Zepps On Covers

I have a chance to get a nice looking US C14 Zep on a good looking cover for less than the going price for a used C14 by itself. Except for the fact that it does not fit the "little box" in the album, wouldn't a nice zep on a cover be more "coveted" than the stamp alone - I mean dumb as it would be, you could always remove the stamp. Is there some point I would be missing here?

On cover in my opinion, is always better and its harder to get one on a good looking cover. Besides, you can always find just the stamp.

my opinion: Keep it on cover.

Is it possible that the stamp is severly damaged - not worth the used value?

Some covers are created to add apparent value to damaged stamps.
Check that this cover is at least from the correct time period / zepp flight, and that you are comparing the value to a used single stamp in the same condition as the one on the cover.

On cover is always preferable to the stamp alone. While you voiced the majority on SCF when saying you'd leave it on the cover, the fact that you "can" (not that you would want to) remove it from the cover, is always there as an option.

I have a 2002 Scott Specialized Catalog, so while the prices may be a bit dated, it shows that a on-cover Zeppelin would carry a 7% to 9% premium over the stamp alone ... the $2.60 version being the exception, as it is rare to find that stamp on a postally used cover and as a result it commands a significant premium of more than 4 times the value of the stamp alone.

I feel they are harder to come by off cover, the on cover may catalogue higher but in my opinion is easier to find. The 2009 Scott's lists the C-14 used at $375.00 and the on cover at $400.00. Example I would be willing to trade this C-14 on cover for a C-14 used single + 5% of on cover market value in comparable condition, this stamp has a small crease in the lin of Zeppelin, but otherwise very nice centering and appearance. Any takers? Probably not.... This is a serious offer. I would love to fill that "little box" in my National. Most used stamps were on cover at some point, even though they went through the mail stream they were not truly genuine "postal use".The Zepp covers are interesting and attractive, and no doubt desirable and collectible, but still philatelic creations to make money.

Hello, I would leave the stamp on the cover. The fact that you can always come across anotherm copy of the stamp is reason enough to not remove the stamp. You may or may not ever come across that cover again. Covers are unique in their own way. It is very rare to come across an identical cover unless it is a FDC etc.The handwriting, the placement of the stamp or stamps, the cancels origination and destination make a cover a complete package. When any part of that is removed as in the scan below it completely ruins the cover. By removing the stamps from this cover the person ruined two nice Chicago Worlds Fair duplex cancels. You will neber find another cover like this one was. The stamp on the cover is still in your collection and you also have a great cover to boot and you have the best of both worlds.
Thanks
David

David,

In my opinion, that's the perfect example of a philatelic crime!

David, I am a collector of expo cancels and that brings tears to my eyes. That would have been a great cover what a shame.

I was pretty bummedwhen I saw it. For me, a good cover has all the elements that make stamp collection great. It has something for almost everybody.
David

I just remembered, about 20+ years ago I bought a real ratty front that had 4 C18's on it, as 2 pairs. It was a Zep cover/front. The stamps were in perfect shape, well centered and a light cancel. Again the front was torn and ratty, etc. I soaked the stamps off and tossed the front. I put one in my album, gave one to a friend and traded the other pair for a couple of real nice 1869's. Meaning there are exceptions to every "rule". Bottom line is do what you want, its your cover, your collection.

Art