Most Valuable Stamp This Week?

The $5 Columbian is one example, but every rare stamp was available at face value at one time. In very few of those circumstances did someone recognize the rarity and future value when they were available at that price. Today there exists a reasonable census or at least a general idea of how many examples exist. Any stamp over, say, 10 years old has a relatively established market price for it and the market knows how common or scarce it might be. Cheap stamps are cheap because they're common as dirt and/or there's no demand for them. The number of collectors could increase by 2 or 3-fold and there would still be enough supply to satisfy demand. These things are unlikely to change in the near to medium term. There are no existing market forces that would - in 5-10 years' time - turn a $2 stamp into a $50 or $100 one, or a $50 into a $250 one. Now, there are enough new issues being issued and there are likely some sleepers in there, but you'd lose so much buying issues that do nothing that there's no way it could pay off.

There are a lot of theories about the hot new collecting area. China is kind of the template for this. 40 years ago, China was a dirt-poor country and was going through the Cultural Revolution. Very few Chinese could save the new stamps that were issued, if they even knew they existed. Now, China is much more prosperous, with a growing middle class, many of whom have started collecting stamps. As a result, the prices of certain stamps from China have absolutely skyrocketed in price over the last 10-15 years. Many people are on the lookout for the next China, with India and various other Asian countries being speculated about. Yes - there will be stamps that increase in price, sometimes greatly. But sitting here today and trying to figure out which stamps, out of the million or so different ones issued throughout history, will increase the most is a near impossible task. The most sure-fire winners are rarities and classic stamps in very high grades, but they're not what you'd call sleepers. Everyone already knows about them, that's why they're valuable. Collecting areas do wax and wane in popularity over time, but it's generally a long term thing, decades rather than years. No one really knows a decade or two out what the hot area will be.

Its slowly sinking in Thank You Once Again TheArtFulHinger. I also have some from china as well. Thank You!

How did you glean that from what was said?

There is no "golden rule" for knowing what the next in-demand high-value stamp or collecting area will be. That crystal ball would be akin to predicting the stock market.

It also depends on what country, era, or specialty you collect.

1. Classic U.S. front-of-book: unlikely to be new major discoveries, at least not that the everyman collector can afford. What's high-value or on-demand is the same as decades ago. See Scott catalog.

2. Modern U.S. front-of-book: nothing. Collect these for enjoyment, not investment. Unless you are buying well below face value, you are never going to make money, with the possibile exception of certain press sheets that sell out... but regular stamps? Nada.

3. U.S. back-of-book: Many pockets of activity. Unlike front-of-book, which is in general stagnant, many BoB areas have been experiencing relatively large run-ups in Scott values over the last decade as many collectors and dealers recognize that front-of-book is relatively saturated, whereas BoB presents a comparatively new challenge or "undiscovered frontier" with many discoveries still to be made. This is compounded by the fact that Scott's coverage and pricing of many BoB areas is either woefully incomplete, tragically out-of-date, or just plain wrong.

4. Worldwide classic (pre-1940) and semi-modern (pre-1990): Ebbs and flows. Certain countries come into vogue as others wane in interest. Recently material from the People's Republic of China has had huge increases in catalog value due to demand, and to a lesser degree India. Some years back Russian material saw a lot of interest. Emerging third-world countries can have very volatile pricing fluctuations as more collectors (and money) come onto the market.

5. Worldwide recent modern (as in 2000+): Many issues are actually quite scarce as legitimate non-philatelic postal uses. Examples of certain stamps on cover can be quite tough to find.

Those are just some thoughts off the top of my head...

I wonder if I have been a bad influence around here.


-IBFS

"The $5 Columbian is one example, but every rare stamp was available at face value at one time"

Generally true, but not for 30 years after being issued like the Columbians were.
And it is certainly NOT true that "in very few of those circumstances did someone recognize the rarity and future value when they were available at that price"; they often were recognized as scarce or rare, but stamps that are rare today were usually rare than too and often could not be found. That is why people like Spiro Brothers, François Fournier and Jean de Sperati were forging rarities in the 1860's, 1870's and 1880's. Very few stamps "become rare" later, although there are a few.
One that immediately comes to mind is RO48a, which was an adhesive stamp printed on tissue paper to pay the tax on matches. There were 8,400,000 printed, but nearly all of them were thrown away, and today it catalogs $6,000. On the other hand, RS14 had a total printing of only 7500 to pay the tax on patent medicines, but the company went out of business almost immediately and nearly all were remaindered. They are easily found for about $90.

IMO, It needs to be said again. Rare does not mean expensive. Rare is the one that is hard to find, not the one you can't afford. I once spent over a year trying to find that damn 45 cent pumpkinseed sunfish on cover.

Art

The Columbians are a special case in some respects because, even though they were available at face or less for years, they were never cheap. $5 in 1913 had about the same buying power as $120 today. Even as late as 1923 it was still equivalent to about $70 (per the gov't CPI calculator).

If the post office issued a $100 face value stamp today, it's entirely likely the same scenario would play out. It would probably go something like this: Collectors would howl loudly, most wouldn't buy them and maybe a couple tens of thousands of this stamp would be sold, maybe even less. The approximate number of stamps sold would be known, but the secondary market would continue to shun them for years. Sooner or later, due to various market forces, prices would eventually rise, perhaps even dramatically.

If the USPS issued that $100 stamp tomorrow, even though I think the above scenario is roughly how it would play out, I still wouldn't stick $100 into that stamp because only God knows how long it would take the market to catch up. Could be a year, could be 3 decades. And if it's 3 decades, there are a lot better places to park $100 if I'm trying to make money. But...that's why they call it speculating. There's a chance for either gain or loss, and the speculator is of course banking on the gain.

Except that there is no comparison between 1893 and today, either in terms of collectors or the methods and quantities of stamps issued. Collectors in 1893 were far more likely to be from the upper class than they are now, that really did not start to slowly change until after WWl, and really picked up after WWll. Most collectors could afford them at the time. Also collectors had been demanding a set honoring Columbus for several years before it finally happened, there were numerous articles in philatelic magazines of the period (and there were a LOT of magazines in those days). And no one was speculating on them at the time, they were buying them to put in the album, again a very different mindset. It's just that there were fewer collectors and it took 30 years for the quantity to be absorbed by them.

It seems to me that Oliver thinks that stamps are like stocks. There are no end to investment advisers recommending "hot picks" of the week. Seems to me like he's thinking along those lines with respect to stamps.

Oliver, the differences are so many that it is hard to decide where to begin. I'll just make a couple of points. Stocks have "fundamental" values (based on earnings, dividends, cash flow, etc.) and the stock market depends on investors having the best information regarding those fundamental values. As markets and technologies change, the fortunes of companies change, and there is always information coming to the fore as to which stocks to buy and which to sell. Stamps are simply not like that. They have no fundamental value (other than face value, and I don't think that is what you are interested in).

Stamps are more like works of art, or other "collectibles." They have no intrinsic value. That's not to say that there cannot be "investment potential" for art, stamps, or other collectibles. But for every piece of art that ends up in a gallery with investment potential, there are countless pieces of art that nobody will ever buy. Stamps are more like that, than they are like stocks. Now if you are interested in stamps for their investment potential, think for a moment what would be required of you to do the same thing for "paintings." First, you'd have to have "deep pockets." Second, you would either need to develop some expertise on your own, or depend upon experts to advise you of what to buy; and those experts are not going to be giving free advice, again coming back to the "deep pockets" requirement. You would likely be told to specialize, chose a particular art style, period, or artist and learn all you can about that narrow specialty. Getting rich buying and selling stamps is no different.

This is primarily a hobby. If, as you become more knowledgeable about the hobby you learn to recognize a "good deal" when you see one, that isn't going to make you rich. It will make whatever money you put into the hobby go further, and there is always a thrill associated with scoring a "good deal." But do not expect more than that.

Basil