What's It Worth If Reperfed?

Among the 19th century classics, the Scott Specialized gives a pricing reference for sound stamps in the grade of VF. Sometimes, not always, reperfing is done to even up the margins on all four sides. Shameful, but the final product often looks very attractive. So...

1. If a stamp appears well centered with a face free cancel and is free of defects except for the fact that it has been reperfed at the top or bottom, What percentage of catalog would you pay?

2. Same question but reperfed on one side.


3. Same question but reperfed on any two sides.

What influences your decision(s)?

Classic US 19th Century stamps were produced with left and right margin straight edges. Stamps capturing a large part of the margin are or should be quite collectible. Stamps with the top or bottom arrow are very collectible. While it is possible for some reperforated stamps to have adequate margins, most end up with substandard margins.

Generally, stamps with reperforated top or bottom margins were damaged by trimming or were badly off center. Most end up being too short or have other aesthetic defects. Many reperforated stamps are obvious and the appearance of the perforations will blight the appearance of a collection, especially in the eyes of a potential buyer if the collection is ever offered for sale.

Fully disclosed reperforated stamps will retail in the 10 to 20 percent of catalog range. Most dealers pay 0 to 5 percent of catalog for reperforated stamps, especially if the work is obvious. Unfortunately, some dealers don't disclose and try to sell the stamps at full value based on centering as if not reperforated. Others fail to notice and end up unintentionally defrauding collectors.

In my opinion, a reperforated margin is a major defect like a tear or large thin.

Clark

As a generalization, I wouldn't pay any price regardless how attractive for a reperfed stamp. As Clark mentioned, a reperfed side (or several) is a major defect, and I wouldn't buy a stamp with a huge thin either. Its the 'purist' in me...

I am sure I'm just splitting hairs, but I disagree - a reperfed margin is a modification, not necessarily a fault. In the case of huge-margined stamps where natural straight-edges are perforated, I don't see a problem - especially if you could cut off the perforations to re-create the straight-edge.

Example:

US 114 from my collection. While I am irritated by the added perforations on the right, in no way do I consider this to be faulty because of the reperf job. This stamp was listed by a major dealer on ebay for $100. It had 5 rejected offers over the course of the two weeks it was listed before I made an offer that was accepted. I do not regret my purchase for even a moment, but I'm curious what our members here would have paid ... I'll reveal my purchase price later.

Brian

Depends on how bad I wanted it.
Robert

Not all reperf jobs are the same. If
It draws the eye to it immediately then you would have to be harsh on the pricing. The 114 above is a beautiful piece. Even great works of art have been repaired

But note that repaired stamps are universally considered to be faulty. My answer to the original question would be the same as wert's, with the added proviso that it depends on how available in general are unrepaired/unmodified examples of the stamp in comparable condition. In the example at hand, one can find sound jumbo copies of #114 reasonably often, so I myself would not pay anything for a reperfed copy (unless I am buying it only for the guide arrow). On the other hand, I would not reject the opportunity to purchase an otherwise good #39 (let's say) just because of a reperf.

A stamp that has added perfs might look good, but it isn't the genuine article. Whether it belongs in your collection depends on which of these two factors is more important to you.

In defense of my stamp, I challenge anyone here to find a Jumbo, straddle-margin stamp with an arrow and parts of 2 additional stamps (especially the stamp opposite the straddle) in any shape. Are there cases where a reperf is considered insignificant?

Siegel thinks so about this 114 with rare cancellation ...

"reperfed at top of little consequence"




http://www.siegelauctiongalleries.u...lledfrom=lkp


Brian

I always consider a reperf as a fault, major if it's the whole side, minor if it just cleans up a couple of holes. When I evaluate stamps for value I use a point system and consider one reperfed side as a two point deduction. Two sides would be a four point, a couple of holes would be one point. Each point halves the value, so a $100 catalog value stamp would be worth $25 with two points deducted. You can add points for jumbo margins, XF centering or MNH on a classic stamp. Your jumbo 114 would have one point deducted for F-VF centering, two points deducted for the reperfed side, one point added for the jumbo margins, and assuming no faults on the back would be worth 25% of catalog. It's possible that an evaluator would also add a point back in for the arrow bringing the value up to 50% of catalog.

That's puffery. Perhaps of little consequence to someone interested in the cancel per se.

I agree with billsey and Clark.

... but it does provide a good example of why someone would ignore a reperf. The Siegel auction stamp sold for $2100 - more than 4x the auction estimate.




Using this formula, my stamp would be "worth" $10. Is that really the most you would offer for this stamp were it to come up for auction? I really want to hear what other members think it's worth ...

I am trying to find an equivolent (any classic) stamp to compare to - which could take some time - but I don't think it will be easy to find. I have more than 500 Scott #114s, but I think this one is quite unusual. As such, I would pay 250% of Scott for copies just like this stamp until my savings dried up and without hesitation - such is my interest in this issue.

Perhaps the original question was too broad? If I may take the liberty of re-phrasing essayk's question ...




Brian

I am enjoying reading these responses because they show something of the range of reasons for collecting and how that influences decision making like this. From what I'm seeing, none of us has pure motives. Sometime we value one thing, sometimes another.

For some people forming a collection is a test of their business acumen. The decision to add an item to the collection, or not, had to meet certain levels of financial soundness. The responses by CJ, Billsey, and Clark were coming predominantly from that place. For the business challenge, it matters less WHAT you collect than HOW.

It was intriguing to me that CJ dismissed the comment by the Siegel describer as "puffery" as if he thought they were over representing the stamp by down playing a fault. Never mind that for many cancellation collectors the clarity of the mark is everything and the identity or grade of the stamp almost incidental. I think the disconnect occurred because CJ was not looking at the problem aesthetically, but rather in terms of the implied dishonesty in overlooking a fault. Authenticity is of greater value than relevance for the collection built to satisfy the need to demonstrate prowess in the marketplace. Given his outrage over the describers dishonest "puffery" I am trying to imagine the chagrin over the final price disparity between what it was worth TO HIM and what someone else with the funds was willing to pay. Obviously his goal is different.

Some of the time we decide to buy a stamp against all good common sense. What's going on with that? Something about the stamp, usually something personal and intangible, triggers a response that compels us to add it to our collection - no matter what. The last stamp in a set, or on a page. The signal gem (in our eyes) that has eluded us for too long. A stamp that brings back memories of times and people and places. Or one whose color, symmetry, vibrancy is too much to resist. Or one that is the key to solving a puzzle we have been spinning our wheels on. A key datum for a theory, or evidence of something unexpected. The linchpin for a new way of regarding some facet of its very existence.

In that aesthetic moment we indulge ourselves in the acquisition because it fills a need to do so. Not unlike the decision to buy a sound recording, go to a play, or adopt a dog. Here the "return on investment" is measured in immediate gratification more than dollars and cents. And if someone were to point out the folly, it is a decision you are happy to live with because YOU GOT SOMETHING YOU WANTED. I think Robert, Brian, and Dudley were mainly coming from that domain in their responses.

So what was I up to?

Well here is the item that put me in mind of all this:



It cost about the same as a movie without popcorn for two. In this case that means about 1/3 cat. It will last as long as the memories of the movie, but when the time comes I will get more of its cost back than I would for the ticket stubs. Worth it to me. However, like most of us it isn't perfect. The top perfs were trimmed and it has been reperforated. I will not know until it arrives whether that is the only fault, and if not, then back it goes. But for now I am enjoying the anticipation of adding this to a page of nice appearing stamps, which I wasn't particularly looking to fill. I don't need it for anything, and it is ancillary to my main collecting interests.

But it looks nice. And sometimes you buy the stamp because it clicks for you. That is pure hobby interest. So I will watch the movie on cable and call it even.

That I think is what is working for Brian with his 114 straddle pane single. It clicked for him and then you can throw out the book. He is a hobbyist who knows how to relax and let it be fun from time to time.

May we all do as well.

Not quite correct. To me the Siegel offering is an altered stamp and therefore for me, it has a serious fault and I do not want it. Siegel exhibited no dishonesty as they called out the fault, and I made no accusation of dishonesty. My comment merely noted that sellers commonly seek to downplay the importance of a fault in order to woo the buyer. Auction descriptions virtually always note a fault and then use flowery language to suggest that it is meaningless; to me that just amplifies its importance! You are absolutely right that the fault was obviously inconsequential for the buyer but not for me, which is fine; good for the buyer. We have different interests and standards.

I avoid reperfs and regums. To me these are defaced stamps. Evil. OK, maybe that's a bit extreme, but it is what I think.

Quite an interesting and revealing discussion here. I am in the camp that a reperfed stamp is a no no on a design with low monetary value that also has low value imperforates and high value with different perforations produced by the manufacturer. The possibility for falsifying those is, as we know, not uncommon. However, on designs with only one perforation count, a reperfed stamp is acceptable if well done. I would count that stamp, as others have mentioned, as altered not defaced, damaged, faulty or whatever term you may wish to use. When well done, it enhances the appearance of the stamp. I have a few classics in this category and they look quite nice. In fact most of the reperfed stamps (and some with thins) that I have are multiple times more attractive than many of its high priced brothers that are sound in every way. I assume most of us have seen original perforations that are so poorly done that they look worse than reperfed stamps. To be honest, I am very happy to have purists as fellow collectors; that leaves those of us who have smaller pockets the pleasure of obtaining HCV stamps for a fraction.

For what little it is worth, my opinion puts a reperfed stamp in the same category as margins added, tears repaired, regummed, rebacked, etc. In other words, it has been altered to deceive and I'd value it accordingly.