Used Versus Unused Revenues.

I was looking at some descriptions of revenues up for auction at Siegel and noticed in auction description for R17a that Siegel believes that Scott inevitably will be starting to price unused revenues separately from used. Is this true? I always thought revenues were more valuable used especially with printed cancel versus manuscript. I wasn't aware there was a market for unused revenues?

Pricing the unused 19th Century revenues in Scott is something that is long overdue. In most instances, an "unused" stamp, that being a stamp without a cancel, will sell for a premium over a used stamp. Those stamps with original gum generally sell for substantial premiums.

Attempting to complete a collection of First Issue revenues, from R1c to R102c, unused, will take many years to complete as some of the stamps are near impossible to locate. The imperforate and part-perforate stamps are that much more challenging.

It might be long overdue, but Scott treats most of the BOB material like a poor stepchild. I doubt it will ever happen.

their is a market for everything. that said the number regularly issued revenues that survive with gum is very small until about 1898. unused examples w/o gum also exist and are not unusual. og on proprietary issues seem to be more common, especially the low values from their start. the removal of cancels to improve appearances or deceive collectors will just become a bigger problem if they are listed. printed and well struck hand stamped cancels have always been a popular collecting area and will often command a premium from modest to the sky's the limit depending on real or perceived scarcity. that said Scott should start to add more of the unlisted tax paid and licence revenues before trying to price a new market.

How about the (somewhat later) inverted center varieties?

Lol.

R140a with original gum, never hinged.

Wonder what Scott would value something like this?

Jim

James, looks from the image that it has a bit of a hinge remnant and almost looks like one can see the outline of a hinge that had been there at one time. Might not be the case (I'm not a gum expert by any means), but thought I'd throw it out there.

Hope the above is not the case.....beautiful stamp!!
Ray

Actually, as an error there might be a few more than some ordinary stamps. This had a much better chance of being saved. Still very scarce, but I suspect that the lack of cancel probably means more then the gum to most collectors.

Thanks for input to all

I just looked up R21c perforated and it seems price for used examples is significantly higher than unused. I think one will have to look at previous auction values. Personally I have not seen higher prices for unused revenues compared to used, but perhaps others here can find examples from previous auctions or have different opinion from their experience. I'm not saying unused revenues are plentiful. They appear to be quite rare especially imperforates. But I have not heard of collectors seeking them out?

With R21c a lot depends on the specific cancel. Some add more value than others.

rg
the number of collectors for unused early revenues is small, probably due to the lack of material. I suspect most revenue collectors would not turn down an example if offered at the right price. I also think most prefer properly used examples with neat cancels other than manuscripts all else considered.
jaames
try oblique lighting that invert.....if there is or was a hinge mark.

all of the revenue inverts had a better chance of being saved weather mint or used due to being errors.

The invert was hinged at the top.

In my book, if there's no gum it's not unused, just uncanceled.

At least on the 1st-3rd issue material, there's a lot of "uncanceled" stamps that have been soaked/sweated from documents and pieces, so are not truly unused. Part and full OG is where the real scarcity and premiums start kicking in.

If Scott were to add listings for unused, there would have to also be no-gum listings.

As it is, there are far too many ebay sellers trying to put ginormous premiums on "RARE! LQQK!!!" soaked uncanceled revenues as unused/mint.

Catalog listings for unused revenues will also increase the break-up of surviving multiples where the cancellation does not hit every stamp in the multiple

The Reds and Greens are like that as well.

ebay is full of "Mint-No Gum" lots attempting to get 75% (or whatever) of mint with gum prices.

A few of our more notorious dealers have also ignored the visible canx when declaring "mint-no gum".

Is there a general rule of thumb pricing the reds and greens unused with no gum? Halfway between mint and used? Less than that?

It should be remembered that all values of the reds and greens from $30 and up were NGAI.