At What Point Do You Remove A Stamp(S) From A Cover?

If the cover is ratty, dirty, torn and overall unappealing, do you remove the stamps? The stamps are valuable on their own merit and would look even better off cover. The cover detracts from the appearance of the whole.

The cover I'm considering has a strip of 3 Scott #20, 72-74R12.
Position 72R12 (Mild DT), 73R12 (Middle DT), 74R12 (Major DT) according to the Neiken book. Sad part is that the cover is in Ga. and I'm in PA. So I won't see it for several days.

This is not the cover I was thinking about but its on my list.



Art

My two cents. Covers are hard to store, and so on. But they contain the entire postal history of a letter. A used stamp is only part of the story. In the case of a zeppelin stamp I would certainly leave it on the cover.

Art, considering the Zep cover shown, it is absolutely worth MORE on cover because of the cover markings.

A Ratty cover like that still has more value than the used single does, I would not remove it.

What Stallzer said. It is a philatelic crime to remove a stamp from its cover or visa versa. Stamps on cover are always worth more and are more appealing (to possible buyers).

I disagree. Nice stamps on ugly covers will sell for less almost every time. Take them off and the price goes up. Get a PSE cert that grades really high and the price goes up again. Same stamp......

I guess this is a healthy disagreement--but I am with the majority above that one should never take a stamp off the envelope.
And I respectfully disagree that the value increases when one takes the stamp off. Certainly in the image above where the cachet gives the proof that is was used on the first flight increases the value. If one were to take the stamp off, then you have no proof in the future to make this claim.
And in my experience with auctions is factually the opposite. Or if you simply look at Catalog Values--90% of the stamps are higher on a cover than by itself.

to me the only issue of debate is ease of storage.

but just my opinion

If there is something of interest about the cover, either of historical or social significance, then the cover should be kept intact. But otherwise, if the cover is dirty or damaged and of no particular significance then I can see no point in keeping it and would remove the stamp. Assuming. of course, that the stamp itself was worth having.

Of these two, the second is indeed worth keeping, as the Shepheard's Hotel in Cairo was burnt down in the 1952 civil unrest. But what about the Nefertiti cover?

Terry

For me personally, I leave stamps on cover. The exception to this rule would be for the modern issues. I usually soak those off so that I can trade them for modern issues of countries that I specialize in.

Chimo

Bujutsu

Terry - Somehow the Alexandria postmark looks interesting. Is it significant in any way (Suez Crisis)?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Remove a stamp from its cover and your destroy its postal history - forever. And what you think is worthless may end-up being worth big-$$$. St amps are worth far more on cover, showing how they were used, than off. My advise, if you're not an expert -- leave it as is. :)

Hal

If that Zeppelin on that particular cover was mine,and being a used collector, I would float it like a boat, and hang a Dennison's hinge on it. It would look much better in my National album.

The Congress of Arab Music was held in Cairo in 1932, the postmark date on the Shepheard's Hotel cover. The date on the Nefertiti stamp was indeed the year of the Suez crisis in 1956, four years after the hotel was burnt down. I will keep the Shepheard's Hotel cover intact and will mount it in my Egypt album as a feature in support of the Aviation and Zeppelin stamps which I already have in MM and used condition.

The first day issue Nefertiti (International Museum Week) however I am tempted to neatly cut out as a rectangle containing the CDS cancelled stamp and the additional clear CDS cancel. I can see no point in keeping a featureless envelope in its entirety. As a cover though is is certainly worth more than the used stamp on its own. But is this a valid cover, never having been addressed or put through the post? I am open to opinions and suggestions on this one.

Terry

This fragment of a cover with the 1933 International Aviation Congress issue came to me as shown here. Do I keep it as it is, or cut it up into one single and two pairs, each on piece? I favour keeping it as it is, but would be interested in opinions.

Terry

Terrence,

I like both your covers, and I am in the majority camp of do no harm and keep the cover.

Just like you have kept the Sheapheard's cover intact partly because of the history--why not do the same with the plain blue envelope cover? Who knows maybe sometime in the future it will be more unique by being blue or having two cancels on it? Or in the future, if everybody is cutting and removing you might also have the only XF version of the stamp on a cover. It seems to be that you can always neatly cut it out in the future if you change your mind, so I can see no point in making an irreversible decision now? (and as you agree reduce the value). At the minimum, I'd keep your options open and have the flexibility. You can never go back later, you can always kill it in the future.

part of my opinion is to preserve and protect

so my suggestion is keep it

Hi Tommy,

Thank you for your input and I am inclined to agree with you. I also happen to think all the Egyptian Nefertiti stamps are among the most beautiful of modern stamps. I like the blue envelope too. So I will resist taking the scissors to it. What do think on the Aviation fragment I have also posted?

Terry