To Remove Selvage Or Not?

hello all. please also remember selvedge often contains versions of watermarks as well and these are easier to spot. regards ken

Yes. "Selvage" is mainly American, "selvedge" is mainly British.

When I started assembling a set of Armenian alphabet definitives, the first installment had corner selvage, but it was difficult to find matching selvage for the rest of the series, and I wanted to have a matching set for display purposes. Rather than removing the selvage from the stamps that I already had, I ended up buying duplicates of those stamps without selvage to make my complete set.

If the selv*ge is such a bother, instead of ripping it off, it's possible to fold it.

Never fold it.

If you fold selvedge plan on having it separate at some point. The older the paper the more likely it will separate and of course perforation rate and paper type matters. Another thing that can happen is if the selvedge is gummed it adheres to the stamp itself.

Selvedge pieces may well have been the first stamp hinges. Old stamps are often found with remnants still affixed.

rogdcam, I was referring to cases where the collector is about to rip it off. I also assume that it is the last resting place of the stamp during the collector's life, so he won't move it and unfold it.

Years ago, collectors often saved the selvage for use as hinges. This was before hinges were sold. It was either that or glue the stamps to the page, I suppose, so thank goodness for that selvage. But that selvage had been removed from stamps. Today, I would never remove selvage from "classic era" stamps, or decorative or informational selvage, but I do remove pointless extra paper selvage. I hope I'm not committing a stamp collecting crime, but I wouldn't collect stamps if I had to mount them with selvage still attached. My albums would look sloppy, to say the least.

I've purchased a few modern European collections, Austria and Germany in particular, where nearly every single stamp had selvage attached. U.S. collectors rarely do this, so I've always wondered if it's some sort of habit in those countries . . . ? What is the appeal of all that extra paper still attached to those stamps? Is the collector too lazy to remove it?

There may be use in keeping the printing information on the selvage or decorative lines and images. But blank paper? It's like my Aunt Agnes who saved all the Christmas wrapping paper for some strange reason. Or people who save the boxes everything they buy comes in. I collect stamps. but I do not collect paper attached to stamps any more than I'd wear clothing with labels still attached.

I hope removing selvage isn't a stamp crime of some sort, but I admit to removing what seems to be extra waste paper from modern stamps. If the selvage has printing on it, words, numbers, designs, I leave it. But selvage that is just blank paper, I see no reason for. Not to mention the awfulness (and unattractiveness) of mounting stamps with all that extra waste paper still attached.

I think that in stamp collecting, aunt Agnes attitude is better. It shows the perforation or lack of it at the while salvage, that there isn't any info on it. Particularly it's useful if there are versions with and without printed salvage.
In the past many collectors cut off perforations because they thought it looked sloppy. Today most collectors value the perforations. I have a feeling that in the future even white salvage will be desirable.
For me, I try not to do things that are irreversible.
But, as for "stamp collecting crimes" - forget it: Your collection - your rules.

I am a thematic collector (Olympic/Paralympic games), so the situation here is a bit different from chronological collections.

I normally leave the selvage when it is 'meaningful", i.e. contains some additional information, even if it is plain (empty).

e.g. many countries use to issue stamp sets in several formats that can be only differentiated when you have stamps with selvages at least (for mini sheets, I prefer to find a complete mini sheet, though).

Two examples of the kind.

India, 2008. Beijing Summer Olympics

A set of 4 stamps was issued as a souvenir sheet and in regular sheets containing the set in blocks of four:











And a more recent issue from Hong Kong - again a set of 4 stamps was issued in a souvenir sheet and as single stamps in regularsheets:

I keep all selvedge. Those with inscriptions, plate numbers, or counting numbers for example, are no-brainers (at least to me), but what about the plain ones? I keep those as well. To me they are part of stamp production and I'm way too uncomfortable removing them. And then there's the (albeit minor) risk of creating a pulled perf on the stamp (oy vey).

Could be worse ....



Sigh.

A student of philately understands the information the attached paper can provide and respects passing that information on to the next owner, especially as shown above regarding the format of the issued stamp and not mentioned, the position within (or narrowing down) the format in which the stamp was issued. With some US issues you need the extra paper to determine an EE printed (electric eye) issue. See here for more information: https://www.stampcommunity.org/topi...PIC_ID=37317

In short, I leave it on. You should as well, but that does not mean you can't take it off. The others to follow may never know the lost.

I like a neat organized stamp album.

To me album pages with mixed "with selvage" and "without selvage" do not look good.

A set of stamps and only one or two have selvage does not look goo.

If the selvage is plain and no script I remove it.

If the selvage is special like gutter pairs, plate blocks or some special script I make a separate page for it.

This is a great, respectful, educational thread.
Thank you all for your opinions and contributions.

Here's a white empty selvage, seemingly with no contribution to the stamp/label. Would you remove it?