US First Issue Revenues - Value Added For Handstamp Cancels

Since the hobby is entirely based on demand, scarcity is a product of that demand (or lack of it). That is the only reason quantities matter at all.

Which is why for my site I decided to go with a retail value estimate, rather than a rarity scale or number and the possible interpretations or extrapolations. Yes, it's only my personal opinion or assessment, but it is a number that people can immediately understand.

I get a LOT of email inquiries through my website, from other revenue specialists, novices, and noncollectors. The most frequently posed question is "What is X worth?", not "How scarce/rare is X?" or "What is the population/census of X?"

What most people are seeking is a real-world number that they can interpret. A rarity scale or census doesn't answer that question in and of itself. It can *help* in determining a value, but knowing that 10 exist in the world doesn't tell you how valuable it is, as it doesn't incorporate the demand component. An item can be "scarce" or "rare" without being "valuable" (which is where Bart and I differ, since I separate the quantity from the demand; IMO scarce or rare represent population data, not necessarily demand).

There are philatelic items of which less than 10 exist that are realistically worth tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Conversely, I have numerous items in my collection that have known populations also in single digits that are only were a few hundred dollars. The difference: demand. The items I have are still "scarce" or "rare"... they are just not "valuable". To say they are not scarce due to the lack of demand would imply that there is a larger population than actually exists.

I've seen rarity scales in other hobbies that are numeric, alphabetic, number of stars or number of R's (R vs. RR vs. RRR, etc.). And the biggest problem with them is the inevitable "That's great, but that doesn't tell me what it's worth."

For researchers, census data is great. For the average end user, not so much, no matter how thoroughly you explain it. It all depends on who you expect to be your target audience...

But ALL of those items have at least some demand, which is why they are considered scarce. My point has nothing to do with monetary value, only with the concept of scarcity. Scarcity requires demand to exist, if there is no demand then there is no scarcity. The reason common stamps are considered common is because the quantity far outstrips the demand, regardless of catalog value. And plenty of common stamps have "real" catalog values.

Is it time to move on?

This stamp sold for $192.50 on ebay last night. Is the Levy provisional playing card cancel scarce? Was this a ridiculous price or reasonable considering the condition of the stamp?

Perhaps a bit high based on condition but not unreasonably so. Tough cancel, popular area.

A bit higher than I would have expected, but could have been any number of factors:

As you mention, the condition.

I have this cancel on a 2 cent Plying Cards and a 5 cent Proprietary , but no 10 cent denominations. The playing card cancels do tend to sell for highe prices on the higher denominations (scarcer stamps like R21c notwithstanding).

Ink color. This cancel comes in both blue and black ink. Perhaps people were wanting an example of the former.

It is well struck, nicely centered, and complete (you sometimes see these with the bottom line falling off the edge of the stamp).

There were only two bidders. The underbidder kept driving the price up at the end, before either giving up or running out of time.

I was also watching that cancel and was surprised at the level it attained. I have the same cancel inverted on a 10¢ proprietary stamp, albeit the upper right corner has some damage.

It has been traditional that these and similar cancels by firms, who later ordered and used the private die stamps, are referred to as provisional private die playing card stamps. Let's look at the facts regarding the playing card tax. From Oct 1, 1862 until August 1, 1864 the tax on playing cards ranged from 1¢ to 5¢ depending upon the price of the cards. So at the time of Levy's use of the 10¢ proprietary stamp in December, 1862 one would guess that this was applied to a package of two decks which had a price of over 36¢ per deck.

Now let's look briefly at Levy's private die stamp. The die was approved October 15, 1866 after the playing card tax rate had been standardized at 5¢ per deck not exceeding 52 cards (regardless of the price of the deck). Levy did not receive their private die stamps until mid-March, 1867.

I see nothing "provisional" about Levy's use of the 10¢ proprietary stamp in December, 1862. In fact none of the playing card companies ordered a private die stamp until late 1864. Until the rates dependent upon retail price were dropped, only Andrew Dougherty and Lawrence & Cohen were using private die stamps.

While I am only a casual collector of the playing card stamps and the cancels of the manufacturers, I do like to include the predecessor cancels on the general proprietary and playing card stamps and mount them with the private die playing card stamps. It helps to tell a more complete story of the collection of the tax — fiscal history, if you will. But again, I see nothing "provisional" about the use of the proprietary and playing card stamps years before the manufacturer ordered a private die stamp.

Thank you for the details. Even though I've collected revenues for years, I've done so only casually until the last few years. I still feel like a beginner when it comes to things like rates, dates of usage, and the like. I used the term "provisional" because that's how the Levy cancel is described in the Beaumont printed cancel summary, which references the Boston Book at page 355. But what you say makes complete sense.

I am well aware of the classic use of the term "provisional" used by Beaumont, the Boston Revenue Book, and others. And I certainly have used "provisional," following in the footsteps of my predecessors. But in light of the changes in rates and the relative lateness of the playing card manufacturers applying for private die stamps, it now occurs to me that this designation of cancels as provisionals makes little sense.

I believe that the word "provisional" was used in this case as a blanket term for any stamps cancelled by those companies that later issued private die stamps to differentiate them from the other companies that did not issue any. I do not believe that the tax rates themselves were considered at the time. The purpose was not "fiscal history", but identifying a specific group of company cancels. They did not seem to use it in the way we use the term today.

Can someone provide details about the Beaumont printed cancel summary?

The work is entitled Printed Cancels 1862-1883 and was published by the American Revenue Association in 1972. It is a fairly comprehensive listing, but there are no prices or rarity scale. Eric Jackson has a copy in his literature inventory.

So is there any way to gauge whether a price of a revenue stamp with a handstamp or printed cancel is reasonable other than experience in the buying and selling of them?