posted 07-23-2009 07:19 PM               

Situation: You purchase a cover that is postmarked in 1960 or 1961 with a nice cancel but no cachet for the event (manned, unmanned launch, X-15 etc.). Do you create a cachet and print it on the cover with your printer or do you not add a cachet at all because adding one now is not from that time period.

posted 07-23-2009 09:37 PM               

In the debate that started this I am "for" adding as I think having the cachet adds to the cover by describing the event.

But, obviously there those who thought it "ruined" the cover by having a modern add-on.

So I thought I'd toss it out and see what everyone else thinks!

posted 07-24-2009 06:12 AM               

Given the choice between one of these with the add-on cachet and one without, I would probably have taken the one without. But these early captive flight covers are so scarce, I had to jump at this one because I may never have the chance to get another.

Why would I have picked the non-cacheted version? I think that a too-modern add-on cachet can distract from the cover. If someone wanted to add a cachet, in my eyes, it should be similar to the cachets of the era. Plus this particular add-on cachet, done by computer printer, is already starting to degrade (you can see some patches of degradation on it in the scan). A good solid printed cachet or rubber stamp (both simiilar to cachets available at the time) wouldn't degrade like that.

posted 07-24-2009 11:04 AM               

I can see both sides of the story. I too like Dennis' cover.

Adding what I did to mine (I'll scan it tonight if anyone's interested) I believe, detracted. The contrast between modern printing as Dennis says, and the old rubber stamp is quite obvious.

Plus another problem comes to light. It misaligned in the printer so it printed higher than I wanted it to, and part of it over a signature. You always run the risk of a signed cover of ruining it. Not usually a problem if you have a spare and the guys still alive, but...

I did take one of the blank covers with the B-29 and YB-49 stamps, and added cachets to them that Bob Cardenas had previously signed, and they came out nicely.

But an older cover? I'm not so sure now.

posted 07-24-2009 10:10 PM               

That's a great example Tom. I've used those Project Mercury stamped covers w/o cachets to make up some for Glenn's flight, and for the Mercury 13 gals to boot.

I think the difference is (in my opinion and point) is there's not an older cachet already on them or the potential to ruin the signature (if there).

posted 09-23-2014 09:24 PM               

My question is, then, what others think of adding original, quality artwork to the cover. (I apologize, but I don't know if original artwork is also termed a "cachet" or not.) I know some very talented artists that would, I'm certain, do an outstanding job in adding some artwork to these covers, but I don't want to ruin them, of course. I didn't pay a tremendous amount for either one, so I'm not terribly concerned about the monetary value of them. I'm just thinking of their visual appeal should I choose to display them. They are very plain at the moment.

As a second part to this, if you are in the camp that it is okay to add original, quality artwork, is pencil acceptable, or would ink or paint be preferable?

posted 11-01-2014 02:41 PM               

Don't put stamps in a cover exhibit, I've been chastised from several quarters. The only way that I could show the value of an LLRV cover in its role of "How We Got Men to the Moon," which is the title of my 8 frame exhibit, was to add a line drawing cachet showing the vehicle and the text, "Lunar Landing Research Vehicle."

Adding a cachet to help understand it better, and/or adding one of the gorgeous hand drawn cachets appearing earlier in this link is something that I think makes a much better cover. We do a lot of things in this hobby based on what each of us as individuals like and that helps keep our hobby alive and fun.