Effect Of Thin On Value Of $5 Columbian

I recently came across a very nice set of used $1-$5 Columbians (241-245), but the dealer said that "Number 245 does have a clear thin evident on the reverse". The price, as you might expect, is quite a bit lower than Scott. But my question is, how much lower should it be for a thin on such a valuable stamp? Is there a general rule of thumb percentage of Scott that is commonly applied or is it worthless? Any thoughts or reflections on your experience would be appreciated. Thanks.

The stamp won't be worthless because it's such a highly desirable issue.

There won't be a rule of thumb on high value stamps; each one will be priced on its own merits.

How bad is the thin? How big a discount is being offered? If the stamp is fine other than the thin it'll be up to you. Do you buy the set or do you wait to find a set in top condition?

Used 245s sold from $299 to $525 on ebay with the majority in the $400 range. Prices varied by centering, cancel ect. Probably at least half of those would of had a thin.

Bobby touched upon a very important item. How bad is the thin? I would walk away in any case. Purchasing truly rare stamps that have faults is one thing but dollar value Columbians are not rare stamps. You can find hundreds available at any given time. Here are some recent prices realized at a Siegel sale:

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/y/y119742.cfm

In THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF STAMP COLLECTING by Otto Hornung, on pages 308 - 309 there is a table and formula for determining the value of damaged stamps.

Although an expensive stamp, the $5.00 Columbian is not a rare stamp (same for the Zepps). In this case, a think would likely decrease the value by a greater percentage than on a stamp where "perfect" conditions are rare. Personally, I would hold out for a non-thinned stamp, as you could well want to upgrade the flawed stamp in the future and you'll be stuck trying to sell the defective copy. That's a lot harder than you might think.

Thanks to all for your feedback (sorry, I've been tied up at work and couldn't respond more quickly). I'll get a copy of that THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF STAMP COLLECTING by Otto Hornung -- looks very reasonably priced and I'm often coming across such questions.

As to severity of the thin, it is certainly not such that it is visible from the face -- must flip and use proper lighting. So, I guess it wouldn't be considered "too bad" -- but of course such a judgement is at the core of my question really. I don't feel qualified to know.

I understand what you're saying, with regards to rarity. I guess it's all a bit relative -- I've been collecting for nearly 50 years (w/20 year hiatus), and never had a Columbian above a 10c or a Zep better than a baby. So I guess in my house, they are rare indeed. I've always been a general international collector (quantity not quality) -- so damaged stamps generally got discarded. Any high catalog stamps were generally fakes.

A word of caution on using the Hornung book: it was published in 1970, so may well not reflect current realities when it comes to valuation guidelines.

Not to mention that the internet did not exist in 1970.

The most important part of your question , is if the defect is visible from the front. If the thin is hard to spot and only seen from the back it could have a worth of $100.00 more than a defect that is viewed from the front.

A lot of collectors buy defect or forgeries to impress family and friends . Nothing like at THANKSGIVING to show family and friends your a big time philatelist by pulling out a Scott catalog and showing your visitors the catalog and then the stamp .

No hint of it in the fairly high resolution image of the front. As I prefer clear Hawid mounts, de-hinging and mounting shouldn't increase a thin's visibility. As to Thanksgiving -- I'm afraid that I am now a lonely island of philately in my family. My local stamp club, and new this forum, have become a stamp-family to me. Though showing it off at one of my stamp club meetings does sounds cool! I hadn't really thought of that!!