Removing A Stamp From An Envelope.

Hi guys...I saw on the American side a talk about removing an old stamp from an envelope...Some said NEVER, others disagree..Here is my take on it...What if you had an old Large Queen stamp (like a Scott #32) attached to it...If you remove it, the price could go down, BUT, if you do remove it, to check for that rare watermark, then wow, bonus..Would you remove that stamp, or any stamp from an existing envelope..?

Hi Wert, I did not know there was an American side to this forum?
But anyway, to answer your question. Yes. I have removed stamps from envelopes. Mostly a long time ago when I really did not know any better. These days most philatelists are aware of the value of a stamp on its environment, the cover!
I keep almost every cover I get in the mail now, maybe it will help some collector out in years to come?
Now, on the other hand, your example is a difficult one to answer. Personally, I do not collect anything that is more valuable with a watermark. So I believe the answer relies solely on what you or I values more. If you feel that the chance of hitting paydirt exists, go for it! I probably would not destroy an old cover.

Peter

I personally rarely remove a stamp from an "entire" cover. If it's just a corner, which is the way many old timers saved stamps go ahead soak them

You don't necessarily have to destroy a cover to check a stamp for a watermark.

There are some on this forum who could explain the procedure I am sure, but I have heard that sometimes a stamp is removed from a cover to check it (authenticity, watermark, paper type) and then returned to the cover.

This would be for more pricey items I am sure. It does not diminish the value of the stamp or cover if done properly (though I don't know how exactly).

I've lifted dozens of pre-1870 US stamps from covers. For me it all comes down to comparing the benefits of having the stamp off cover with the significance of the postal history. If the cover isn't dated, or has a common postal marking, or was sent to a non-historically important addressee, or has no contents, or is badly damaged, I would be more willing to remove the stamp. Granted, any pre-1970 cover could be considered historically significant at any time, especially with genealogy being so popular. But the bottom line is that you are the owner of the cover, and you can decide its fate.

Hi Wert

If you have a potentially valuable stamp on cover I suggest that you get expertized BEFORE removing. If, for example, you found a #32 on cover, it would be unique and likely worth much more than any of the three known off cover. There are lots of good "postal history" reasons for leaving stamps on the cover. Consider rates, route markings and receiving marks giving dates that may not appear on the stamp. Suggestion to all: Think twice before making an irreversible decision.

GJP

If a stamp is lifted from a cover for identification and expertly reaffixed I believe it should be disclosed in a selling description and on any certificate that would accompany the cover. This lets the buyer know it has been done, and does not need to be repeated. I would leave the lifting and replacement of the stamp to experts that know what they are doing. This has been done in the past but with modern technology this may be a procedure that is becoming unnecessary.

gportch, is it possible then to tell the paper type of a stamp without removing it from the cover?

With modern methods, IMHO it probably is, but I think it depends much on the type of paper the cover is made of.

Dont really know how much you can get from a stamp on an envelope..Sometimes it is difficult to classify it with the stamp in hand and looking at the back...I could not imagine classifying it stuck to that envelope..

Sometimes it is possible to identify paper types while the stamp is on cover. Sometimes identification depends on eliminating certain paper types. Paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes "Eliminate the impossible and whatever is left must be true."

GJP

Ya...guess removing a stamp should be left up to the individual preference as to what might happen if it is destroyed in the process...Guess the best thing to do is leave well enough alone.

I think the new mantra is to never remove the stamps from covers as this greatly decreases their value. I personally wouldn't do it as the stamps tell part of the cover's story. However, to each their own!

luvthecommonwealth..


...As gportch said above..BUT..How would you know it is a rare Scott #32 unless you observe the back of the stamp...??
That is the dilemma we are stuck with.

Wert, laid paper can definitely be seen from the front of the stamp without removal from the cover. The nature of laid lines is such that one should be able to see them by looking across the stamp at an oblique angle and into a bright light source. It takes practice but I suggest that you play with any laid paper to gather experience.

GJP

Thank you gportch for the tip..I will use this information if I ever get a rare #32...haha..Sent you an email by the way.