A parcel post stamp usage question mark

U.S. Stamp Notes by John M. Hotchner

Rating early United States covers is a pastime of postal history specialists, and the goal is to be able to figure out exactly what the postage pays for on a cover. Sometimes it can be pinned down precisely. Other times, as with our example today, it can be a frustrating exercise that leads to no solution or educated guesses.

Our cover today is the registered letter shown above. It has 15¢ in postage including a 5¢ Mail Train and Mail Bag on Rack parcel post stamp (Scott Q5).

In November 1912, the U.S. Post Office Department began to distribute a new series of 12 stamps inscribed “U.S. Parcel Post,” and another set of five “U.S. Parcel Post Postage Due” stamps. They were to be used only on parcel post packages beginning Jan. 1, 1913. It was at first prohibited to use them on first-class mail, nor could regular stamps be used on parcel post mail.

By order of the postmaster general on June 26, 1913, the rules were changed so that effective July 1, 1913, regular postage stamps could be used on parcel post mail, and parcel post stamps were no longer restricted to use on parcel post packages.

It is not known when the first day of use for these stamps was although Jan. 1, 1913, was the first day of proper use. Parcel post packages were not supposed to have dated cancels. That said, there are known uses from December 1912.

So first-day cover collectors consider July 1, 1913, to be the first day for use of the parcel post stamps (Scott Q1-Q12) as regular postage.

There are, however, a few outliers. Our subject cover is just such a puzzle. It is a return receipt required (RRR) registered item that was sent with a 1911 10¢ Eagle registration stamp (Scott F1) and a 1913 5¢ Mail Train and Mail Bag on Rack parcel post stamp (Q5) on Jan. 29, 1913, from Boston, Mass., per the backstamp (not shown).

Normal postage would have been 12¢ (10¢ registry plus 2¢ or maybe 4¢ for double weight) for first-class mail. So, why the 5¢ parcel post stamp?

There are a couple of possibilities. Parcel post mail could weigh less than 4 ounces, in which case the rate was 1¢ per ounce or fraction of an ounce. This envelope thus could be an ounce overpaid.

If over 4 ounces, the rate was by the pound, and rated according to weight and parcel post zone. In this case, the distance from Boston, Mass. to Indianapolis, Ind. was just under 1,000 miles, or Zone 5. The rate for Zone 5 was 9¢ for the first pound plus 7¢ for each additional pound.

The bottom line is that the 5¢ parcel post stamp on this registered letter does not equate to any parcel post rate.

The cover was sent from a law office, and though we can’t know for certain, it would make sense that the envelope contained multipage legal documents, which might have put it over the 1-ounce limit of 2¢. I’d also note that there is nothing on the envelope to indicate that its content was fourth-class mail requiring parcel post stamps. It should also be noted that RRR service on registered mail had no fee associated with it in 1913.

So my conclusion, subject to readers having more knowledge than I do (always a possibility), is that the 5¢ parcel post stamp improperly overpays by a penny a double weight first-class registered letter.

Readers are welcome to tell me how I am wrong. Please contact me at jmhstamp@verizon.net or Box 1125, Falls Church, VA 22041-0125.

Connect with Linn’s Stamp News: 

    Sign up for our newsletter