Premium Value For US Singles From Booklet Panes?

This might just be a theoretical issue since Scott does not list booklet singles for stamps from booklets unless the differ in perforation from the base sheet stamp, but I personally would like to include booklet singles (preferably corner copies) in my collection. But, what should I expect to pay as a premium if I were to look for such items.

For example, Scott 300, the 1c Franklin from the 1902 series, the standard stamp has a CV (in 2009) of 25 cents, but the booklet pane of six has an italicized value of $12500.000 used. Now granted a full pane of 6 used would be quite rare so I understand the high valuation. But if I want to purchase say the bottom corner single in used condition, what kind of premium, if any, would make sense to pay.

I think one of the problems is to be able to determine a single sheet from a single booklet once the single booklet stamp has been removed from booklet.

I have been told more than once by dealers collectors want unopened booklets which to me sounds insane. So if you want to see the stamps you have to buy two. One to keep unopened and one to explode and mount so you can enjoy the stamps. I really try to stay away from booklets because of this weird collecting requirement.
Nick

Just as a comparable to consider, here's an ebay listing ... a full booklet pane of 300b (with faults) that's selling (with certificate) for only about 12% of its catalog value at $1495 ... but with no bids:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Scott-30...em2a283e71d3

Using your example of the Scott 300 booklet panes the only stamps that can realy be distinguished with checking the watermark would be the copies with the perforated horizontal guide lines. Some dealers or sellers may charge a modest premium for those stamps. Other than the perforated guide line copies the only way to really differentiate the booklet from the sheet stamps would be the watermark. The Scott 300b, 301b and the 319 booklet varieties were printed from 180 subject plate and all have the vertical watermark.

DJCMH - you have been given a good answer by Russ