posted 10-19-2025 10:12 AM               

Space Cover 828: Skylab falls error cover

One of my obsessions, among the many that all collectors have, is knowing how a space cover was made.

This is important to me because if I know the reasons and the difficulties the cachet maker faced during the cover-making process, I can better understand the result. Many times, when I look at a space cover, I wonder why this stamp was used and not another, why the cancellation is this one and not another, and why the cachet maker chose one cachet or another.

I try to imagine the meaning that space cover had for the cachet maker and thus gain a clearer understanding of why this space cover is the way it is, and not the way I think it should be. And this applies especially if the space cover bears more than one cancellation. Why cancel a space cover twice when just once is enough?

Top cover shows two Cape Canaveral cancel, mechanical for date Jun 11, 1979 and hand for date Jul 11, 1979. As this space cover came to me with a full explanation inside, I have scanned too both sides of this paper. No more comments to be added. Just read the full history for the background of this space cover. I hope you like it as much as I do.

posted 10-19-2025 07:20 PM               

That being said, because they were initially cancelled with the wrong date and then back-dated on the correct date makes them more valuable/collectible than if they were cancelled only on the correct date is questionable. While they are interesting covers and were at the Cape Canaveral post office on the correct date the documented back-dating decreases the value for some (many?) collectors.

Would Apollo 11 launch covers incorrectly cancelled on June 16, 1969, and then back-dated on July 16, 1969 be more valuable than covers only cancelled on July 16, 1969?

posted 10-19-2025 08:41 PM               

But take for instance a launch delay or postponement. It would be okay in my opinion, for some occasions, to include a dual-posted cover with a launch abort as the first cancel and a second postmark for the actual launch. I would be fine by that usage, but still would prefer a single launch instead.

posted 10-24-2025 06:23 AM               

Randy, your Celestial cover with a dual cancel for Gemini 6 launch (abort and actual) is excellent. This is also for me the example of an appropriate astrophilatelic cover with two or more cancels.

posted 10-24-2025 07:32 AM               

I'm also unsure as to the astrophilatelic benefit of having a Cape Canaveral 11th July postmark. The actual event (re-entry) took place after the post office's closure for the day, and therefore to me, a 12th July postmark would have been much more relevant, especially as the breakup debris field (landing) occurred in Western Australia on 12th July local time.

posted 10-24-2025 11:48 AM               

I think you will agree with me that hopefully all space covers with two cancels were accompanied by similar information. After this, one can know the reason why two cancels are present on the cover.

If this error in postmarking process realises a more valuable cover, it is a opinion.

For sure others covers regarding Skylab falling are more appropriate than this in date and place. Houston Jul 11, 1979 and some Australian places Jul 12, 1979 reflects better the spirit of Astrophilately than my cover.