Click On Images Below To See Larger Image

Directory Assistance
in Readdressing
Misdirected Items

By Anthony Wawrukiewicz, Thomas Breske, & Scott Steward

If you have an auxiliary marking you would like considered for inclusion in this or future articles you can contact the authors by using the Stamp Smarter Contact Us form.

Introduction

From 1879 to the present, directories were/are used to rectify addresses on items that were misdirected because their addresses were in error. Recent research by Wawrukiewicz has shown that the rules governing directory use changed markedly and frequently over time. Among other things, this article will illucidate these changes.
One of the reoccurring problems encountered by postal employees in processing and delivering mail through the history of postal service has been dealing with mail that has an erroneous address (misdirected). Typical addressing errors include addresses containing a city but no state or addresses containing a city and a state but the city is not located in the state shown in the address. Mail containing these types of errors is often referred to as Nixies. The January 1886 United States Official Postal Guide, section 417, page 709 defines Nixies as:

Domestic matter of the first and second-class which is addressed to places not post offices, or to states in which there is no such post office as that indicated in the address ...” The earliest mention of a possible manner in which to handle such misdirected mail matter was found in 1873 Postal Laws & Regulations (PL&R) SEC. 231:

The earliest mention of a possible manner in which to handle such misdirected mail matter was found in 1873 Postal Laws & Regulations (PL&R) SEC. 231:

Letters addressed to persons, firms, or companies not being box-holders, whose residences or places of business in the city are known to the carriers, or can be ascertained from the city directory, or by other practicable means, must be delivered accordingly.

However, this ruling said nothing about placing the handstamp type that eventually was introduced that reflected this suggestion.
The 1879 PL&R basically reiterated these 1873 comments in Sections 342 and 346:

SEC. 342. Mail matter directed neither to a box-holder nor to a street and number, must be delivered by carrier if its address is known or can be ascertained from the city directory, otherwise, at the general delivery.
Sec. 346. City Directory to be used to Ascertain Addresses, when. — In cities where a directory is published it must be used when necessary to ascertain the address of persons to whom letters are directed...

However, it wasn’t until the November 1884 Supplement to the Postal Guide (PG), on page 18 that we found the following:

For misdirected matter - Correction of misdirected address on item. A postmaster, correcting a misdirecting address “must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the article can be delivered from the office to which he sent it. In each case the article will be postmarked and indorsed as follows: ‘Deficiency in address supplied by ____’ (giving name of the forwarding office.) The foregoing instructions are only intended to apply to misdirected mail-matter.” (Bold called out in original)

That is, it was only here that the handstamp ‘Deficiency in address supplied by ____’, that makes up the majority of the content of this chapter, was introduced officially.

Directory Use for Misdirected Letters in Free-Delivery Cities, both Intra-City and Local Letters

This section introduces the basics of the use of the directories and the associated handstamps for misdirected intra-city and local letters in free-delivery (carrier) cities, only through the early 1950s, because then significant changes in the process occurred. 1887 PL&R Section 563 reiterated, with minor changes, this November 1884 Postal Guide statement:

The postmaster will correct and forward to its known destination any matter of the first and second classes which comes to his office through obvious mistake of the sender in addressing it, but should not guess at the destination, nor forward it on trial. If sure that it can be delivered from the office to which he sends it, he will postmark it and indorse: “DEFICIENCY IN ADDRESS SUPPLIED BY” (name of forwarding office).

Note that there is no mention of the relationship of this announcement to a free-delivery post office. The 1893 PL&R Sec. 482, significantly added:

Use of the Street Directory.—The Street Directory is furnished to postmasters at free-delivery offices for use in perfecting the address of such letters, parcels, etc., as may reach their offices, although manifestly intended for delivery elsewhere. They are authorized to forward all mail matter so missent to their offices, which, by the aid of this and other reliable books of reference, they are reasonably certain can be delivered at another office. Each piece of mail matter so treated must bear the impression, of the post-marking-stamp of the office treating the same with, its current date below or following the words “deficiency in address supplied by,” or some other stamp or indorsement giving like information.
When such mail—which has been treated and forwarded as above provided for—is received from another post-office and the postmaster at the receiving office fails to deliver the same, he will stamp it “misdirected “ and include it with his next regular return of umnallable matter to the Dead Letter Office. In no case will such an article of mail matter be returned to the forwarding office or sent to a new destination unless the postmaster has a proper forwarding order from the addressee.

Figure 1. - Dec. 1879 pre-official-announcement card misdirected from Elgin, Iowa to Chicago, Ill.
There it was redirected to Troy, N.Y. (Len Piszkiewicz Collection)

This latter 1893 PL&R announcement is important because it mentions that the ruling applied to free-delivery post offices. That is, it would apply to misdirected intra-city and local letters of such post offices (Bold lettering added by authors for emphasis).
The first three examples in this chapter used the handstamp mentioned in the above announcements, but before these official announcements. In Figure 1 is an early pre-official announcement (Dec. 1879) card misdirected from Elgin, Iowa to Chicago, Ill. There it was redirected to Troy, N.Y. This is the earliest known-to-the-authors pre-official use of the handstamp ‘DEFICIENCY IN DIRECTION SUPPLIED BY...’, followed by the post office name, CHICAGO in this case. Note that cover illustrations in this article are shown reduced in size, but the handstamps are illustrated actual size.

Figure 2. April 1880 pre-official-announcement letter misdirected from Albany, N.Y. to New York City.
It was then redirected there with the appropriate handstamp to Syracuse. (Tom Breske Collection)

Figure 2 shows the use of yet another pre-announcement Deficiency...’ marking. This letter is an 1880 (cancels on the cover’s reverse) letter misdirected from Albany N.Y, to New York City. In New York City it was redirected with the appropriate ‘DEFICIENCY IN DIRECTION SUPPLIED BY NEW YORK POST OFFICE’ handstamp to Syracuse, N.Y. Note that, in the experience of the authors, these pre-official announcement uses of the handstamp are not that unusual, and probably represent experimental uses.

Figure 3. July 1882 (enhanced circular date stamp) pre-officialannouncement letter misdirected from Sulfur Springs, Tex. via Greenville, Tex. (30 miles apart) to St. Louis. It was then redirected there with the appropriate handstamp to Cincinnati, Ohio. (Scott Steward Collection)

The final pre-official-announcement item is shown in Figure 3. This figure illustrates a July, 1882 letter from Sulfur Springs, Texas, via Greenville, Texas (30 miles distant), misdirected to St. Louis. There it was redirected with the appropriate ‘DEFICIENCY IN DIRECTION SUPPLIED THE ST. LOUIS P.O.’ handstamp to Cincinnati, Ohio. Note that all three of these early handstamps were used in large cities and used the word ‘DIRECTION’ in their format.

Figure 4. Jan. 1889 post-official-announcement letter misdirected from Bay City, Mich. to Boston. It was then redirected there with the appropriate handstamp to New York City. (Scott Steward Collection)

As mentioned before, the experimental period of the use of the ‘Deficiency...’ handstamp, apparently used in large cities, ended with an announcement in the Nov. 1884 supplement to the Postal Guides. In Figure 4 is a Jan. 1889 post-officialannouncement letter misdirected from Bay City, Mich. to Boston. Mass. It was then redirected there with the appropriate handstamp to New York City. Note that henceforth, the word ‘DIRECTION’ in these handstamps was replaced by the word ‘ADDRESS.’

Figure 5. March 1893 post-official-announcement letter misdirected from France to Portland, with no state given in the address. It was then redirected there with the appropriate handstamp to the correct state of Maine. (Scott Steward Collection)

Up to now the misdirected letters were all domestic letters. However, frequently, the misdirection was on an international letter like the one in Figure 5. Such foreign letters often passed through exchange cities, including New York City. This March 1893 postofficial- announcement letter was misdirected from France to Portland, with no state given in the address. It was then redirected in the exchange city NYC with the appropriate handstamp to the correct state of Maine. As was typical of early NYC handstamps, the post office had a complex name, in this case the 3rd Div. NYC post office.

The next example of a directory-handled letter shows two important variants in this process. First, the letter was a local letter addressed within NYC, and the directory search was done, but was unsuccessful. As mentioned before, at the time, misdirected local free-delivery letters were allowed directory assistance. We’ll see that this changed as of Nov. 29, 1937 (PB 17322).

Figure 6. May 1916 post-official-announcement local NYC letter misdirected as ‘Name repeated in Directory / Searcher No. 2 / Hamilton Grange Sta. N. Y. P. O.’ That is, directory assistance was performed, but it was unsuccessful. (Tom Breske Collection)

In Figure 6 above is a May 1916 local (non-carrier) NYC letter that was misdirected and could not be delivered because ‘Name repeated in Directory / Searcher No. 2 / Hamilton Grange Sta. N. Y. P. O.’ That is, directory assistance was performed, but it was unsuccessful.

The final two examples of directory assistance in this section again illustrate the use of the directory for misdirected items in free delivery cities. These two examples are a domestic and international misdirected item, both in smaller cities, later in the time period.

Figure 7. 1932 letter misdirected? from Watsonville to Santa Cruz, Calif. For reasons that are unclear, ‘Directory Service Given / Santa Cruz, California.’ The authors say unclear because the letter was not obviously misdirected as it was undeliverable to the addressee ‘Moved / Left no address.’ (Tom Breske Collection)

The first, in Figure 7 above, is a 1932 misdirected Watsonville to Santa Cruz, Calif. letter. For reasons that are unclear, ‘Directory Service Given / Santa Cruz, California.’ The authors say unclear because the letter was not obviously misdirected as it was undeliverable to the addressee ‘Moved / Left no address.’

Figure 8. 1938 letter misdirected from France to Wilmington, Delaware. It was then redirected there with the appropriate handstamp to the correct destination of Dover, Delaware. (Tom Breske Collection)

In Figure 8 above is a 1938 letter misdirected from France to Wilmington, Delaware. It was then redirected there with the handstamp ‘DEFICIENCY IN ADDRESS SUPPLIED BY WILMINGTON, DEL.’ to the correct destination of Dover, Delaware.

None of the authors have seen an example of such a directory use. For that matter, examples of such directory use for a local freedelivery letter, such as illustrated in Figure 6, are felt, by the authors, to be almost as scarce.

Directory Use for Misdirected Letters in Non-Free-Delivery Cities, Local Letters Only

As noted earlier, from 1893 to Nov. 29, 1937, misdirected local letters in free-delivery cities could and were given directory assistance where needed. What about misdirected non-free delivery local letters? New in 1902 PL&R, Section 629 - 3 was:

Postmasters at other than free-delivery offices may correct the address on, and forward to destination, any matter of the first class which is received at their offices through obvious mistake of the sender in addressing it, but such destination should not be guessed at, nor the matter forwarded on trial. Matter thus forwarded should be postmarked and stamped as hereinbefore provided (Deficiency, etc.? - authors’ comment).

So as of this PL&R, misdirected local letters in nonfree- delivery offices were to be given directory service. This remained true only until the PB 10773 (JUNE 25, 1915):

City directories are only supplied to post offices having city delivery service.

None of the authors have seen an example of such a directory use. For that matter, examples of such directory use for a local freedelivery letter, such as illustrated in Figure 6, are felt, by the authors, to be almost as scarce.

Directory Use for Misdirected Letters in Free-Delivery Cities for Local Letters Only

Similar to what we found for directory service for misdirected local letters in non-free-delivery cities, eventually such service was not given for misdirected free-delivery local letters. Specifically PB 17322 of Nov. 29 1937 stated for letter-carrier (free-delivery) offices:

Letters of local origin without specific address or undeliverable at address given and bearing a return card shall be returned at once without directory service.

Figure 9. Nov. 1932 misdirected local Tacoma (free-delivery post office) letter. As local free-delivery letter, ‘NOT GIVEN DIRECTORY SERVICE.’ (Marjorie Sente Collection)

Before this regulation was stated officially in 1937, there existed examples of this new regulation, one which is shown in Figure 9 above. In this figure is a Nov. 1932 misdirected local Tacoma (free-delivery post office) letter. As a local free-delivery letter, ‘NOT GIVEN DIRECTORY SERVICE.’

Figure 10. Feb. 1942 misdirected local Tacoma (free-delivery post office) letter. As local free-delivery letter, ‘Not Givcn Directory Service.’ This letter was mailed after the official new regulation was announced, and carries a different hs than seen in Figure 9. (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection)

The next letter, in Figure 10 above, was mailed after the new regulation was promulgated. In this figure is another Tacoma Feb. 1942 misdirected local (free-delivery post office) letter. As local free-delivery letter, ‘Not Givcn Directory Service.’ Note that this letter carries a different hs than seen in Figure 9.

Post-April 18, 1950 Final Changes in How Directory Service was Given for Misdirected Items.

Before April 18, 1950, as found earlier in this article, depending on the rules and regulations that were in effect, when a mailed item carried an inadequate address so that it was undeliverable, post office department (POD) workers would make every reasonable effort to correct the address so that the item was deliverable. In fact, there were large directories for all the major cities that could be used to help the workers make these address corrections. These efforts were time-consuming, and finally the POD made the decision that some such efforts were no longer feasible. So, in what follows, we find the development of a series of rules and regulations concerning when directory service was now to be given.
On April 18, 1950, in Postal Bulletin 19327, we find the following announcement:

Directory service is not generally available, but at carrier offices where a directory is available, directory service is given to registered, certified, insured, COD, special delivery and special handling mail; to perishable matter and parcels of obvious value.

This was added to by PB 19339 (June 1, 1950):

Article 101, Chapter VIII, Manual of Instructions for Postal Personnel, reads as follows: 101. All mail which fails of delivery, including circulars and other matter not entitled to directory service, should be run through first by experienced distributors, with a view to effecting delivery of the greatest number of pieces of mail possible.

Therefore, occasionally, even after the early 1950s, as we will show in what follows, some domestic letters not enumerated in these new rules and regulations were given address correction service of some type. Further, we find in PB 19574 (Sept. 23, 1952):

These instructions did not contemplate or intend, under any circumstances, or at any post office, that mail matter of any class would be returned to the sender as undeliverable if the location of the addressee was known to the postal employees handling it, regardless of whether the correct address of the addressee appeared on the wrapper.

That is, this statement essentially reiterates the message of the prior PB announcement. Again, examples follow. Then, in PB 19611 (Feb. 17, 1953) was stated:

Incorrectly or incompletely addressed mail from overseas Armed Forces is given directory service and is not returned to the sender until every effort is made to deliver it.

Finally, in Post Offices Circular 1 (Oct. 18, 1954) was added:

...and to international mail, except circulars.

What follows are a total of six items that followed these new rules and regulations. The first two are examples of misdirected incoming international items that were correctly given directory service.

Figure 11. Dec. 1955 letter misdirected from Trinidad to Keen Tacts. Somehow it arrived in Cincinnati, Ohio where, correctly using a directory, with an appropriate hs, it was redirected to Keene, Texas. Obviously, the sender had no idea of how to spell the original address. (Tom Breske Collection)

In Figure 11 is a Dec. 1955 letter misdirected from Trinidad to Keen Tacts (sic). Somehow it arrived in Cincinnati, Ohio where, correctly using a directory, with an appropriate hs, it was redirected to Keene, Texas. Obviously, the sender had no idea of how to spell the original address, but fortunately a Cincinnati postal worker did.

Figure 12. Dec. 1961 post card misdirected from Germany to Jonestown, with no state given. New York City must have operated as an exchange city because NYC correctly used a directory and discovered that the correct address state was Penn. NYC then placed the correct hs and state name on the post card, and it was delivered. (Tom Breske Collection)

In Figure 12 is a Dec. 1961 post card misdirected from Germany to Jonestown, with no state given in the address. New York City must have operated as an exchange city because NYC correctly used a directory and discovered that the correct address state was Penn. NYC then placed the correct hs and state name on the post card, and it was delivered.
Next are shown two examples of misdirected domestic letters where handstamps placed indicate that directory assistance was not given, and apparently, no other correction was possible.

Figure 13. March 1955 domestic misdirected letter (‘INSUFFIENT ADDRESS’) from Yakima to Peoria. Peoria indicated that ‘DIRECTORY SERVICE DISCONTINUED,’ and so none was given. (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection)

In Figure 13 is a March 1955 domestic misdirected letter (‘INSUFFIENT ADDRESS’) from Yakima to Peoria. Peoria indicated that ‘DIRECTORY SERVICE DISCONTINUED,’ and so none was given.

Figure 14. Dec. 1965 domestic misdirected letter from Highland Park, N.J. to New York City was (‘RETURNED FOR BETTER ADDRESS’). NYC indicated that ‘DIRECTORY SERVICE DISCONTINUED.’ No other method to correct the inadequate address was apparently possible either, so the letter was returned to the sender. (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection)

The Dec. 1965 domestic misdirected letter in Figure 14, from Highland Park, N.J. to New York City was (‘RETURNED FOR BETTER ADDRESS’). NYC indicated that ‘DIRECTORY SERVICE DISCONTINUED.’ No other method to correct the inadequate address was apparently possible either, so the letter was returned to the sender.
The last two examples of misdirected mail matter are domestic items where the address correction that was made only required the knowledge of the postal worker, not the use of a directory.

Figure 15. Sept. 1959 post card from Seattle to Lebanon, Ind. In Seattle, a post office worker had difficulty reading the state name. Therefore, without needing directory assistance, a Seattle worker corrected the address by writing out the state name (Indiana). The Seattle worker then placed the correct hs and the card was delivered. (Tom Breske Collection)

In Figure 15 is a Sept. 1959 post card from Seattle to Lebanon, Ind. where the post office had difficulty reading the state name. Therefore, without needing directory assistance, a Seattle postal worker corrected the address by writing out the state name (Indiana). The Seattle worker then placed the correct hs and the card was delivered.

Figure 16. May 1960 letter from Philadelphia to Grinnell, Iowa. In Philadelphia, a postal worker felt that the city of address was poorly written, and so wrote it out more clearly. He then correctly placed the correct hs on the letter, and it was delivered. (Tom Breske Collection)

In Figure 16 is a May 1960 letter from Philadelphia to Grinnell, Iowa. In Philadelphia, a postal worker felt that the city of address was poorly written, and so wrote it out more clearly. He then correctly placed the correct hs on the letter, and it was delivered.
So, the address corrections of the last two somewhat poorly addressed items required only the astute efforts of postal workers, without any directory assistance.

Conclusion

Thus ends the introduction of the somewhat complex history of the allowed use of various types if assistance in correcting misdirected mail into U.S. cities. We now illustrate the New York City (NYC) examples known for this process. These are shown without the associated misdirected letters, although their use on the items are explained, if possible. If the initials ‘as’ are part of the description, this means that the hs is illustrated actual size. It is interesting to us authors that in the case of incoming foreign letters, in correcting misdirected letters from other countries, that NYC often acted as an exchange office.

Figure 16. (1880, as (Tom Breske Collection))


The hs in Figure 16 again shows the earliest known (to the authors) NYC ‘Deficiency...’ hs. This was on a April 1880 letter misdirected from Albany, N.Y. to NYC. There it was redirected to Syracuse, N.Y. with the hs illustrated. It was used before the official announcement of the rules and regulations announcing it, and only for these pre-announcement items the word “DIRECTION’ was used in these hs.


Figure 17. (1889, as (Scott Steward Collection))



In Figure 17 is a hs that was on an 1889 misdirected letter from Patterson, N.J. to NYC. There it was redirected to Rustic, N.J. with the hs illustrated.


Figure 18. (1898, as (Scott Steward Collection))


In Figure 18 is an 1898 NYC hs from a misdirected post card from Germany to NYC. There it was redirected to Moundsville, W.Va. with the NYC hs illustrated. The directory assistance was necessary because the address was done in faint pencil. NYC presumably acted as an exchange city.


Figure 19. (1901, as (Tom Breske Collection))



In Figure 19 is a hs from a 1901 misdirected (no state named) post card from Italy. It apparently went to NYC as an exchange city where the state, Mass., was determined as there it was redirected to Turners Falls, Mass. with the NYC hs illustrated.


Figure 20. (1902, as (Scott Steward Collection))



In Figure 20 is a hs from a 1902 misdirected Mariana, Fla. to NYC domestic letter. In NYC it was redirected to Brooklyn, N.Y. with the NYC hs illustrated.


Figure 21. (1904, as (Scott Steward Collection))


In Figure 21 is a NYC hs from a 1904 misdirected (incomplete state named) post card from Germany to Locksport. It apparently went to NYC as an exchange city where the state, N.Y., was determined and thus it was there redirected to Locksport, N.Y.


Figure 22. (1905-7, as (Tom Breske Collection))



In Figure 22 is a NYC hs from a 1905-7 misdirected post card from Camden, N.J. to NYC domestic letter. In NYC it was redirected to Brooklyn, N.Y. with the NYC hs illustrated.


Figure 23. (1907-13, as (Tom Breske Collection))



In Figure 23 is a NYC hs from a 1907-13 misdirected domestic letter. In NYC it was redirected with the NYC hs illustrated.


Figure 24. (1909, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 24 is a NYC hs from a 1909 misdirected domestic post card from Manchester, N.H. to NYC. In NYC it was redirected within NYC with the hs illustrated.


Figure 25. (1914, as (Tom Breske Collection))



In Figure 25 is a NYC hs from a 1914 misdirected post card from Germany to NYC. NYC apparently acted as an exchange city. In NYC it was redirected to Philadelphia, Penn. with the hs illustrated.


Figure 26. (1915, as (Scott Steward Collection))


In Figure 26 is a NYC hs from a 1915 misdirected letter from Italy. NYC apparently acted as an exchange city. In NYC it was redirected to Lehighton, Penn. with the hs illustrated. Once there it was forwarded to Bloomsburg, Penn., then Hutchinson, Kansas, where it was finally delivered.


Figure 27. (1918-23, (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection))



In Figure 27 is a NYC hs from a 1918-23 misdirected letter from Germany to Long Island, N.Y. In NYC it was redirected to Hempstead, N.Y. with the hs illustrated.


Figure 28 (1919, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 28 is a NYC hs from a 1919 domestic military- related misdirected letter In NYC?? it was redirected with the hs illustrated.


Figure 29. (1921-8, as, (Tom Breske Collection))



In Figure 29 is a NYC hs from a 1921-8 misdirected international letter. NYC apparently acted as an exchange city. In NYC it was redirected to Martins Creek, Penn. with the hs illustrated.


Figure 30. (1928, as (Scott Steward Collection))



In Figure 30 is a NYC hs from a 1928 domestic misdirected letter from Kittanning, Penn. In NYC it was redirected within NYC with the hs illustrated.


Figure 31. (1934, (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection))



In Figure 31 is a NYC hs from a 1934 misdirected letter from The Netherlands. NYC apparently acted as an exchange city. In NYC it was redirected to Moylan, Penn. with the hs illustrated.


Figure 32. (1937, as (Tom Breske Collection))

In Figure 32 is a NYC hs from a domestic 1934 misdirected post card from Slateport, Penn. to Brooklyn. In Brooklyn, post card redirected In NYC it was redirected to Ozone park, Long Isl. with the hs illustrated.


Figure 33. (1937-43, (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection))



In Figure 33 is a NYC hs from a 1937-43 misdirected letter from Hungry. NYC apparently acted as an exchange city. In NYC it was redirected to Cudahy, Wis. with the hs shown.


Figure 34. (1944-50, (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection))



In Figure 34 is a NYC hs from a 1944-50 misdirected (no state listed) letter from Argentina. NYC apparently acted as an exchange city. In NYC it was redirected to Winnetka, Ill. with the hs shown.


Figure 35. (1947-54, (Tony Wawrukiewicz Collection))



In Figure 35 is a NYC hs from a 1947-54 misdirected (no state listed) letter from Nigeria. NYC apparently acted as an exchange city. In NYC it was redirected to Winnetka, Ill. with the hs shown.


New York City ‘Deficiency...’ - Related Markings without the Associated Letters, etc.

There were other auxiliary markings related to the use of directories that are now presented chronologically. The first group below are markings that evaluated addresses where the addressee was not in the directory.

Figure 36. (1904, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 36 is a 1904 NYC hs from a domestic 1904 misdirected item. In NYC, item was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY.’ If a letter with a return address, presumably then undeliverable and returned to writer.


Figure 37. (1906, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 37 is a 1906 NYC hs from a domestic Wilkes- barre, Penn. to NYC misdirected post card with no return address (no CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ (undeliverable). As no CC, when undeliverable could not be returned.


Figure 38. (1908, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 38 is a 1908 NYC hs from a domestic Longbranch, N.J. to NYC misdirected post card with no return address (no CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ (undeliverable). As no CC, when undeliverable could not be returned.


Figure 39. (1913, as (Tom Breske Collection))




In Figure 39 is a 1913 NYC hs from a domestic Providence, R.I. to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ and ‘UNCLAIMED.’ As undeliverable with CC, RETURNED TO SENDER’ ‘DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS ENVELOPE OR WRAPPER.’


Figure 40. (1916, as (Tom Breske Collection))




In Figure 40 is a 1916 NYC hs from a domestic local NYC misdirected letter with return address (no CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ (undeliverable). As undeliverable with CC, RETURNED TO SENDER’ ‘DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS ENVELOPE OR WRAPPER.’


Figure 41. (1915-7, as (Tom Breske Collection))




In Figure 41 is a 1915-7 NYC hs from a domestic Mercersburg, Penn. to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY.’ As undeliverable with CC, RETURNED TO SENDER’ ‘DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS ENVELOPE OR WRAPPER.’


Figure 42. (1932, as (Tom Breske Collection))

In Figure 42 is a 1932 NYC hs from a domestic misdirected item. In NYC, item was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY.’ If a letter with a return address, presumably then undeliverable and returned to writer.


Figure 43. (1943, as (Tom Breske Collection))




In Figure 43 is a 1943 NYC hs from a domestic Orlando, Fla. to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, addressee was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ and ‘NOT AT ADDRESS / GIVEN.’ As undeliverable with CC, ‘RETURNED TO SENDER’ ‘Do not use this envelope or wrapper again.’


Figure 44. (1945, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 44 is a 1945 NYC hs from a Manila, P.I. to NYC misdirected postal card with return address (CC). In NYC, addressee was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ and ‘NOT AT ADDRESS GIVEN.’ As undeliverable with CC, ‘INCONNU UNKNOWN,’ returned to sender.


Figure 45. (1945, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 45 is a 1946 NYC hs from a Hungary to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, addressee was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ and ‘NOT AT ADDRESS GIVEN.’ As undeliverable with CC, ‘RETOUR (RETURN TO WRITER).’


Figure 45a. (1949, (Anthony Wawrukiewicz Collection))

In Figure 45a is a 1949 NYC hs from a France to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, addressee was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ and ‘INCONNU Unknown.’ As undeliverable with CC, ‘RETURNED TO WRITER.


Figure 46. (1955, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 46 is a 1955 NYC hs from an India to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, addressee was found to be ‘NOT IN DIRECTORY’ and ‘INCONNU UNKNOWN.’ As undeliverable with CC, ‘Retour (Return to Writer.’ As post-1954 international letter, directory service correctly given.





The second group of auxiliary markings related to the use of directories that evaluated addresses where the addressee’s name was repeated in the directory. The first example known for NYC is illustrated in Figure 47.

Figure 47. (1906, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 47 is a local 1906 NYC hs from Brooklyn to NYC, a domestic misdirected post card without a return address (no CC). In NYC, item was found to be undeliverable after a directory search as ‘SEVERAL OF SAME / NAME IN DIRECTORY.’ As undeliverable without CC, not returned to writer.


Figure 48. (1910, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 48 is a 1910 NYC hs from Babylon, N.Y, to NYC, a domestic misdirected post card without a return address (no CC). In NYC, item was found to be undeliverable after a directory search as ‘SEVERAL OF SAME / NAME IN DIRECTORY.’ As undeliverable without CC, not returned to writer.


Figure 49. (1912, as (Tom Breske Collection))





In Figure 49 is a local 1912 NYC hs from a domestic Brooklyn, N.Y. to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘SEVERAL OF SAME / NAME IN DIRECTORY.’ As undeliverable with CC, RETURNED TO SENDER’ ‘DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS / ENVELOPE OR WRAPPER.’


Figure 50. (1913, as (Tom Breske Collection))




In Figure 50 is a 1913 NYC hs from a domestic Proctorsville, Ver. to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘NAME REPEATED IN DIRECTORY.’ As undeliverable with CC, RETURNED TO SENDER’ ‘DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS / ENVELOPE OR WRAPPER.’


Figure 51. (1916, as (Tom Breske Collection))




In Figure 51 is a 1916 NYC hs from a domestic local NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘Name Repeated in Directory.’ As undeliverable with CC, RETURNED TO SENDER’ ‘DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS / ENVELOPE OR WRAPPER.’


Figure 52. (1954, as (Tom Breske Collection))


In Figure 52 is a 1954 NYC hs from a Canada to NYC misdirected letter with return address (CC). In NYC, item was found to be ‘Name Repeated in Directory.’ As undeliverable with CC, ‘INCONNU (UNKNOWN.)’ so returned to sender. As internatioal letter in 1954, directory assistance allowed.