Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Stamps & Covers
  Space Cover 599: USS Furse GT-4

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Space Cover 599: USS Furse GT-4
Antoni RIGO
Member

Posts: 216
From: Palma de Mallorca, Is. Baleares - SPAIN
Registered: Aug 2013

posted 02-28-2021 03:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Antoni RIGO   Click Here to Email Antoni RIGO     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Space Cover of the Week, Week 599 (February 28, 2021)

Space Cover 599: USS Furse GT-4.

Gemini-Titan 4 mission was a historic mission, not only for US citizens but for all mankind and especially for space lovers. In this second manned Gemini mission, astronaut Ed White “walked” in space on June 3, 1965. It was the first US astronauts performing an EVA just some months later than Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who became first human to walk in outer space on March 18, 1965 in the Voskhod-2 mission.

Gemini-Titan 4 returned to Earth on June 7, 1965 and astronauts James McDivitt and Ed White were recovered by USS Wasp in North Atlantic Ocean.

Prime Recovery Ship covers from USS Wasp are well known by astrophilatelists: Captain covers, Unnumbered Beck covers, Beck covers and RSC covers from USS Wasp can be widely found in philatelic market.

Furthermore, Secondary Recovery Ship covers of other assigned ships to GT-4 space mission also can be easily found, both from the ships of the Atlantic fleet and from the Pacific fleet.

For more than 55 years different space covers came to the market and were widely studied and catalogued.

Above cover is an unnumbered Beck printed cachet cover for USS Furse, secondary recovery ship from Atlantic fleet, postmarked on June 3, 1965, launch date for GT-4 mission.

As everybody knows Beck covers were created by dealer Morris Beck, who sent only 25 unnumbered covers to each Captain’s ship to use as he saw fit.

Just because of its reduced quantity the unnumbered Beck covers are specially sought after astrophilatelists. But, just because the low quantity? No, this cover is really different.

As a consideration, above a numbered Beck cover USS Furse postmarked on June 3, 1965. B542 is the correct number for USS Furse ship and there are 418 copies.

And then, why is different?.

We can pay attention to the postmark. Both are dated A.M./3/JUN/1965 but the ship name, even in same position, appears in different way. Meanwhile in unnumbered cover USS Furse is written USS without dots, in numbered covers, U.S.S. Furse is written with dots.

As the unnumbered USS Furse cover is the first I have ever seen, I cannot know if all unnumbered USS Furse covers were postmarked with same USS without dots.

In addition, USS Furse letters font look different.

Any additional unnumbered USS Furse for GT-4 mission maybe can help to know if this was just an error, or all unnumbered covers shows USS without dots, or maybe the USS Furse without dots is a counterfeit postmark.

NAAmodel#240
Member

Posts: 333
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 02-28-2021 08:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NAAmodel#240   Click Here to Email NAAmodel#240     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have no reason to suspect a forged postmark. As the story goes, the CREW (unnumbered) were presumably a thank you to the sailors on the ship that postmarked the 400-500 covers.

What I find more interesting is that the CREW envelope is an Atlantic cachet while the box that was canceled for collectors was Pacific. Can anyone else think of a CREW cover from the wrong ocean?

Ross
Member

Posts: 495
From: Australia
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 03-01-2021 07:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ross   Click Here to Email Ross     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Firstly to David, could you please explain what you mean by "the box"? The Atlantic designation is the correct one as the USS Furse was indeed stationed in the Atlantic.

To Antoni, great find. I've just checked my main stash of ship covers and all my USS Furse covers, both the Beck printed covers and the Beck designed Navy rubber stamp covers, are all U.S.S. Furse. I don't have a USS Furse crew cover.

One possibility is that the USS Furse Postal Officer did the crew covers at a different time to the rest and just picked up whatever postmarker was handy, not realizing (or probably caring) that it was a different one to the one he used for the rest of the covers.

Ross
Member

Posts: 495
From: Australia
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 03-01-2021 08:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ross   Click Here to Email Ross     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've just done a general search on eBay for USS Furse covers (not just Recovery Ship covers) and found the following.

Both U.S.S. Furse and USS Furse postmarked covers exist. The U.S.S. version appears to be the original and was replaced or added to by the USS version sometime in the mid 1960s with both being used for a time.

Which means the above cover is genuine and a real find.

yeknom-ecaps
Member

Posts: 711
From: Northville MI USA
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 03-01-2021 12:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for yeknom-ecaps   Click Here to Email yeknom-ecaps     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ross/David - I do NOT see any overlap in time for the two postmark types. I don't know the dates the postmarks actually changed but...

The covers I've seen postmarks for are:

  • U.S.S. (top) Furse (bottom) from 1946-1956
  • U.S.S. Furse (top) incl. GT4 from 1960-1965
  • USS Furse (top) from 1967-1972
Ross, do you have a link to a USS Furse postmark in 1965 or earlier?

Note also that Toni's cover looks to be missing the background color.

Don't know of any other "crew" covers to compare to.

Ross
Member

Posts: 495
From: Australia
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 03-03-2021 04:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ross   Click Here to Email Ross     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The earliest I can find for the USS version is December 1966. However I can't find any covers, or for that matter any history, for the USS Furse between GT-4 and December 1966. Therefore it is entire plausible that the new postmarker was first taken aboard during GT-4 with the U.S.S. version last used during GT-4 or soon there after. That seems the best explanation for the cover.

With regard to the colour we will need to hear back from David as the scan is inconclusive.

NAAmodel#240
Member

Posts: 333
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 03-03-2021 05:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NAAmodel#240   Click Here to Email NAAmodel#240     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My mistake. I think I saw the cover variation and my brain put the cover in the other ocean. As for my comment that there is no reason to believe it forged, I did consult David Kent's Naval Postmarks (5th Ed) to learn that apparently forged cancels from this ship do exist. Not suggesting I question the cancel. Just that I acknowledge the possibility. My bad.

As for my comment about a box of covers, it is my understanding that recovery ships postmarked in the neighborhood of 500 envelopes (a common amount found in a box).

yeknom-ecaps
Member

Posts: 711
From: Northville MI USA
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 03-04-2021 05:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for yeknom-ecaps   Click Here to Email yeknom-ecaps     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In addition to what David mentioned about USS Furse forged postmarks existing - the "Catalog of United States Naval Postmarks" by David Kent data also confirms that the USS Furse postmark as not in use in 1965 with its use starting in late 1966/early 1967 (Ross has confirmed a December 1966 cover with that postmark) and the U.S.S. Furse postmark was retired.

Assuming the USCS catalog is correct - the cover is backdated/forged as the postmark wasn't aboard the ship for the GT-4 recovery in 1965.

Ken Havekotte
Member

Posts: 3180
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 03-04-2021 05:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken Havekotte   Click Here to Email Ken Havekotte     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It might be easier to understand that such a Beck recovery ship cover could had been backdated, however, it would be hard to accept that such a cancel might even be considered forged.

Wouldn't that require an altogether unauthorized different rubber stamp cancel device? Also, how about the Beck cachet envelope itself and would it had been a left-over or unused Beck cachet for GT-4?

It would just seem like way too much trouble to falsely produce a ship postmark for a secondary recovery ship that's not even a prime assigned pickup vessel.

While I am not a serious Beck ship collector (but I do collect them in some categories), was collecting Beck recovery ship covers that popular throughout the 1960's to a degree that unusual postal markings were sought after by many of our earlier and veteran space recovery ship collectors? But even to the point that fake ship cancellations may have been created in some instances.

yeknom-ecaps
Member

Posts: 711
From: Northville MI USA
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 03-04-2021 06:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for yeknom-ecaps   Click Here to Email yeknom-ecaps     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ken, great questions, but there are many known forged US Navy ship cancels created by ship cover dealer Frederick Karcher — over 40 known ships with 1960s postmark dates (from USCS Log articles). There have been other forged ship cancel makers as well. None of the forgeries seem to be made for events of great value.

The USS Furse has a fake cancel based on the USCS catalog. I don't know what it looks like.

One could ask the same question of many of the suspect space covers — plugged 9 cancels, suspect Skylab NASA cachets, suspect VIP cards — really worth the trouble of making them? I don't think so but we know they exist.

We do know of a number of Beck cachets that did not get cancelled for some reason on the ship and arrived back to the collector without a postmark. I have one from Cooper's flight I found in a dollar box. As you said, it could also be a leftover or unused Beck cachet; we know some Beck cachets are cancelled on anniversary dates of the flight.

Have also seen some "Beck-like" cachets, not true Beck cachets but ones where parts of his artwork was printed or made into rubber stamps by someone else. Wasn't smart enough at the time to retain copies of them for research purposes.

But this one... a "crew" cover with potential color missing (Toni hasn't posted if the background is printed on the cover or not) — never seen one like it before.

No other USS Furse crew covers are known (based on Owen Murray's Beck cover site).

So what is it, forged or backdated? I don't know. But to quote Toni, it is "different" than other USS Furse Beck covers.

Ross
Member

Posts: 495
From: Australia
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 03-05-2021 08:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ross   Click Here to Email Ross     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If forged it must have been done well after the mission, in 1967 or later. Why do I say that? Because the postmark, if forged, is a copy of a postmark that wasn't available until December 1966. Therefore the forgery couldn't have happened before then unless the forger had a crystal ball or inside knowledge.

One question is whether the "Catalog of United States Naval Postmarks" lists official first use dates or the first know usage. Either way we still don't have any covers between GT-4 and December 1966 to compare to.

yeknom-ecaps
Member

Posts: 711
From: Northville MI USA
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 03-05-2021 09:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for yeknom-ecaps   Click Here to Email yeknom-ecaps     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Catalog is known use...

It would be really nice to see some covers between GT-4 and December 1966 to narrow the postmark change date.

As Ken stated, likely applied not at mission time but later to unserviced/unused cover.

This is how a number of forgers have been caught, applying postmarks to covers that didn't exist at the time of the event.

thisismills
Member

Posts: 398
From: Michigan
Registered: Mar 2012

posted 03-05-2021 10:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for thisismills   Click Here to Email thisismills     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This appears to be the listing for the cover when it was recently sold.

randyc
Member

Posts: 797
From: Denver, CO USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 03-05-2021 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for randyc   Click Here to Email randyc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Unlike Bill Ronson, the owner of Orbit Covers who used a "tagged" flag stamp for his backdated covers that was issued after the date of the event of some of the covers he produced, at least the stamp on the "suspect" cover was issued in January 1965, before the GT-4 mission.

yeknom-ecaps
Member

Posts: 711
From: Northville MI USA
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 03-05-2021 01:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for yeknom-ecaps   Click Here to Email yeknom-ecaps     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Randy, interestingly that was also one of the first things I checked as well...

Antoni RIGO
Member

Posts: 216
From: Palma de Mallorca, Is. Baleares - SPAIN
Registered: Aug 2013

posted 03-06-2021 03:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Antoni RIGO   Click Here to Email Antoni RIGO     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Guys, I knew that this USS Furse crew cover would be controversial.

With no real evidence of this USS (wihtout dots) postmark at the time of GT-4 recovery, then we should apply the logic and think that cover was backdated or it is a forgery.

In any case seems clear that cover was not postmarked on Jun 3, 1965 but LATER.

In my initial post I simply suggested that cover could be a forgery because it is very rare that numbered Beck covers (printed and RSC) bear USS with dots and just unnumbered Beck covers bear USS w/o dots. It has no sense except if we understand that both bunch of covers were postmarked at different dates.

All of us know how numbered printed Beck covers were created and how they were distributed to collectors, but unnumbered Beck covers followed another path.

As this kind of covers were not created in origin for collectors but as a gift to naval sailors then these covers had different solutions: postmarked at same time, no postmarked at time but later as consequence of collectors demand, lost...

Identifying now if this cover is backdated or forgery is really difficult and again we should use the common sense.

As this USS Furse postmark without dots exist, but in later dates, the most normal is that unnumbered Beck covers were backdated. It is easier to backdate before making a forgery.

And if this a forgery, do not think that 25 covers is a loss of money and time. If I was a forger then I would create 25.000 covers, or 2.500, or 250 covers not just 25 covers. And if only 25 covers, I would like to sell them for high prices.

So, in my opinion (just my opinion) this cover is backdated.

Ref background quoted by Tom, see below a close-up scan in which you can see the difference. I also think that this unnumbered Beck cover has not grey background.

As previously posted, this was the original list in which I bought this cover. I was interested in this ship for a double reason: it was involved in space mission and it was transfered to Spanish Navy in 1972, when it was renamed as Gravina.

Todocoleccion is a web page mainly for Spanish collectors. I bought the cover in Oct-20 after months of tracking this item. During months I tried to get information about this cover and most of questions raised here were already made by me.

Finally, for satisfying your curiosity, price paid was 10 EUR (around 12 US) plus registered postage.

Genuine cover, backdated or forgery, price was a bargain.

It is really a pity that nobody has another unnumbered Beck USS Furse to compare to.

Mike Dixon
Member

Posts: 1521
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003

posted 03-06-2021 04:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike Dixon   Click Here to Email Mike Dixon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Greatly admire your dedication and tenacity

yeknom-ecaps
Member

Posts: 711
From: Northville MI USA
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 03-06-2021 11:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for yeknom-ecaps   Click Here to Email yeknom-ecaps     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Toni, thanks for your post about the background!

Typically, forged postmarks weren't for a specific event but had changeable dates just like the post office cancel devices, e.g. plugged 9 postmarks appear with lots of different dates.

And, as we also know, there isn't a lot of value to many of the covers that forged postmarks/cachets appear on.

Beck unnumbered covers, that could be a whole separate thread/threads of theories about — as David said — the story goes.

This discussion was well worth the cost of the cover!

NAAmodel#240
Member

Posts: 333
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 03-07-2021 09:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NAAmodel#240   Click Here to Email NAAmodel#240     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It also points to the value of this forum (thanks Robert) and the community of knowledgeable collectors who help to unravel a mystery.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2021 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement