By José Ivars Ivars, Asociación Filatélica de Calp, President of Federación de Asociaciones Filatélicas de la Comunidad Valenciana (FASFILCOVA).

Some time ago, an interesting debate arose in social media after having published the cover on the first image in this article (see Fig. 1), and thanks to feedback received, we decided to reopen the debate in this article about how the Spanish post regulations can help to value an apparently unimportant and unattractive piece.

If we have a close look at the cover on Fig. 1 we don’t see anything special, it is a normal blue cover, sold in hundreds of office stores. It was circulated from Valladolid to Madrid, with a quite blurred postmark perhaps showing the date of January 10, 1974, franked with a basic Franco series 2 Pts stamp (Edifil 1158¹). It also has a tax mark. Nothing suspicious as far as we can see on this cover, but as a philatelist has a curious nature, we wanted to know more. So we did some research, and we asked some questions.

First of all, let’s see why this cover was taxed. We’ve previously said it was franked with a 2 Pts stamp, and according to 1974 postal rates² it is correctly franked, as a 20 grs normalized letter had to bear a 2 Pts stamp³. So why was it taxed, then? The answer is in the tax mark, but when I first read it I hardly realized what the meaning of the text was. The mark reads “VALLADOLID T ___ Ptas. Por utilitzación color azul” (For using blue color, Fig. 2). Thanks to good friends⁴ always willing to share their knowledge I learned this mark explicitly refers to the color of the cover, not allowed according to the Spanish post rules. The usage of a blue cover automatically converts a 20 grs standard letter into a non standard letter, as if it had a bigger cover or a greater weight, and this increases the required franking to pay for the postal rate. For this example, the cover being blue despite having the same size and weight as a standard letter, the franking should have totaled 4 Pts, and as it is franked only with 2 Pts, the tax claims “the lacking double franking”, this is, 4 Pts. This rule, in use in 1974, is still valid (Fig. 3), though it is very seldom claimed.

After learning why this letter was taxed, new interesting questions may arise, and these questions may be useful for thematic collectors. The first one is perhaps a statement I can prove at the moment instead of a question: I understand that if the town of origin is mentioned on the mark, others should exist bearing the names of many more towns. Despite this, in Fig. 4 we can see another taxed blue cover with a generic mark, without mention of any town.

But I must ask our readers a question to open the debate: Could this cover be included, due to its blue color, in a collection gathering, for example, light features and their decomposition into colors, keeping in mind that for Thematic Philately covers are not considered thematic materials? Borderline?

Exhibition rules are not concise for situations like those described here, but they encourage the use of thematic information coming from “material where it was printed on”, referring to, of course, the stamps, and never taking into consideration covers, except for stationery post cards. Then, does the color matter?

NOTES:

1- Issue of April 24, 1966, purple, 12 3/4 x 13 1/4 perf, rotogravure.

2- Government decree of May 10, 1970, Boletín Oficial del Estado of June 1, 1970.

3- This rate was changed on December 1, 1974.

4- I must thank my friends Evaristo Alfaro and Dori Sánchez for this info.

This article was originally published in Spanish on Ifac Filatélico.