More Butchery........lots 496,497,498

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/al/al225.cfm





Oh the horror!!

Those would look pretty weird on a page of "normal" confederate stamps.

And not weird in a good way, either.

Jim

Funny. I don't consider these genuine stamps, instead I call all them artificial cut outs.
I do not purchase or bid on this butchery. These are not genuine in my world view of collecting.

They are ugly as well. I hate it and still support the APS and PF to put out a guideline/stance on the grading standards.
Change is needed

This is certainly a factor as to why I have drifted toward used stamps. If I have a choice, I will almost always pick the used stamp. The cancel and, if still on a document (I collect primarily revenues), certainly tell so much about the actual use of the stamp, unlike a remainder mint stamp.

I recall an offer by a state revenue collector to trade a mint Washington state tomato and cucumber stamp without serial number for my used example of the same (with serial number and a tack hole where it was attached to a container). No, the serial number and tack hole showed normal usage. The stamp remains in my exhibit of the evolution from the federal Agricultural Adjustment Act and its state counterparts to the state promotional programs for its farm produce (e.g., the Florida State Citrus Commission). The historical record and back story of stamps is so much more interesting than remainder mint stamps.

I agree!

I'd much rather have a used Marijuana tax stamp for example than a mint one from the Smithsonian sale.

I think there's only one or two of the used ones?

Jim

One that I know of.

Two of the $1 value exist used. I owned one for 25 years. One was in a prominent revenue collectors holdings from the thirties which he never disclosed until it was "legal" to possess. Eric eventually bought the collection and sold the stamp. The other was found by Eric Jackson in a trade he made asking to swap stamps I believe in Linn's. I purchased the latter stamp Eric found in a Aldrich auction. I have since sold the stamp.

I can remember and old stamp dealer when I was stationed near Spokane Washington.

I was always looking for cancels on revenue stamps, notice one day this dealer had mint Proprietary Battleship partial pane. Asked how much a block would be of the RB31p, dealer told me, it was illegal to sell any of these mint stamps. Dealer gave me a group of blocks.

Interesting how things turn out.

Stampmaster

There is something very wrong with destroying 8 stamps out of 9 stamps just to get one centered stamp. Is PSE/SMQ to blame for this?

As long as they put a premium on stuff like this, I would call them accomplices.

I actually like the way these jumbo Confederates look. This trimming on these type cheap imperforates was being done long before grading ever started (it was called a "picture frame" or "window pane" effect back in the day) so the only "blame" here is collector preference and market economics. These Confederate Scott numbers are common in sheets and not worth much as such so it makes economic sense for the owner to reap several jumbo singles from one sheet.

*shudder*

What if this was done in period? Is it only a sin if it is done after it is no longer in period? What if it was done 5 years after issuing? At what time frame does it turn from 'ok' to a 'sin'? And what about rarity factor? Is it 'ok' if it is done to stamp that is common or does this only apply to less common stamps? On a different note, we all have personal ownership rights; I guess a person could light cigars with their stamps if they desired. And what about 'collecting any way you want', can not each of use collect the way we want?
Don

Note: Please do not flame me. My personal opinion is that this trend is bad for the hobby and that we should all be good stewards of the material we own, especially if it is rare. I do not like, nor condone, this practice. But there are some significant questions embedded in this issue.

Don, as usual some great points and good food for thought. I agree (obviously) that we do have ownership rights to what we possess and that we should let others collect in any way they want to. I also agree that we should be good stewards of our philatelic holdings and I have never trimmed a stamp in this fashion or separated any imperforate multiple. But I do not think it is wrong to collect stamps that have been trimmed in this fashion if that is the way you collect. The trimming has already been done to meet market demand and, as you said, we don't know when it was trimmed (1863? 1963? 2017?). As for separating classic multiples, I know from looking at a previous cert that my U.S. Scott #5A was a member of a pair at one time. I knew this when I purchased the stamp; I don't think this makes me an accomplice to "butchery" or anything else. After all, every U. S. Scott #1-17 single was at one time a member of a multiple and at some subsequent point (that date is usually not known to the purchaser) became a single. Many of the later imperforates (W-F era and later) are as common in sheets as these Confederates and likewise generally unsaleable as such, so owners trim them to meet the market demand for jumbo singles. This is analogous to an owner of a stack of sheets of 1950s era 3 cent commemoratives separating the stamps from the sheets to use the stamps for postage. In both cases the owner is simply trying to maximize the economic potential of his holdings.

Hi all

As stamp collectors, we have a responsibility to future stamp collectors! We need to protect what stamps we have. There is a lot of people today who I refer to stamp people, not really collectors, but just in it for profit. Some have their own web site where they proclaim themselves as experts, displaying interesting stamps, then on the same web site off to sell their stamps. Funny, they also sell on ebay, but the prices on their web site is much more than the same item they offer on ebay. (very funny!)

What will collectors think in the future, say 100 years or more from now, especially about the Mint Never Hinged (MNH) and Original Gum (OG)! I hope future collectors will have knowledge to realize OG or MNH is harming stamps, and soak off this gum, most early 19th Century stamps are regummed!

OK, everyone, you can take your shots at me now. I realize my thoughts about MNH and OG are unpopular right now. Did you most 19th Century stamp collectors would soak off the MNH or OG to protect their stamps!

How about the regummed stamps we now have to deal with. I just wonder what is the material being used to regum the stamps? Is this gum damaging our stamps in years to come?

Stampmaster

I'm having a hard time imagining why this might have been done in period. Maybe I'm missing something.