To Erase, Or Not To Erase--That Is The Question...

So a lot of covers are pencil addressed, presumably in the expectation that collectors would want to erase the address. Do any of you do that? I don't imagine that affects value one way or the other--pencil erased covers should never be described or passed off as "unaddressed." Like many collectors (I surmise, from the widespread practice of unaddressed FDC's) I do prefer the aesthetics of an unaddressed FDC (unless the addressee is notable).

Just curious about how common it is to erase pencil addressed FDC's.

Use one of those white erasers on the newer "clickie" pencils and be gentile and you should have no problems as long as you take care about what you are doing. I do this and so do others so this isn't just a suggestion out of the blue.


I must apologize I thought you was discussing pencil notations on old covers not the FDC's that I believe you're discussing. Sorry.

I agree with your statement however that they should not be passed off like so.

Back (way back) when I would get my FDCs thru USPOD, they always had my address (WAG labels from Walter Drake) and traveled thru the mail. I thought that was fine.

Then, the world went nuts for condition, and even the lightly-penciled-address-in-tiny-letters-down-in-the-corner guys went to pristine, unaddressed covers that traveled under cover.

Presumably, this was to achieve & preserve 'value'.

While there was now no name/address to detract from the pure aesthetic of the cachet, the whole exercise seems to have, in the end, imho, hurt the FDC end of the hobby.

In the old days, I would leave any address on any FDC for fear of damaging the cover; certainly, a neat & legible address is better than a faint smear, I thought.

These days, I would leave any address on any FDC to prove (more/less) that the cover was 'postal', in addition to being 'philatelic', thereby enhancing its value ... to me.

If you prefer erasure, go ahead; after all, you are the one who has to look at them.

===

Just be sure to Google every name; I hear that Aldrich Ames' FDCs are still out there, somewhere.

Don't bother looking for Ethel Rosenberg's FDCs; I snatched them out of a bargain box years ago.

No smileys were harmed in the making of this satire.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

I leave them on if they are still there and describe them as erased penciled addresses if I can tell from any traces left behind. It seems most of the early U.S. ones had one.

Sidenote about British FDCs. I found a small typed note in one FDC that said British FDCs were required to have an address. Is this true and if so when or is that still required? A lot of British FDCs I see usually have that tiny little address label. Sometimes it's fallen off, but one an usually still see a trace of the adhesive or faint tone mark. I have seen unaddressed British FDCs, but they tend to have Fleetwood cachets.

Erasing pencil marks is no big deal. With todays polymer erasers (draftsmen style), the eraser is clean, no abrasion, and makes it look all pretty and new again.

Now the real question: What does it matter? Are you buying the item because you think you are going to get rich, or are you buying the item to collect and put in a book? Either way, a cleaner stamp is certainly going to look a nicer. Whereas I can't see marking a mint original gum item, used items are commonly marked.

Pencil marking is still a common practice among collectors, whether you want to believe it or not. I see a boat load of postal stationery(and stamps) and nearly 90% of the older items have pencil markings on them. If they are annoying simply get a good polymer eraser and rub the pencil off. Unless you are pressing your pencil down with a ton of force, you will see no indentations that will distract from the pretty view you want to look at.

My 2 cents.

I don't know about British FDC's, but I just started a thread where I noted that addresses were supposedly required for US FDC's, but the requirement seems to have been routinely ignored. For US issues, requirements are spelled out when the issue is announced in the Postal Bulletin. The only FDC issue in which I personally participated was for the US "First Flight" stamp in 2003 (Scott #3783); I sent unaddressed covers to the issuing PO with a large SASE for their return. For US covers, I presume this has been done for years, even with the "rules" called for addressing them.

Pencils have sure been getting a bad rep around here lately. Look at the bright side, could be ink.

I personally enjoy a nicely addressed cover. I enjoy the potential history/mystery that can be unfurled with a bit of toiling on the ole computator.. A cover with no address in my personal opinion isn't right or complete? I mean isn't that what a letter is for? to send information and the cover is the vessel in which it was carried with directions eg: address on where it was to go? Without it is just seems dumb.

I understand the sentiment here, though it holds less true for me for the later mass produced covers than for earlier covers. I collect airmail covers (and covers for regular postage with aviation themes). For airmails, Scott's Specialized Catalog makes no distinction in value between addressed and unaddressed for covers (discussing FDC's here, not other covers of historical significance) before 1950 (up to C49); after that, values assume the covers are unaddressed. For regular issues, this difference comes with 772 in 1935. But even Scott recognizes that unaddressed early covers (again, FDC's) will often carry a premium.