Pencil Marks On Classic Mints

Accurate or not, pencil writing such as shown here on covers absolutely should be erased, especially when on the front of a cover. About the only pencil writing that is considered acceptable on the front of a cover is that put there by a well-known and highly respected expert. Stanley Ashbrook nearly always wrote notes on the front of the covers, and some experts (including Herbert Bloch, A.Dienna and others) routinely signed their name or initials on the front of the cover. Those should not be removed. At least, these are my recommendations.

I agree Don. About 25% marks on covers are incorrect and 15% catalog numbers on the back of stamps. Right now I am cataloging, mounting some stamps from Victoria. The poor fellow before me only had Scott to go by, and so misses many of the nuances of the Stanley-Gibbons catalog. Even so, he gets some of the Scott numbers wrong.

By the same token, I am not likely to attempt to remove marks from covers unless I am pretty darn sure that I am the one who is correct. Also I see some markings as being part of the history of the piece, especially when the piece is 150 years old and someone added notes to it 120 years ago trying to identify it (even if incorrectly).

It does drive me kind of crazy when dealers (even today) put prices in pencil right on their covers.

I think Bil may have already said this, but it bears repeating - if you want to try to erase, you MUST use a soft eraser. Perhaps soeone can supply some brand mames or geric names for the type of eraser that is soft (I think the one I got may have been called art gum?).

I've only ever done it on cheaper stamps and am afraid to try it on more expensive ones as even being careful I have still damaged some.

Someone mentioned seeing a dulling residue left behind on the gum - most of the time I do not see this, but when I do see it, it can bewided off (but it usually takes multuple wipes).

Here's a piece I just bought today. At least two different people have added notations in pencil on the cover about the stamp. They are accurate (it is indeed 71L1L, as can be ascertained with the naked eye), but detract from the cover. I may attempt erasure. But these marks did not discourage me from purchasing this piece--I now have good examples of all the inverted transfer positions from Plate 1 Late (71L, 81L and 91L) on cover.

The issue of cleaning up stamps and covers by the removal of pencil notations, stray marks and messes, comes under the umbrella of "restoration." That has long been a hotly disputed topic among fine arts collectors of every sort, so it should not be a surprise to us here. As a couple of folks have pointed out, each collector has his or her own tolerance level for whatever restoration activity applies to the stamps they will consider for collecting.

One of the places it can become critical is in an arena that few of us here inhabit. This is in the rarified atmosphere of investment grade material. One of the reasons some stamps of very high grade command such high prices is because pristine examples of stamps from the classic period are howling rarities. Few got through time unscathed. So stamps grading J95 and so on usually command many multiples of the catalog value of their more pedestrian kin. When stamps grade at that level, no one wants to play games with pencil marks that have been erased from the gum side, whether the restoration left any tags or not. That is because the premium is paid for authentically pristine material.

As we come down from those heights, and the material becomes more plentiful and readily available, the severity of the penalty for restoration work on our stamps decreases. So too does the need and inclination for being fastidious about how our stamps have been treated. In the end, we each decide what it is worth to us, and we proceed into the marketplace accordingly.

I want to thank everyone that we have been able to discuss this sometimes sensitive subject without rancor or disrespect. It is a good discussion.

Essayk - With you leading the discussion, it has to be a good one!

Dudley - Indeed, that cover's appearance will be greatly improved after you erase the pencil notations. And congratulations on the purchase of such an elusive item!

I agree that this has been one of the most objective and informative discussions on this subforum. I am very pleased that objective discussion has taken place amongst experts, experienced collectors, and novices alike.

I hope that this thread serves as a standard of how future discussions take place.

Kudos to all that participated. A formal atmosphere doesn't seem to be conducive on this forum. A non-judgmental, non-reactionary, and casual atmosphere seems to be what it takes for many to choose to participate in discussion.

Stamp collecting is about each of our subjective experiences, desires, and perspectives.

I believe that this forum should embrace all aspects of our hobby and that we should promote each other in whatever it is that each individual enjoys. I also believe that we should be objective concerning every discussion and should always help each other by sharing our knowledge.

As this site's tagline states: "Education is the key to collector success!"

I'll stop babbling now and just relish in how well everyone is treating each other.

"As we come down from those heights, and the material becomes more plentiful and readily available, the severity of the penalty for restoration work on our stamps decreases. So too does the need and inclination for being fastidious about how our stamps have been treated."

Or it becomes easier to find an example that is pristine.

Dudley, there appear to be two groups of pencil notations on the front of your cover, but they do not appear to be in the same hand. The thing is that the upper one has content that is not necessarily philatelic, and may have been written on by the original recipient, noting the nature of the contents: "doubled invested transfer" whatever that means. I would not be too quick to erase everything in pencil on there. While that would not be a postal marking, it may be a part of the docketing, as is the calculation in ink, I believe.

[Judging by the scratches above the arithmetic and the smear on the line of subtraction, it looks like someone was having trouble with the nib of his pen and switched to pencil for his docketing notes.]

Essayk - it says "double inverted transfer" and refers to the variety that is on the stamp. It is not contemporary "docketing". Try not to let your disdain for erasing pencil cloud your common sense. Trust those who own the material to only erase what is superfulous and not something important.

essayk, that says "doubled inverted transfer" and refers to the stamp (it is position 71L1L, usually described in the literature as "triple transfer, one inverted"). Definitely a philatelic notation. The ink marking is not, I agree.

I apologize for the misreading.

Bill, if I had correctly read that as "inverted" rather than "invested" do you honestly think I would have offered my cautionary suggestion? Whatever happened to "better safe than sorry?" Your pique is unnecessary.

I have been remiss is not thanking Artful, earlier & profusely, for his pointer to the Sakura Electric SE-2000 eraser.

http://www.sakuraofamerica.com/electric-eraser

What a treat! Dealer scribbles have been flying off postcards, and it feels so-o-o-o good!




I am not entirely confident that this is the only alternative, eyeonwall.

As it is dragged across a surface, a soft eraser will retain energy, much like a spring, that will be released when the eraser drags along a weak(er) spot, like a thin, to potentially disastrous results. You will not know how much 'extra' energy is in the physical body of the eraser until you hit the weak spot.

The high RPM of an electric-powered eraser allows it to be more effective, with less contact, in a smaller area. How small? You can 'sharpen' the eraser to a something of a conical point, or you can flatten that point and use the edge of the end of the cylinder.

Either way, you get a level of precision that is [guess] impossible [/guess] to duplicate with a similarly sharpened manual soft eraser, and that precision reduces the drag on the surface of the stamp.

[hint] Always be mindful of the direction in which the eraser is turning against the surface. If you move the eraser (it is my inclination to stroke the surface with the electric eraser) be sure to move the device so that the contacting edge of the eraser is moving in the same direction as you are moving the body of the device. [/hint]

In the end, I find it easier to control the position of the electric-powered eraser than to control the pressure on the manual eraser.




Evidence of erasure is just that, and nothing more. A future beholder could think that we erased something useful, but that's on them. A future beholder could think that we erased something dumb or dirty and, for that, they should only be grateful.

About the only thing you could erase that would constitute fraud would be, say, the word 'fraud' itself, eg, someone's (presumably correct) notation that the stamp had been added to the cover long after it passed thru the post.

Q/ How often do any of us see (presumably correct) notes like 'stamp not original' or 'sender already dead' written on a cover?

AFAIK, evidence of erasure conveys evidence of courage. There is no reason to think that some random filth that accompanies an item needs to stay with that item; after all, some dealer's 1950 price for an 1870 cover is hardly organic to the piece.

Yes, once in awhile, somebody is going to erase the local postmaster's historically-relevant penciled notation. But let's keep that fear in perspective, eh?

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Essayk. I apologize for perhaps not stating my feeling as well as ikeyPikey just did in his post. You know I love you!

Cover illustrated in previous post, before and after philatelic pencil marks erased.