1614-87 Cover Question

I just obtained a pair of RICHMOND, VA 1614-87 on an unaddressed "souvenir cover" with a circular DEC.13, 1979 RICHMOND, VA. 23232 handstamp barely tying the lower left corner (of the left stamp only) to the cover. Does anybody know if there is any significance of that date in relation to the stamp or precancel ? I'd like to take the stamps off the cover, but don't want to destroy any "history" . . .

Can we see a picture or scan? Since this is a souvenir cover, I would think twice before removing stamps.

Hope that I can :

this is a SWAG: possibly a mailing receipt showing the sender (for records) the mailing date of acceptance of a large mailing. The hand stamp was applied by the bulk mail clerk upon deposit into the system. This would be in addition to the bulk mail documentation form provided to mailers. BUT, there is no return address to reference the sender and it is unaddressed so maybe something to do with music or professional benchmark, OR something personnel to the person for that date having to do with music.????? just a SWAG!!!

Perhaps it is simply a postmark collectors hand-back card for a postmark from the Richmond, VA main po at Zip 23232.

I used to travel Texas obtaining similar markings on postcards from out of the way post offices, but if the collector had a precancel permit or the window clerk was pretty casual about following guidelines, I can see the collector simply using up some extra precancel stamps as he traveled.

Another SWAG

The 7.7 cent postal rates (there were 2 of them) ran from 12/31/1975 to 5/28/1978, so this didn't pay for any postal rate(s) that I can find . . . just a "favor cancel" ?

Additionally, precanceled stamps did not need hand or any other sort of cancel.

Robert_Lee76:
The first class rate at the date of this cover, 12/13/1979, was 15c I believe.

ppg:
If this was a philatelic favor cancel, the cancel was not specifically to cancel the stamp, but meet the requirement that a po clerk was to only cancel an item when the correct first class rate was being paid.

So, overpaid $0.004 cents to get a "favor cancel" ? Or to show that one could use a pair of these to mail a 1st class letter ? Wouldn't they still need a "mailers permit" to do that ?

Which question do you want answered? Obviously a favor cancel as it lacks addressing, barring use of a peel-off label.

And yes, ordinary bulk-rate use required annual fee permit and meeting bulk quantity minimum or mailpieces, not to mention mailing preparation standards. Start of collector use of precancels under free permit was still almost a decade away.

Before then, only precancels on first-day covers was the only normal way of having them on mailpieces that actually traveled in the mails. (And up to a point in the mid-1980s, precancel postage value couldn't count towards required first-class letter (or postcard) rate postage required on FDCs.)

I guess my question is : Would I destroy any "postal history" by soaking the stamps off the envelope . . .

If it were me, I would first spend some time looking for the specific stamp (and precancel city if that was my focus), and try to find a replacement before I would destroy the cover. The cost appears to be modest.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/315568408601

The latest Precancel Stamp Society "Bureau catalog" lists a used single at $150.00; double that for a pair . . . It's considered to be pretty scarce . . .

I would assume that high value would be for postally / commercially used. This cover may not apply. However, if removed from the cover, what then?

That is pretty important information which would have been helpful if it had been presented at the beginning of the thread. It explains your interest in wanting to consider removing the stamps from the cover.

Is Parttime's question about the value being based on postally used correct? I am not a precancel collector so do not have insight to the collecting criteria and procedures as to what is desirable and acceptable. But I would not think that it's use on a philatelic cover like this would enhance the value.

I withdraw my earlier suggestion that you look for another example. It's obvious that I had missed a key point.

Such use would need to be within the rate period(s) which apply. You favor cancel cover does not satisfy the in-period requirement. Nor, if soaked from the cover does the cancellation it self verify the cancel was done during the in-period time. Such dating concerns are not limited to just this stamp, but many others.