Errata to Liberian Postal Stationery
Page Correction
Throughout the book The Shoemaker reference to Rogers' "A Century of …" is given as Rogers 1961, but there are numerous questions and comments in the Journal about when it is was to be published. Most believe it was published in 1971 andit does contain a 1971 LPS roster.
18 Shoemaker confuses Rogers' design numbers with his catalog numbers. E.g. he lists the Rogers numbers for postal cards as P1 to P4, while it should be 10 to 13 (without prefix). Reply cards should be 14 to 15, the letter card is 9 and the wrapper is 8. As for the stationery envelopes on page 37, he accidentally got them right (although there is no 7a in Rogers' book).
40 Shoemaker repeats Rogers' fable about Johnson stealing the treasury. This one was debunked decades ago[1].
44 Size e should be 228 x 101 mm, NOT 228 x 109 mm
45 Size e should be 228 x 101 mm, NOT 228 x 109 mm
46 Size e should be 228 x 101 mm, NOT 228 x 109 mm
47 Size e should be 228 x 101 mm, NOT 228 x 109 mm
48 Size e should be 228 x 101 mm, NOT 228 x 109 mm
49 Size e should be 228 x 101 mm, NOT 228 x 109 mm
50 Shoemaker sB #7B as only being "S" (scarce). sB #7A is listed as "RRR" (realy, really rare). sB #7B should at a minimum, should be "R" (rare).
51 Several people, including Henry Chlanda, Manfred Beier and myself believe there is no difference between Type I and Type II
58 Description says "Gray indicia" then later says "Blue indicia". It also states "blue gray instructions". Some feel that this could just be a faded sR #1. Shoemaker also references possible color changelings under sR #15. Per Manfred Beier, "The picture clearly shows an envelope with blue 10c label and gray inscription. But that doesn't really matter. I am convinced all his gray varieties are color changelings. Apparently, lead based blue ink is prone to turn black when reacting with sulphur in the air ("sulphuration" is also responsible for turning orange stamps brown). I have gray registered envelopes myself, but you can always find evidence that the color was originally blue."
62 Shoemaker refers to this as being Type II when it is actually Type III.
63 Shoemaker lists this as being "C" (common) in Mint. This registered envelope is very difficult to find and most would rate it as "R" (rare).
109 Some of the Sehler numbers are incorrect. List coming soon.
116 The color of the ink used for the single specimen described as sALS #5 is basically the same purple as for sALS #3, and not black as the scan (Kasper) leads us to believe. The reason for establishing this type doesn't exist.
119 Shoemaker lists the issue year as 1958 but I have postmarks much earlier
120 Shoemaker lists the issue year as 1958 but I have postmarks much earlier
122 Based on sALS7 and sALS8 information from above, I believe sALS9 was probably issued earlier than 1958
139 Issue date should be 1961
163 Shoemaker's definition of sOALS #1 is mainly based on an erroneous description given by von Saleski in his catalog. Correct details about this aerogram including pictures were given by Leonard and Norma Smith in the January 1969 issue of the LPS Journal. The overprint "ON HIS MAJESTY'S SERVICE" can be found on the basic form 51-5829 - same as for sALS #3 to #9, and not #10 as suggested by von Saleski and Shoemaker's illustration. Produced for official use in the UK, some of these were probably mixed with normal sheets by accident when they where shipped abroad. For Liberia, where the President had always been referred to as "His Excellency", the overprint had no special meaning and was simply ignored. Therefore, Shoemaker's aerogram prefix sOALS indicating the existence of an "official air letter" should be revoked.

Notes:

  • Page 109 erratum needs a list
  • Page 139 add link to sALS23 as reference

References

1. "1891 Postal Stationery with Pres. Johnson's Portrait Obliterated" / Journal of the Liberian Philatelic Society / Farr, Frederick Q. / Oct-Sep 1990

See also

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License