Bad Gum / No Gum - Value "Used" Or "Face"

I have about 10 Mint Sheets from the 80's that some are stuck to the parchment style paper in a book and some have bad gum backings. I could use them for postage, but was curious (working on insuring everything I have with regards to Stamps), is the value of these bad sheets the "used" value in Scott or face value of the Sheet themselves. i.e.: 2030, 2335a, 2064, etc.

Face value as long as they have not actually been used and cancelled.

Face value if YOU use them. If sold, such material sells for a significant discount from face.

The lesson here is the books for hold full sheets are very narrow but should never be stored on the flat side and stacked. Rather they need to be stored upright as a book normally is. I suggest using a album dust cover of the correct size to keep them vertical to which you can always add other items if you do not have enough sheet files to fill the dust cover without the mint sheet files sagging.

I think PPG is usually a buyer of expensive oddities, rather than a seller.

[Edit: this wasn't a random comment - the post to which it replied has since been removed]

I eager JWL and ASJ are the same person unless they have magically mind-melded with the "salesman" rhetoric.

GeoffHa, I also happily get cheap material. In general could be described as collecting items not normally seen. I also freely admit I am considered a philatelic black hole, what comes into my collection never sees the light of day again.Translation, I do not tend to sell, some day it will be but not during the last four decades. That said, I did miss the post to which you were replying before it vanished.

As the latter time and again comes here on a fishing expedition, hoping we save him the cost of a catalogue, and the former quotes Scott numbers, magic may be involved.

Having revisited the thread linked below, I must say that
is wrong and perhaps JWL is owed an apology rodgcam for linking him with the other SCF member.

JWL posted a real, actual find and help uncover that in fact there were two printing, the first and a reprint over two years apart. JWL is a philatelist!


https://goscf.com/t/89503#830184

I stand corrected. My assumption that they may be one and the same came from both of them posting negative comments about you on the same day, PPG, insinuating that you were a shill here on the forum to promote sales for certain items such as catalogs. I found the "coincidence" odd. Since you vouch for this person though, please accept my apologies.

Not sure who ASJ is, but I appreciate what Parcel Post Guy stated. I am new on the thread (just a week) and my first post was about C137. The full sheets I got in a large box at a junk store with other stuff. No apology necessary Rogdcam. I'm not selling anything as of yet, but my own records for insuring my collection I was creating a database and I was using the "used" value of these damaged mint sheet stamps since once I soak them, I could only use them for postage, so then they become Used, hence my though of the "Used Value", which is more than the "Face Value". Just wanted to verify that I would be correct in doing so.

Now your question is a bit more clear JWL. For the Catalog may I ask if you are using Scott? If so there is information buried in the from information pages. Unused stamps are stamp which have not been used for their specific purpose. Used stamps are stamps which have been used for their purpose to pay postage and fees in actual mail.

Unused stamps can come in many condition beginning with "mint" mean unused, undamaged and with full gum (if so issued with). The lesser condition or damage never converts an unused stamp to a used stamp. Now the used prices are listed for postally used stamps (or stamps on other documents consistent with the type of stamp. In your case we are just speaking about stamps used to pay for postage and fees.

Work with me here, but the catalog sets a minimum "value" for a stamp, mint or used. Currently that is 25 cents, it has been lower in the past and lower even the farther in the past you look. That value is for a transaction of one stamp. If your transaction involves more than one stamp, say 100 the fine print says the total cost is NOT $0.25 x 100 = $25.00. I will be closer to $4, 5, 8, 10 but never $25. Some folks may (will say) $2 would be over priced. In these circumstances we are not talking the value of the stamp, we are talking the labor involved selling the relatively worthless pieces of printed paper (stamps).

So you have damaged gum unused stamps with a face value. Even if you completely soak the gum off, the stamp are still unused. They do not suddenly become postally used and subject to the "used" catalog value. The stamp never went through the mail nor were used for their purpose.

Thus that 15 or 20 or 32 cent stamp unused without gum remain 15, 20 or 32 cent face value unused stamps. the loos of gum does not make them "used" and thus suddenly worth the 25 minimum value for a single stamp. This is even true with the older stamp with first class face values of 13, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4 or 3 cents. Unused no gum is still unused with a value of face, not the higher 25 cent minimum single used stamp value.

So for insurance valuation the less than mint unused stamps have a value equal to their face value as a replacement cost. But as I mentioned, for you, personally the only way to realize the full value of stuck down unused stamps is to use them on mail yourself. If you went to sell them as is or with the gum and adhering paper soaked off the market for such stamp is a fraction of face value. Currently general mint face postage in pieces less than a full pane (sheet) trade at 20-25% of face with complete panes (sheets) bring about 30%. Thus $100 face in mint sheets will get you $30 cash in the resale wholesale discount postage market.

I hope the better response your better question allowed meets you understanding and needs.

Doesn't a "used" price, usually, relate to contemporary use, hence requiring a recognisable (part) cancellation for the time? E.g., the German inflation issues.

NSK, yes you are correct, but here the discussion is 1980s US commemorates where such clear date use is not an issue. Lets not get started on the Greenland used value for stamp being lower if the cancel is identified as and off cover FDC and other philatelic information off in the weeds for this thread.