Opinions On Removing Revenue Stamps From Docs

I have a pile of revenue documents, some complete and some fragments or damaged. What's the consensus on removing revenue stamps from the original document? Most of the 'stamps on documents' are 1st issue hand written docs. Looking for opinions on the best approach here.

Thanks ya'll.

As a general rule: don't remove revenue stamps from documents or fragments. It destroys context.

Unless remaining on the document runs the risk of destabilizing a multiple or the document is horribly stained to the point of illegibility, I am in the "never remove revenue stamps from documents" camp.

Hmmmm... I am torn on this one... I agree with revenuecollector for the most part, but some documents are very common and not very historical, end also BLAND. In those cases, I'd say SOAK THOSE SUCKERS!

BUT, that is just one opinion, and who am I, after all???

Nobody.

;-)

Nells250, I must disagree with you.

You may only be one person, but your opinions are worth hearing.

And NO, you are not "nobody."

Whole documents: Don't.

To expand on what revenuecollector wrote, whole documents show or confirm the date of use and location. The stamp shade (if the doc has been stored well) and the period of use of any part perfs and imperfs is also pretty much confirmed. Some cancels on stamps alone are cryptic or partial, so saving the whole document shows the whole cancel.

Nells250, so you're going to throw out documents not signed by George Washington or that don't have a fabulous engraved design? Okay, but there's various levels of what's considered historical or interesting. For example, there are loads of British documents with revenues that aren't rare, but make interesting reading. I would think there are members here that would trade you straight up for your stamps on boring documents for stamps only in equivalent condition and pay for your postage besides.

Bank checks are compact, but display is often a problem with larger whole documents. I'd scan the whole to have something to research and display, and store away the original.

Stamps on fragments: I'd go by "How much of the cancel will you lose if soaked?". I would prefer to keep as much of the cancel as is useful, manuscript or not. You don't have to be just plugging stamps into spaces in a preprinted album.

A couple of images would be helpful from the experienced revenue folks; some examples of smallest fragments that they keep on piece, or pieces with critical info on them.
Don

The only postage stamps that are of actual historical interest in the sense that most people would understand it are the 1d black and 2d blue, as they were the first. On fiscal stamps, as an (occasional) rational being, I'd agree with Nell. But as an observer of the odd world of the collector of printed ephemera, I'd be inclined to keep any old tosh in one piece, as that's clearly how many devotees like it.

"What's the consensus on removing revenue stamps from the original document?"

Don't.

What revcollector said

I, too, agree that the stamps should not be removed from documents. I think the advice about fragments by hy-brasil is well reasoned. Keep the whole cancel, even if it is in manuscript. The hobby has evolved in my lifetime from filling the spaces in albums and collecting multiples (the traditional form of collecting) to postal and fiscal history, keeping stamps on covers and fiscal documents. There are some revenues where keeping the stamps on kegs and bottles is probably not here in abundance, but I have a number of stamps on bottles and portions of packages that will not be removed to put them on pages. Context and story of use of the stamps is increasingly where the hobby is going.

I wouldn't soak off any revenue stamps from any document, for the reasons listed above.

But bisects tied by a cancel, those I'd soak off, no problem.

(That is a Saturday night joke!)

Jim

Here are a few examples of revenue documents fragments with stamps.



R5a Bank Check on a fragment



R5c Bank Check on a fragment



R32c Bill of Ladding not really a fragment



R37c Power of Attorney and R24c Certificate on a fragment



R54c Conveyance on a fragment, but with a nice seal

This is but a drop in the bucket.

Fragments like the R5c Bank Check have no real historic value and the stamp should be soaked off.

Opinions?

I still agree with most of the earlier answers. Do not remove them from the documents.

The first and third documents are not fragments, they are complete documents. the first is a bit frayed at the edges, and the other is a promissory note with a signature removed. The first one would also be classified as an early matching usage (EMU), a bank check stamp on a check.

The bank check fragment was also originally a matching usage, I would keep it as it is.