Should I Be Getting Excited?

This postally canceled U.S. pair I have is missing its in-between perfs. Should I be getting excited about this?

Scott 1856c lists at $8 for a mint pair (in 2020 Specialized). Common, but still eye candy.
Scott lists a used pair with a "-", and I would not expect any premium above a mint pair since one can always create them by using them.

Thank you! I'll remain calm.

However, current use would not produce a used pair with a contemporary to issue date cancel as the OP shows here.

Now if still on cover, your would beat a mint copy hands down.

In fact *most* contemporary uses of any stamps, when soaked, will not show a year date as most are machine-canceled and the CDS portion falls on the envleope.

It goes without saying, a cancel showing a contemporary year date is better, and on-cover better still, however the retail value for a soaked pair remains modest, I believe under the $10 level of a mnt pair.

Add: It *is* an exciting find, just not a hugely valuable find. Many items in philately are such - even items which are unique or rare do not necesarily equate to high monetary value.

I don't totally agree with the assessment that it is an under $10 item. I suspect that it is a bit better than that, more in the $20-$25 range retail. The contemporary dating adds enough value to push it up a bit.

This one arrived in my mailbox a few days ago. Price was $9.10 with tax & shipping. Actual price data.

I was wondering who got that cover. I saw that it sold a couple of hours after this thread started and I assumed it was someone here that found it. Congrats, I would have picked it up if you didn't. Even though philatelic and an overpayment of the current 25 cent rate, it is still a nice cover with contemporary use of an error.

I wonder what it would have brought if it paid a proper rate.....?

Would there be a difference in value if it paid a proper rate?
Thanks,
Bob

Ideally, yes. The ideal use would be a solo use paying an exact rate on a commerical (read that as normal or non-colllector inspired) piece of mail within the rate period of its issuance or perhaps into the next rate period or two at the most.

This stamp was issued in March 1985 with the most obvious intention to be used for the 14 postcard rate which went into effect in February 1985. Thus a solo use doesn't exactly work neatly in this case. The letter rate went to 22 cents at the same time and in subsequent increases went to 25 and then 29. Although the first has been soaked, it appears both uses above simply overpay the 25 cent letter rate of 4/3/1988-2/2/1991 by 3 cents each. So a neat "solo use of the pair" (if that is such a thing!) paying some exact rate appears to be impossible. I cannot imagine an innocent use which is fully non-philatelic. The closest I can think of is using 2 pairs as 56 cents on a 3 ounce letter in the 2/17/1985-4/2/1988 period as 22+17+17=56, which was the main purpose of the 56 cent John Harvard stamp of that same time period. That would be a nice piece!

It was a Christmas gift sent to Scott Shaulis, a long time (since the 80's) EFO collector (and part time dealer -- not generally EFOs). It is he who sold it first from his possession.

Not worth the bother but the PF does certify some part perf, due to a perforation error, single** stamps. Here the time, effort and cost to certify such an animal is not worth it.





[** Yes they do! And one such PF certified stamp sold at auction a few days ago.]

PPG, Of course the cover above is philatelic. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
Also,


And was it a Sinclair Lewis stamp? If not, then how is this relevant? There are always exceptions in philately to nit-pick with. If it was Lewis, then please provide reference so the rest of us can easily find it.

John Becker, Zebraman asked


I was answering that question with a bit more information about the recipient who got the cover the first time. He,Scooot was also an elected officer of the EFO Collector's Club.

No, the stamp the PF certified to which I was referring was a single 1869 issue recently sold in the Siegel Gross Collection sale of 317 lots, it being one of the 1869 lot listings which is certified as imperf horizontally (top and bottom) on the single stamp.

Edited for placement of the word, "lot."

ppg,
Your reply about the original recipient was not directed at anyone and several replies had intervened, so it failed to communicate.