Cancelling Used, Uncancelled Stamps: Is It Ethical?

While I was sorting though some used stamps on paper I forgot I had, I found a few copies of stamps that were uncancelled. (The specific stamps are not precancels.) It is certain that these stamps were postally used, but got through the post office without being cancelled.

It should be obvious that attempting to reuse these stamps on mail would be a violation of postal regulations, and would be wrong.

However, an unused, uncancelled stamp that is not on cover is not considered collectible.

Would it be unethical to ask a friendly postal clerk to apply a cancellation to these stamps? (Of course, in such a way that no date, place, or special event marking would be added to the stamp.)

Would it be unethical for a collector to have a rubber stamp made consisting only of "killer bars" to deal with such stamps when found?

Would it matter if the missed cancellation was applied by a postal clerk or a collector?

Would it matter if one applied a cancel to the uncancelled stamps many years after the stamps did postal service? (Again, assuming all that is being applied is a "killer" and not a date/place/event marking.)

I'm basing my answer on your premise that uncancelled stamps are not (currently) collectible. I infer from that premise that the purpose of adding something is to make it collectible.

So, I'd go with "unethical" all the way down the list.

(Forged cancels have been added to stamps since the 19th century, so plenty of people have had this thought over the decades.)

My 2d.

I agree with Cjd. I can think of only one situation where I would not consider it unethical to remove a stamp and use it for mail - that is if I was the one who put the stamp on the envelope for mailing in the first place, but then had to change the envelope (wrong address, etc.). Even then it is more trouble than it is worth. Added: actually, in this situation, the stamp is unused.

Yummy,

My favourite subject !

I missed the gluesticking sentence...I'm staying out of that one.

I was speaking about adding cancels to make stamps more attractive.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this statement. Anything is collectible.

On the question of a gluestick and an use/uncancelled stamp? I'll remain silent. I think this line might be tapped.

Has anyone ever receive an auction catalog from Regency-Superior within the last few years. Until recently, they shipped all their catalogs within a USPS priority mail envelope and plastered with a number of non-recent U.S. stamps. I never received one that had the stamps canceled. I walked the envelope down the same or next day after receiving it to the local post office where they gladly canceled it as it's revenue protection. In the eyes of the USPS I'm completely ethical as I'm making no attempt to resuse uncanceled stamps. I have no plans to sell these stamps on or off cover any day soon, but am I still ethical in the general philatelic sense? I'm sure there have been many a clerk on the receiving end who have canceled a cover that the sending post office missed although they just might use a pen or marker. The latter is unattractive, but either way not unethical (maybe lazy or a route carrier who only has a pen) on the part of the USPS. I see myself as making the USPS aware and allowing them to finish their duties.

Read this previous thread on essentially the same subject. It's interesting how many different answers you get. Maybe someone needs to do a simple poll as to whether we re-use or don't re-use stamps on our mail. I'd guess the result would be nearly a 50/50 split:

https://goscf.com/t/10595&whichpage...hTerms=reuse

I say that if it is for monitary gain, it is unethical. Period.