To Remove Or Not To Remove A Stamp From A Cover?

that is the question.
I have previously posted some pics. of covers with stamps from the late 1800's. Now some of the stamps could, I say, could be more valuable then the regular version of the stamp. I wouldn't know unless I remove it and look at watermarks, etc...

Question is. Is it worth it? I have always kind of liked the covers with stamps. Actually all the ones I have, still have the original contents inside them.. But, is it worth it to find out if there is a gem?

What do you think...

No, do not remove. The context of the stamp on cover is more valuable in the vast majority of cases.
Will

There are a two simple rules to remember.

Rare stamps are rare because they're rare. Realistically, what are the chances that your stamp is the rare variety? One in a thousand? One in a million? Or more? Just how likely is that you have the rare one?

Don't do anything irreversible. Remove a stamp from a cover, and you have a stamp, and a useless bit of paper. When the stamp turns out to be the dirt common variety, as it almost certainly will, you've provided yourself with a near worthless stamp and a completely worthless piece of paper. Left intact, you have a cover which tells a story, and will certainly be worth more than the sum of its parts.

And also remember this: there may be more than one way to pick the rare variety. The catalogue may not be able to tell you the whole story - that an expert could. An expert might be able to tell from factors like the time/date/place used, the shade or the paper or any one of a number of other factors, which stamp it is. In the unlikely event that you do have the rare variety, it's likely to be worth a whole lot more still on cover than loose.

So, resist the temptation! Leave it alone!

bravo bravo.

I would agree with Tony, excellent advice.

I'm a bit more forthright on this issue.....

NO!!

I believe Tmac said every thing that needs to be said about stamps,
I personally do not remove stamps from full covers so with Jubilee and don't remove any of them as they are a better profit.

Alas, in my earlier days, I removed stamps from their covers and now I greatly regret having done so. Now, I cannot even remember who sent the cover.
My US Variable Rate Coil stamps would be worth much more if I left them on the covers. This became acutely clear when I recently saw some on ebay go for $10.00 per cover.

I would definitely have to agree with tony and jubilee on this :)

so, I get a letter in the mail...
I should leave the stamp on there?
What if there are multiple stamps?

There's a useful distinction to make here, and it might affect your decision on how you deal with incoming mail now. The distinction is between 'philatelic' usage and 'commercial' usage.

At the two extremes, it isn't hard to distinguish between philatelic and commercial. A philatelic cover has been lovingly prepared by a collector, probably for mail to another collector. It looks good, but not 'real'; it looks contrived. At the other end of the spectrum is the envelope with the stamp carelessly applied, obviously done by a non-collector.

I don't know what's happening in the US, but here in Australia, collecting genuinely commercial usages of recent (last 40-50 years) stamps on cover has taken off, as collectors have discovered just how hard it actually is to find some otherwise common stamps still on cover, and/or paying exotic rates. Again, I don't know how it is where you are, but when was the last time you received a properly 'commercial' cover in the mail, franked with a commemorative stamp? When was the last time you received a letter franked with stamps at all, from a non-philatelic source?

So I'd say, if you're lucky enough to receive a stamped, commercial cover, especially one with a bit of 'character', throw it in the bottom drawer. Future generations will thank you!

I rarely see postally used first class stamps in the mail except from greeting/holiday/birthday cards, the bill from the local oil company and my wife's 98 year old grandmother. In all cases it's usually the Forever or Christmas stamps, but I'm starting to save them on cover as well. Occasionally, I'll get a PNC.
Will

I am pretty green at this, but I am learning.
I don't see any point in having a used stamp that
is not tied to the cover it was used on. So, I just
do it this way when collecting:
Unused stamps, collect them off paper.
Used stamps, collect them on complete cover.

Unused stamps would be devalued just as much put on
an envelope as a used stamp taken off the envelope.

Just my opinion, your's may vary.

I'm the odd one out here. The main reason I haven't removed a stamp from cover is because I don't have the time to cut and soak it off.

If I left everything on cover, I would need about 100x the space. Bottom line, I collect stamps, not covers. Of course, the wonderful covers Nuggethill sent me will remain intact.

I do enjoy looking at the covers and cut pieces that you all have posted. However, it is simply impractical for me to keep everything on cover.

Think of it this way -- thanks to me, all your covers are worth just a tad bit more...

k

Ok, Newbie probably stupid question. I received this large envelope with "older stamps" - the stamps were not cancelled? should I leave them on this envelope (which is modern, typed with no character) or should I soak them off? Thanks for your opinions...from a learner.

Opinion.
Your choice, take whatever advice responders make, that suits you.

CAUTION:
Is why I replied, if soaking off, I would wager your purse, that all stamps will be damaged.
The Yellow from the Manila envelope will invade the water and the stamps.

Other lifting methods may differ.