Relative Merit In Judging US Stamps

Coming from a background in GB stamps, I am having some trouble in assessing the relative merits of multiple copies of older US stamps.

Take two copies of the same issue -- not the true rarities, but perhaps an older 20C regular (1920s/1930s, say). Which would be more desirable:

A the one with ok centering and a part-cds cancel, but with 3-4 heavily nibbled (almost flat/absent) perfs on one side

or

B the one with awful centering (huge margin at the bottom and the picture is cut into by the perfs for about 1 mm at the top), plus a heavier line cancel, but with perfs scoring about 9.5/10 (just a bit shortish in one corner)

In GB, I would have no hesitation in keeping B and discarding A, because in GB stamps, even of (say) the 1850s, there are so many undamaged examples to be had, that I wouldn't give a damaged stamp house-room.

However, from my perusal of US stamp websites (not to mention the Scott #1 and #2 on ebay!) it seems that undamaged older US stamps are much rarer? So perhaps the nibbled perfs in my A are not so offensive as to detract from its better (though still not superb) centering and lighter more pleasing cancel?

Or is "damage" only ok in the most rare examples or before a certain date -- and if so, why does Scott have so many stamps missing perfs/corners in its illustrative photos?

Your thoughts and advice would be most gratefully received.

Personally, I think it's ok to have damaged examples of any 19th century stamps.

From a standpoint of value, I don't see much of a distinction between A and B. In fact, I would consider A more desirable because the design is complete and fully visible. That is ALWAYS the first criteria I use in choosing a stamp ... does it have "eye appeal"? If not, I usually look right past it.

Brian

I agree with Brian. However, there are limits to the amount of damage that I would accept.

Art

JanS, I would have to also agree with the earlier replies providing the damage in the "A" described stamp isn't too distracting. I would also view this stamp as a space filler until I can acquire a better copy of the stamp.

Great topic---

I'll take the other side-- on the classics, before the Bureau issues, and especially with issues like the grills, centering was really bad, and stamps didn't have enough room between them-- so I've wanted to stay as sound as possible, but have been willing to accept poor centering, as long as the "Type" is identifiable, but really want to have no thins and good perfs. Thanks, Ray

I think it also depends on what you are collecting the stamp for.

For example, to place in my regular U.S. Scott# revenue collection, I am looking for the finest quality I can afford. There are a number of stamps in my collection that are faulty, simply because I cannot the 4-5 figure real-world prices that sound examples command.

For my cancel collection (which greatly outnumbers the above), I am focused primarily on the cancel, date, and strike more so than the stamp itself; the stamp is the canvas upon which the cancel is painted. There are damaged stamps in my collection that I have paid considerably above Scott for, simply because the cancels are so rare.

That said, when the factors align, and you have an exceptional cancel strike on an exceptional stamp, that's when prices can shoot into the stratosphere.

I am very glad I asked this question -- so many interesting approaches and thoughts most of which had never crossed my mind. Thank you all.

If a really nice example is out of my price range, I just
look for the best eye appeal that I can afford. The perfs
are almost last on my list, behind light cancel, clear
details, and centering of design.