| Author |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,004 |
|
|
Valued Member
144 Posts |
|
|
I have a set of 5 of these replicas. They state they are 23k gold (plated) and a $20.00 face value is on the stamp. Can anyone tell me more about these? Are they simply souvenirs of the Olympics with no philatelic value? 
|
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Canada
1637 Posts |
|
|
Please show the back of the "stamps." Obviously a commemmorative set put out by a "collectors guild" or commemorating event, sold normally to non- philatelists to make money. Not a Canadian post office issue, and probably 23k gold foil embossed onto paper. |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
144 Posts |
|
|
Yes, it is a paper backing. Photo attached. I think that you are right on with gold foil embossed on a paper backing. Thank you for your reply.  |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
It does not really look like they are on cover but rather kept in a hingeless mount in a pocket together with unused old FDCs. It does not even look like an attempt was made to attach the hingeless mounts to the covers. |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Canada
1637 Posts |
|
|
They are not FDC's, but rather First Issue Covers, of that set. Is there another set? And with a $20 inflated value x 18 would be $360. Wow! More proof that they were made to sell for profit. Put In a mount, and put close to position it would be found on cover, but never affixed to envelope. If it was lightly affixed the glue must have dried.
And the back, shown above, does not even appear to be gummed, as postage stamps normally are. |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
Quote: It does not really look like they are on cover but rather kept in a hingeless mount in a pocket together with unused old FDCs. William Jefferson Clinton would argue that they are ON cover depending upon how you define the word ON. They aren't behind the cover or next to the cover and the definition of ON does not necessarily mean that they are ATTACHED. In this case ON literally means ON as in "The bird is ON the hood of the car", not attached to the car. |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
Put the album up straight as, probably, it stands on a bookshelf, and they no longer are on the covers but in front of them. |
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by NSK - 11/12/2025 11:32 am |
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
I would argue that verticality has no place in defining ON. The stamp can be in either the X-axis or Y-axis orientation and still be ON the cover (just not attached). |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
X-axis and Y-axis? Are we in the first years of secondary school? Even the simplest geometry class will teach you to have a z-axis as well.
The whole concept of "on" is based on a transposition in the vertical plane of a bi-dimensional space. A transposition in the horizontal plane in that same space places it next to the cover. |
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by NSK - 11/12/2025 11:53 am |
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12552 Posts |
|
|
Quote: Are we in the first years of secondary school? No, we are on a stamp forum talking about an ebay lot.  I thought the Z-Axis to be a bit much, but we CAN go there if it will add to this discussion.  |
Send note to Staff
|
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,004 |
|