Talk:Inverted Jenny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Philately WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of philately and stamp collecting. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or check out the Philately Portal.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Invalid assertion? 2 Moved this from the article: 3 "Jenny Stamp" 4 How many were found? 5 "Speculation" about 2006 usage 6 Jenny Giveaway

[edit] Invalid assertion?

The claim that Bill Gross is the only person with a complete 19th century stamp set is directly contradicted by the Wikipedia article on Bill Gross, which claims that 2 people have said set.

Only two copies of the Z Grill are known to be in existance, one with the National Postal Museum and the second is with Gross. If that is the case this contradicts the Gross articles claim that he is the second person, since the first person doesn't have a Z Grill in his possession. If he has then there should three Z Grills in existance and not two--PremKudva^Talk 06:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved this from the article:

By law, no one is actually allowed to have inverted stamps; the US government does not enforce this law too often, if at all anymore. [Can anyone confirm this assertion? I know of no U.S. law that prohibits ownership of inverts. Philatelic errors that get into private hands illegally are contraband, but those sold over a postal counter, as the Inverted Jenny was, are legal.]

• I believe the assertion is incorrect. The Bill Pickett stamps that depicted Bill Pickett's brother Ben were recalled by the U.S. Postal Service, but nobody was prohibited from keeping any of the incorrect stamps they had legitimately purchased. (The Postal Service later decided to sell some of the sheets containing the erroneous Ben Pickett stamp anyway, to make up for the expense of the reprint and alleviate the scarcity of the error.) --Metropolitan90 19:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Jenny Stamp"

My Grandfather Charles Endorf owned a "Jenny" stamp prior to his death in about 1955. He lived in chicago. Family has been wondering for years what happened to this stamp. Did he sell it before his death? Trade it with friends?

Is there any way to know who has the remaining stamps, or when a given # was last publicaly traded? We have no idea what # his stamp was.

The book referenced in the article collects what was known at the time of its writing, but as dealers often act as brokers, keeping the transactions confidential (don't want to become a directory for burglars!), there are a number of Jennies whose whereabouts are presently unknown. Others reappear in the public briefly, for instance at an auction, after having been out of sight for decades, then "disappear" again if the buyer is anonymous. Stan 12:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many were found?

The beginning of this article says "only 100 were ever found", which I think is ambiguous. It sounds like one sheet of 100 stamps was printed but not destroyed, although the location of all 100 stamps is not presently known. 69.12.151.172 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There was 1 sheet of 100 which was purchased in tact, which means originally 100 stamps were found. Most of the 100 can be accounted for today. So I think this statement is accurate, that "Only 100 Were Ever Found", as the original sheet was purchased in tact, containing all 100.

[edit] "Speculation" about 2006 usage

OK, in the interests of avoiding endless reverting, let's figure out the right phrasing on the talk page. I would like to see *something* that expresses the extreme unlikelihood that the stamp is genuine - these days it is very easy to get a hiqh-quality color reproduction through the mail stream, but it's not impossible, because not every Jenny is accounted for. (Amick's book lists a number of positions that had not been seen in many years as of his writing.) WP's visibility means this story is going to get more long-term airplay than the single appearance in the news cycle, and we don't want to fuel any urban legends because we're too credulous about the report. For instance, we could mention the regular attempts to sell fakes on ebay. I expect Linn's to have an article on this in the next week or two - it will likely be a good source for authoritative opinions. Stan 18:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's bet! There is no US Inverted Jenny (genuie or not). The total story is; "a election worker wants to have seen an old stamp and it's impossibe to proof". It's an invented story. --Braunbaer 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the rancor? Why can't it be "attentive election worker notices interesting and possible valuable stamp and notes it for possible investigation later?" --ElKevbo 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, could be invented, could be true. Either way, it would fit right in with the other bizarre episodes in Amick's book. :-) Stan 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Giveaway

The story about StampWants.com giving away a C3a Inverted Jenny belongs on this page, because it is the single most expensive stamp ever given away, and is a major philatelic event, even more so than the plate block swap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabreCEO (talk • contribs) 14:40, December 26, 2006— SabreCEO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If it's truly notable then surely you can provide evidence of such notability other than a news release. Until then, I agree that it remains out as its commercial material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --ElKevbo 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The story was broadcast nationally on CBS Radio news. How would this be cited? Other newspapers, and all of the major stamp publications are also working on this story. Though their issues are not out yet, to any philatelist it should be clear that this belongs on the page.--68.45.127.15 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the "proper" way to cite a radio broadcast but as long as you provide enough information that someone could, in theory, check the original source then I think you've met the threshold for verifiability (and likely notability, too). For a radio show I'd imagine the title of the show, station on which it was broadcast, and date/time of the broadcast might be sufficient. --ElKevbo 00:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be sufficient for verifiability. I don't think it meets the bar for notability though, radio often reports "news of the bizarre" for things that are basically non-notable. I think it would be more interesting when the stamp is actually given away - wouldn't be unknown for the company to quietly welsh on the deal, particularly if they don't get very much publicity for it. Stan 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Stan, so when it happens, if it does, we will likely hear about it and then it can be included. ww2censor 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it was broadcast on CBS News Radio. I believe it aired several times through out the day (Sunday December 24, 2006), including at 3:00 pm EST. Should I now go ahead and add this back? Also, it is not at all possible to "quietly welsh on the deal", as that would be illegal, and StampWants.com would be faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. And it was part of the business news broadcast I believe, definitely not "news of the bizarre," so it seems like this should constitute notability.--SabreCEO 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

SabreCEO, are you associated with StampWants.com in any way? We also don't like people promoting themselves or their businesses, very hard to be objective in the way that WP requires. Why not let somebody else add this info? I'm sure Linn's will report on this too. Stan 06:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am, but the entry was not promoting StampWants.com, it was referencing the story. Linn's also just ran a story on this, page 32 of the Jan 15 Issue. I think the entry I had created earlier was concise and objective. Anyone can edit it and add it, but it does makes sense this belongs here, I don't see how it could not?--SabreCEO 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is this news item that you can cite StampWants.com to Give Away a Genuine C3a Inverted Jenny Stamp (Catalog Value $275,000) --PremKudva^Talk 10:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)