Bisect consideration?

Discussion in 'United States Stamps' started by RICHARD Babcock, Apr 26, 2020.

  1. RICHARD Babcock

    RICHARD Babcock Active Member

    With the full value of the other stamp part. Would this be considered a Bisect and an over payment? Im not sure off the USPS postal laws of 1884. But I thought the amount must be mostly seen to enable the stamp to consider to be used as a bisect, Or part payment. The other part of the torn stamp would have no postal value. On this cover it would be considered as a 4 cent payment. bisext 2.jpg
  2. DonSellos

    DonSellos Moderator Moderator

    I would not consider it so.

    Werner Salentin likes this.
  3. RICHARD Babcock

    RICHARD Babcock Active Member

    Don maybe you caught me on this but you never know. I have went out of my way to do modern bisects and told U.S. experts about my plan they said it would never work today. At there surprise to have it show up at there house as fully paid made them mad woops lol
  4. DonSellos

    DonSellos Moderator Moderator

    Hi Richard:

    Maybe you're right. If so, I've got a "bisect" in my airmail borders collection posted in Spencer, Wyoming, on May 19, 1938. This cover was short paid by 1 cent, but went right through. On the other hand, non-believers like me call it a cover franked with a damaged stamp. ;) lol

Draft saved Draft deleted
Similar Threads: Bisect consideration
Forum Title Date
United States Stamps Need images of 1st-3rd issue revenue bisects Apr 1, 2012

Share This Page