To Remove Selvage Or Not?

I am unsure if this query should go here (WW Modern) or the Main Stamp Collecting forum. My question is primarily about selvage, but perhaps the answer is dependent on the particular stamp(s).

I'm printing Steiner pages for my Vatican City stamps. A few have selvage (all MNH). I can easily modify the stamp boxes to accommodate the larger size, and I don't mind doing so ~ such flexibility is one of the things I like about stampalbums.com. On the other hand, the album pages look neater (IMHO) and fewer pages will be needed if I remove the selvage. A representative sample of these stamps are shown below, all are from the 1972 – 1975 era.

I turn to the community's wisdom to determine what to do, and thank you for your input.

It is all a personal preference and I am firmly in the "leave the selvedge" camp. As time goes by you will see that stamps that have intact selvedge are seen as more desirable by many collectors no matter how common they are. One reason may be that they are position pieces that can tie a stamp to a particular location within a sheet or pane. It may not seem to matter much now but in 30 years it may mean a great deal as it becomes increasingly difficult to locate these issues with selvedge designs, plate/production numbers or just plain margins.

Once you remove it there is no going back so choose carefully is my advice.

PS: I know that Century Stamp sold a plate number single of the Trans-Mississippi $2 value, Scott 293, two years or so ago and the new owner immediately removed the selvedge with plate number so that it "fit the album space better". Ed advised strongly against it but the argument fell on deaf ears. That decision cost the new owner some money if and when he sells.

I am also in the "leave the selvedge camp." It was something that bothered me a bit when I started mounting (I wanted it to all look uniform) - but I feel that keeping the selvedge helps preserve the integrity of the stamp and you can also learn from it - so I am happy with my choice.

I often remove stamp-edging from more modern stamps. I leave it if it has interest of itself, eg the dated corners on French stamps, and I leave it on older stamps. Printed albums look neater if the stamps lack edging, but the answer is to create a separate, subsidiary page, rather than remove something that increases value.

I too, used to be torn by this question... so what I started doing was not buying any stamps with selvage, unless for some reason that was my objective. Any I did have with selvage, I put in a stock book and replaced with sans-selvage examples. Not the definitive answer you were looking for I'd guess, but an answer nonetheless.

I almost always leave the selvedge on, especially if there is printing on it such as that identifying position, plate #, sheet #, printers, etc.

Caveat: I'm not much interested in album page appearance.

Sets with matched edges! The choice is easy to leave it on.

When there is one stamp differing from the others, then there is the urge to remove edges for consistency, although I too am in the camp to resist removals.

Page count is an unnecessary constraint unless you have an exhibit frame to fill exactly.

To push the mounting pendulum further on a tangent. I would delete the printed boxes entirely.

If some fool writes in ink 'Mole Error' I would be tempted to rip it off. The same goes for stained, torn or ugly ones. This one has some pencil on it. I've been afraid to do anything to it but I still have to ask 'Why'd ya do it?'

I'd have put it in the Main forum. Both classic and modern issues can have selvage, and there's nothing about selvage unique to "worldwide" collecting.

I too am firmly in the camp of keeping the selvedge intact when encountered. And like GeoffHa I just create a separate page for these examples, as I do for cancellations and postmarks. But I am also in the camp of 'It's your collection, so do it your way', as long as reasonable care for future generations of philatelists is exercised (translation: Don't ruin valuable or interesting stuff.).

Hi

If it is a single stamp that is not part of a set I will remove the selvage if there is no printing on it.

If the selvage shows the position of the stamp in a sheet, and the position is important, I will leave the selvedge.

If a set and if any stamps have selvedge, I will leave the selvedge.

I use quadrille pages only so it is not a problem mounting any stamps with selvedge.

Jerry B

I'll keep the selvedge on if the stamp is known to have reperfed straight edges. The selvedge adds some confidence that it is the real deal (saves $ from having to send in for certificate).

Removing selvedge is like ringing a bell. You can't "un-ring" it. Once the selvedge is off, it's off. My exception is contemporary issues (post 1960) that were printed in the millions. If they have no markings or inscription, they come off.
I would keep the selvedge on the Vatican City stamps you showed.
Dan

Or keep the selvage and dispose of the stamps …

Keep the selvage on

Two comments on this topic. First is the spelling of the word itself. Over the years that I've been aware of it, I've seen both spellings, and I'm pretty sure both are acceptable, in a little mini poll of the posts so far on this thread, I count equal usages of "selvage" and "selvedge" 6 to 6, and this got me to wondering, is it a geographical thing? Is one more British and other American?
The other comment is that keeping the selvage on it (I just tipped the scale), might have the unintended, but desirable consequence of maintaining the Mint never hinged status of the stamps, if the selvage is at the top, because in past years when hinges were a lot more common, I think that collectors tended to put the hinge on the selvage and not on the stamp. I have a set that I acquired years ago, Southern Rhodesia, Scott 38-41, with top selvage and the hinges had been put there by the previous owner, so the stamps themselves were MNH boosting the price from $4 to $7.50, not a huge difference, but on more expensive sets, the difference could be significant if you want to sell them.