Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Diamondhead Hawaii

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 4 / Views: 2,079Next Topic  
Valued Member

USA
20 Posts
Posted 02/10/2008   8:02 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add STAMPS to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
What is an airmail first day cover Hawaii worth it has the person's address however.
Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
USA
2866 Posts
Posted 02/10/2008   10:18 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add t360 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
An unaddressed FDC with a common cachet of Scott #C46, the 80c Hawaii stamp, issued on March 26, 1952 has a catalog value of $20.00. This is for a cover in very fine condition without tears, stains, or smeared postmarks, and with a sound, well-centered stamp. A neatly addressed, cacheted cover would be discounted; I estimate to about 50% of the listed catalog value. A cover with a scarce cachet (not ArtCraft or Artmaster) may command a small premium. An addressed cover without a cachet would have a catalog value of about 1-2X the value of a used single of #C46, $1.25.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
USA
2502 Posts
Posted 02/10/2008   10:43 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add modern_who to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Interesting comments on the valuation of FDC's, t360. Would an unaddressed cover without a cachet be worth more or less than the others?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Larry, APS Member

Modern-Vue Stamps on eBay
Pillar Of The Community
USA
2866 Posts
Posted 02/12/2008   06:32 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add t360 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Unaddressed FDCs without cachets are rarely seen. Most FDCs without cachets were prepared by collectors before the so-called "grace" period came about. The plain envelopes were sent to the post office with instructions to the Postmaster to affix the stamps, apply the first day cancel and send the cover back through the mail. Unaddressed covers were sent in bulk by dealers to the issuing post office and returned in bulk to them, so they needed no address. These covers were nearly always cacheted.

However very clean unaddressed FDCs without cachets can potentially be used by artists to add a cachet and sell at a profit. So the right person might be willing to pay a little more in this case.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
USA
2502 Posts
Posted 02/12/2008   10:41 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add modern_who to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks, t360. That's exactly what they are, covers returned in bulk, as you describe them. Have a box of the 4-cent Project Mercury FDC, Scott 1193 from 1962, that my father had sent for. They don't have cachets. Know practically nothing about FDC's since I never had any interest in them. It looked as if you said an addressed cover without a cachet could be worth 1 to 2 times a cover with a cachet. Was just wondering how one without both an address and cachet might fit into the mix.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Larry, APS Member

Modern-Vue Stamps on eBay
  Previous TopicReplies: 4 / Views: 2,079Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2022 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2022 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.66 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05