R25 Imperf Scott Values

Is a R25a imperf block of 4 really that scarce? I saw this in a local auction and was advertised as Scott value of $210.00. A single cats for $8. I threw a $20 at it and walked away, sure enough I now own it.

The Curtis Collection Revenue Multiple census notes that at least 10 blocks of four exist plus many much larger blocks including a block of 72.

Although this particular block relatively common, many first issue revenue block are very scarce, even rare. Perforated blocks can be even scarcer then imperfs in some cases, they are more fragile. And the values tend to match the tax rates, so a few values are not even known in a pair.

Also, one data point doth not a trend make.

It was a local auction, so how many other people were interested?

Aesthetically, it's not the greatest in the world. The cancel is nondescript, the block is in at the upper right. There are various smudges and toning spots.

Sure, it's a block of 4, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily one worthy of a large percentage of catalog value... and it doesn't mean that other examples aren't.

Understood. I was just questioning the availability of the blocks since the single value and block of 4 values were so far apart. I didn't purchase this based on cat value, I purchased it because it's missing from my collection and I thought $20 was a fair price. I only have Scott specialized to go off of and they don't get very granular in their valuations. They don't address cancels other than cut cancels from what I've seen. It should qualify a VF but perhaps a little tight on top. It fits nicely into my collection and that's really all that matters.

As Bart mentions, if you read through the Scott Specialized listings for 1st issues, you will see varying premiums for pairs and blocks. For the most common stamps, a pair may be only worth 2x the value of 2 singles or slightly more, and a block only a bit more than 4x the value of singles, but for others, the scarcity of pairs and blocks makes the values scale exponentially (or close to it). For some 1st types, pairs or even singles are the largest multiples (or lack thereof) known.

It really is a case of there not being a single formula across the board.

Also, be aware that a strip of 4 is not the same as a block of 4. There are unknowledgeable/unethical sellers that try to value a strip of 4 as a block to take advantage of the increased multiplier for blocks, when in fact a strip of 4 should be valued as 2 pairs (other aspects/cancels/usage notwithstanding).

I agree about the strips of four.