Cover Question

At the risk of asking the obvious, what constitutes a cover? I have an older stamp that would jump in value if on cover but it is only on the corner of the cover like a cut square - its actually tied to a cut square. It clearly is on an envelope remnant but not the whole envelope.

A "cut square" as you describe is certainly collectible and if it is an older stamp with a clean postmark tied to a city/state and/or date, one should leave it that way as it usually is more collectible that way.

However, as to catalog values, the "on cover" value is assuming that the entire cover is intact (not just a corner or a cut square or an envelope "front"). Anything less than a full cover is no longer valued under this category. Although some collectors may still pay a premium for a "cut square" if it is a particularly desirable cancellation or postmark, you would typically be looking at its value as a "used" stamp.

That's what I would have thought but you said it more eloquently than I, wt1. Thanks

Thank you, as I have often wondered the same thing.

If it is a Stamp then the correct term I believe is "Stamp on piece". Unfortunately previous gererations of collectors did not have crystal balls and many simply cut the Stamp and postmark off the envelope.

Very true. On piece is still more desirable than just the stamp by itself. Some stamps (high value stamps) were used more predominantly on packages than on covers, and so are most likely to be found on piece.