged NASA cachets and VIP cards

• Forged recovery ship covers (e.g. confirmed by ship personnel that no such corner card return address existed on the ship)

• Orbit covers (non-plugged 9) with tagged 5 cent flag stamp issued 1966 used on Gemini 1 and 2 covers - "postmarked" 2.5 years before date of issue of the stamp

• Recovery ship captain's covers

  1) When the U.S.S. Wasp was being decommissioned, the Navy men packing ship's post office material came across a quantity (number unknown) of the GTA-9 ship's covers. They applied stamps (whatever kind and/or denomination on hand) to the covers, and back-dated the covers. These covers were sold to a dealer in New England, who bought them in good faith. They were subsequently sold, and appeared on the philatelic market. Dealer claims that 185 covers exist.

  2) Similar to USS Noa — USS Wasp GT-12 — Captain's covers of the U.S.S. Wasp (CVS-18) with Mary Cassett commemorative, Scott# 1322, which was issued November 17, l966. GTA-12 Recovery occurred on November 15, 1966, two (2) days before the stamp was officially released for use. Early release to a Navy ship out at sea for a mission, makes it unlikely not to be backdated.

• THICK ring Cape Canaveral cancel on Orbit covers (not plugged 9) and appears only on Orbit Apollo 1-3 covers from 1966.

• The Cape Canaveral covers for Apollo fire dated January 27 - fire occurred after the post office closed for the day.

• Similar from European source — Cape Canaveral cancels "too good to be true" for only Apollo launches before fire plus fire day postmark that do not match any other Cape cancels from other sources

• Apollo 7 launch/splashdown KSC covers from single dealer that the KSC machine cancels don't match actual KSC post office machine cancel - likely a rubber stamp.

posted 07-17-2023 06:42 AM               

It was relayed to me during the 80's that more than one hand cancel device was authorized by an early Port/Cape postmaster, but I am not sure about Patrick. The story told, of what I am trying to recall in specific details, was that there was a second or different hand cancel device had been reserved inside the PM's office desk kept aside for some space cover cancel requests applied by the PM himself. Rather any were backdated or not by his office, I cannot say.

Perhaps, and I am in no way saying this is what happened, the PM of Port Canaveral back in the days of Explorer 1 (late 50's) did use another hand cancel impression on some of those classic space cover issues. It has been my belief or understanding that postal official(s) in charge of their stations may have had favorite space cover dealer(s) and collectors they favored more to work with, etc., and may have granted quicker cancel services and return of covers back to a favorite dealer than others.

posted 07-17-2023 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by micropooz:
What you need is a copy of Paul Bulver's "Study of Suspect Space Covers."

---

posted 07-17-2023 09:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Havekotte:
In another observation in comparing other hand cancel applications from that era (such as Port Canaveral), in all honestly, they do seem similar in some areas.

---

I always remember what Les Winick told me one time when discussing suspect items "the job of the forger IS to make the cancel or cover similar if not exact."

posted 07-17-2023 12:37 PM            

I have also started going through my collection with a fine tooth comb. I believe I've detected one 'fake' so far: Pioneer 5 The Sun Rocket. It looks legitimate in every way except the serifs on the 11 appear thinner than on other cancels of the same date. However I only noticed that after I discovered the stamp (US 4c Credo #1141) was issued 18May60, whereas the cancellation is 11Mar60.

posted 07-17-2023 12:56 PM               

If I recall, Bill Ronson of Orbit Covers, of which I knew and serviced many of his later covers during the mid/late 70's and all throughout the 80's (also for Riser as well), continuously redid requested Gemini and early Apollo covers of his.

But not only did he reprint some of this highlight Orbit cachet covers (mostly for Apollos 8 and 11) months and perhaps even a few years after those flights occurred, it's my belief that Ronson even produced a fake or unauthorized Cape Canaveral hand cancel device altogether that he kept in his own home. Regarding the cancel numbers, months, and years that he mostly re-used for the fake and illegal backdating devices, he may have even produced, along with the Cape round dater, a cancel kit of the more popular mission numbers, months, and years 1965-69.

For the record, though, I never did believe what the postal inspectors reported after their Plugged 9 investigation study of other specific Orbit covers in question. They more likely said that Ronson's Plugged 9 variety cancels were "backdated" USPS hand cancels, but no sir, it has always been my opinion all along that the Plugged 9 type covers were not "backdated," but rather applied by his own bogus unauthorized hand cancel device that was never USPS-authorized or used in a government post office at all.

In going back to the third paragraph of this posting of mine, when he got a Gemini and/or Apollo Orbit cover order, even after those programs had ended, he would simply produce and print the same previously-used Orbit covers by his printers. He may have even printed hundreds more covers in advance as extras for possible future orders in order to cut back printing expenses. Once he got the new covers in his hands, next, he would apply mint postage stamps that were of the same denomination at the time of the actual spaceflight, and finally, use an unauthorized or privately made full date stamp hand cancel.

In most cases I believed he re-made covers for those major launch dated Orbit covers needed with older postage stamps added to resemble an original Orbit cancelled cover from the Gemini series and for the more popular earlier Apollo launch days (and July 20th for Apollo 11). But once again, you all can be your own judge.

Also, perhaps it should be mentioned again, that most Florida Space Coast post offices do in fact have more than one hand cancel device for space cover uses today, and with some, there is even a long history of different and duplicate hand devices that had been used on space covers.

Back in the heyday of space cover collecting when the Space Age was born throughout the 1950's and 1960's, it's more than likely there had to be more than a single device in use at the Cape and Patrick. In comparisons with known used cancel varieties during those pioneering space years, how can we be 100% certain that some look-alike cancel applications were bogus and not perhaps legitimate? Even two hand cancel devices at the same facility, though similar in their production in some areas, may still contain some different characteristics or produced by another postal contract company.