Talk:Inverted Jenny

Invalid assertion?
The claim that Bill Gross is the only person with a complete 19th century stamp set is directly contradicted by the Wikipedia article on Bill Gross, which claims that 2 people have said set.
 * Only two copies of the Z Grill are known to be in existance, one with the National Postal Museum and the second is with Gross. If that is the case this contradicts the Gross articles claim that he is the second person, since the first person doesn't have a Z Grill in his possession. If he has then there should three Z Grills in existance and not two-- PremKudva Talk  06:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved this from the article:
By law, no one is actually allowed to have inverted stamps; the US government does not enforce this law too often, if at all anymore. [Can anyone confirm this assertion? I know of no U.S. law that prohibits ownership of inverts. Philatelic errors that get into private hands illegally are contraband, but those sold over a postal counter, as the Inverted Jenny was, are legal.]


 * I believe the assertion is incorrect. The Bill Pickett stamps that depicted Bill Pickett's brother Ben were recalled by the U.S. Postal Service, but nobody was prohibited from keeping any of the incorrect stamps they had legitimately purchased.  (The Postal Service later decided to sell some of the sheets containing the erroneous Ben Pickett stamp anyway, to make up for the expense of the reprint and alleviate the scarcity of the error.) --Metropolitan90 19:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Jenny Stamp"
My Grandfather Charles Endorf owned a "Jenny" stamp prior to his death in about 1955. He lived in chicago. Family has been wondering for years what happened to this stamp. Did he sell it before his death? Trade it with friends?

Is there any way to know who has the remaining stamps, or when a given # was last publicaly traded? We have no idea what # his stamp was.


 * The book referenced in the article collects what was known at the time of its writing, but as dealers often act as brokers, keeping the transactions confidential (don't want to become a directory for burglars!), there are a number of Jennies whose whereabouts are presently unknown. Others reappear in the public briefly, for instance at an auction, after having been out of sight for decades, then "disappear" again if the buyer is anonymous. Stan 12:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could OP be referring to the #49 stamp that was in the possession of a Chicago-area family and revealed in 2018? It was auctioned for a new record price recently.Jmncnj07 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

How many were found?
The beginning of this article says "only 100 were ever found", which I think is ambiguous. It sounds like one sheet of 100 stamps was printed but not destroyed, although the location of all 100 stamps is not presently known. 69.12.151.172 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There was 1 sheet of 100 which was purchased in tact, which means originally 100 stamps were found. Most of the 100 can be accounted for today. So I think this statement is accurate, that "Only 100 Were Ever Found", as the original sheet was purchased in tact, containing all 100.

"Speculation" about 2006 usage
OK, in the interests of avoiding endless reverting, let's figure out the right phrasing on the talk page. I would like to see *something* that expresses the extreme unlikelihood that the stamp is genuine - these days it is very easy to get a hiqh-quality color reproduction through the mail stream, but it's not impossible, because not every Jenny is accounted for. (Amick's book lists a number of positions that had not been seen in many years as of his writing.) WP's visibility means this story is going to get more long-term airplay than the single appearance in the news cycle, and we don't want to fuel any urban legends because we're too credulous about the report. For instance, we could mention the regular attempts to sell fakes on ebay. I expect Linn's to have an article on this in the next week or two - it will likely be a good source for authoritative opinions. Stan 18:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's bet! There is no US Inverted Jenny (genuie or not). The total story is; "a election worker wants to have seen an old stamp and it's impossibe to proof". It's an invented story. --Braunbaer 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why the rancor? Why can't it be "attentive election worker notices interesting and possible valuable stamp and notes it for possible investigation later?"  --ElKevbo 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, could be invented, could be true. Either way, it would fit right in with the other bizarre episodes in Amick's book. :-) Stan 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jenny Giveaway
The story about StampWants.com giving away a C3a Inverted Jenny belongs on this page, because it is the single most expensive stamp ever given away, and is a major philatelic event, even more so than the plate block swap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabreCEO (talk • contribs) 14:40, December 26, 2006 — SabreCEO (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If it's truly notable then surely you can provide evidence of such notability other than a news release. Until then, I agree that it remains out as its commercial material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  --ElKevbo 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The story was broadcast nationally on CBS Radio news. How would this be cited? Other newspapers, and all of the major stamp publications are also working on this story. Though their issues are not out yet, to any philatelist it should be clear that this belongs on the page.--68.45.127.15 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the "proper" way to cite a radio broadcast but as long as you provide enough information that someone could, in theory, check the original source then I think you've met the threshold for verifiability (and likely notability, too). For a radio show I'd imagine the title of the show, station on which it was broadcast, and date/time of the broadcast might be sufficient.  --ElKevbo 00:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be sufficient for verifiability. I don't think it meets the bar for notability though, radio often reports "news of the bizarre" for things that are basically non-notable. I think it would be more interesting when the stamp is actually given away - wouldn't be unknown for the company to quietly welsh on the deal, particularly if they don't get very much publicity for it. Stan 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Stan, so when it happens, if it does, we will likely hear about it and then it can be included. ww2censor 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it was broadcast on CBS News Radio. I believe it aired several times through out the day (Sunday December 24, 2006), including at 3:00 pm EST. Should I now go ahead and add this back? Also, it is not at all possible to "quietly welsh on the deal", as that would be illegal, and StampWants.com would be faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. And it was part of the business news broadcast I believe, definitely not "news of the bizarre," so it seems like this should constitute notability.--SabreCEO 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SabreCEO, are you associated with StampWants.com in any way? We also don't like people promoting themselves or their businesses, very hard to be objective in the way that WP requires. Why not let somebody else add this info? I'm sure Linn's will report on this too. Stan 06:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I am, but the entry was not promoting StampWants.com, it was referencing the story. Linn's also just ran a story on this, page 32 of the Jan 15 Issue. I think the entry I had created earlier was concise and objective. Anyone can edit it and add it, but it does makes sense this belongs here, I don't see how it could not?--SabreCEO 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is this news item that you can cite StampWants.com to Give Away a Genuine C3a Inverted Jenny Stamp (Catalog Value $275,000) -- PremKudva Talk  10:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Brewster's Millions
Shouldn't this point be in the Popular Culture section?70.144.87.4 (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody deleted the entire "Popular Culture" section. Perhaps it could have been split off into a separate page in accordance with WP:POPCULTURE. Muzilon (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Section off topic
The section '2006 Find' is not really about the Curtis Jenny invert, it is about a forgery and the various events surrounding it, the likes of which also have nothing to do with the inverted Jenny. Nothing in that entire section about the Curtis Jenny invert itself. GWillHickers (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's closely enough connected, although the section would better be titled "Counterfeits" and mention some of the others - Amick's book has a couple of pages on the subject for instance. Stan (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.bidstart.com/wiki/C3a_Giveaway
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 05:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Change the second paragraph into its own section and relocate?
I think that the first paragraph alone is just fine as an introduction to the entry. There is no need to follow it with a huge block of minutia regarding various sales of the stamps. I propose relocating the second paragraph down into the body of the article and giving it its own heading, such as "Notable Sales and Trends". Jmncnj07 (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Moving the second paragraph out of the lede will make it too short for an article of this length, so if you want to move it you really need to provide an alternate expanded introduction. The lede is supposed to be a stand-alone précis of the main points of the main article prose. The lede should probably be at least two paragraphs; the one short one is certainly not enough. Currently it does not properly cover the article's main points. ww2censor (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why was 24C worth it?
It would be nice to know the reason for the expensive stamp. Was the air service that much faster? A train from DC to NY doesnt take that long. What would a customer gain for paying 24C? Bdushaw (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was not worth it but it included a Special Delivery fee of 10¢ and an airmail fee. If you read this you see how the price was justified. However, within two months the rate had been reduced to 16¢ and 7 months later it was just 6¢. Trains were not all that quick. Even now they are quite slow, perhaps even slower than in 1918. ww2censor (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)