Which Is The Greater Regret: Overpaying For An Item Or Not Overpaying For An Item?

There's an old adage amongst experienced collectors that goes something like "It's not the items I overpaid for that I regret the most, but rather the items I didn't overpay for that got away." It took me a number of years to realize that this is incredibly true.

When we start collecting and are typically on a tight budget, either as children or as someone just dipping a toe in the water, and most of our collecting circle are also spending nominal amounts, the initial mindset tends to be "I would never pay more than X% of catalogue value" or "If you're paying more than Y% you're overpaying." Even amongst certain groups of lifelong collectors, that can be a prevalent mindset (some of the members of my local club spring to mind). For some, it's due to financial constraints, and that's understandable. For others, they never graduate to more advanced or more specialized collecting where pursuit of material goes outside of "fill the spot in the album" collecting where one needs to go beyond discrete catalogue value percentages.

I say that not as a criticism. If a collector doesn't feel the need to "stretch" for items financially, yet are content and enjoying the hobby, more power to them!

One of the tough things is determining how much is enough... or too much for an item, especially if it has a low population or exceptional condition/grade, where the catalogue norms either go out the window, or are completely irrelevant. The spread in perceived value can be all over the map and extremely subjective.

For example, one of the items I lusted after for years was the document below, the improper use of fourteen 25-cent Parcel Post stamps (Scott #Q9) as revenues on a 1916 warranty deed (image courtesy of Stamp Auction Network).



Mike Morrissey consigned it with Eric Jackson, where it languished for many many years at the eyewatering price of $12,500. Yes, it's unique and spectactular, but that's a very aggressive price IMO. More recently, Denny Peoples attempted to purchase it after it went back to Mike, but to no avail. Then it was consigned to Richard Friedberg, who offered it to me for $4,000. A HUGE difference in perceived value from the previous asking price, but unfortunately still beyond my means. It last resurfaced in a Michael Aldrich auction on SAN in October of 2025, where it garnered $3,500 + $525 buyer premium.

I was initially sad that it had been consigned with Aldrich, as that meant I would never own it, as I will not participate in his auctions on principle, but since it ended up being more than I was willing to pay anyway, I won't lose any sleep over it.

I've learned to not beat myself up over items I lose out on at public auction or ebay auctions. It's easy to say "I should have just bid one more increment", but that mindset is a trap. You have no way of knowing whether the opposition's maximum was one increment, 5 increments, or 10 times your maximum bid. You can never know. Those parameters are outside your control unless you have unlimited funds.

On the other hand, when an item is offered to you at a fixed price, then that *IS* a situation within your control. You just have to decide whether you can or are willing to pay the asking price. It's a different set of conditions...



This brings us to today... the Indiana Spring Stamp Fair is this weekend. I made the 2 hour journey, and as usual, my first visit was with Denny Peoples. After I had looked through most of his inventory that I typically check, he said "I have a piece to show you." I looked at it... and asked how much? He quoted a price, and it was a firm one. After I stopped wincing, I said "No, I can't justify that." He said "Fine, I just wanted to give you first shot at it." I started looking at other things, but after a few minutes I asked if I could have the document back to take pictures of it, as "I know I'll never see anything like it again."

It was at this point that I had to stop and take a step back for a second to reassess based upon that very thought. If it truly was this scarce of an item (and it fell SQUARELY within my collecting focus), was the price unreasonable?... or just unexpected and not within my immediate means or planning. If the latter, I felt I needed to consider what I could do to possibly acquire it. Yes, the price was 3X what I had budgeted for the entire show (and I hadn't been to anyone else's table yet!), but was it worth doing some financial finagling or ramping up my ebay selling activity after the fact to make it happen?

So after some pondering and some online research, I told Denny I would take it.

Was it (fiscally) painful? Yes. Absolutely! But I take solace in the fact that the financial pain will ebb, whereas the heartache, had I NOT stretched to acquire the piece, would have lasted FAR longer, and I would have kicked myself for years knowing I had the chance to add it to my collection.

So what is this supreme "OMFG I gots to have it!!!!" piece? It's rather mundane on its face, and likely of less interest to those who specialize in the stamps in question, but to someone who specializes in improper revenue uses it's almost on the scale of the document shown above.

It's an 1899 90-day promissory note in the amount of $3,000. The tax rate owed was 2 cents per $100, thus a total of 60 cents tax... paid via a block of 6 of 10-cent Special Delivery stamps (either Scott # E4 or E5, depending on watermark presence). All stamps are manuscript cancelled on the day the document was written (January 24, 1899), and then the block was also handstamp cancelled by Home Savings Bank on the date of payment (April 24, 1899).

This document was previously owned by Robert L. Markovits and included in his award winning exhibit "U.S. Special Delivery." He also indicated that this document was the largest known used multiple. He identifies the stamps as E5 (watermarked).

In the world of improper revenue uses, this is a spectacular one-of-a-kind document... and now it has a new home.

Great piece!

I don't typically regret the ones I bought. I do miss the ones that get away sometimes. None of us can afford to buy everything of course, but there are times when you may never get another chance (I've lost two key Ohio postal history items to institutions, which makes it far less likely that they will come back out onto the philatelic market at least in my lifetime).

Being tied, I actually like the one you did get more than the one you didn't

Given that this is an 1899 usage, it pretty much has to be an E5. But without the dots in frame or line of color varieties, which are always the first things I look for.

Great writing and even greater advise.

Over the years, several "mentors" have encouraged me to ALWAYS go for the unusual items relevant to what I am collecting and push the budget to the limit and beyond. Weeks of bread and water (maybe not literally) will be forgotten long before the pleasure of adding that delightful one-of-a-kind item to your collection.

Thinking conservatively (in the financial sense) is a difficult habit to break for most of us, but It's sometimes critical to go outside your comfort zone. There are times you should do it, so just toughen up and go for it.

That's really a handsome piece. I know your pain. I've had two distinct instances that come to mind I wished I had bitten the bullet and bought the item. Alas, I did not. As I go forward, I keep in mind at every auction, that this may be the only time I ever see this truly unique item and bid accordingly.

I know you, revenuecollector, are constantly buying material. Thus when you get offered an item which is unique but only slightly beyond your "right now" budget, I suggest you buy it and them stop the buying flow until you are flush again. Here, I like E5 and would have purchased when seen, and if needed hid the check book for a or a few months until flush again.

As to the first item you showed, I cannot remember how many times this was offered to me beginning before Eric had it. My standing offer was always a counter of $4000.00. As you can see, I was spot on. Now when it finally hit $4K I had and have other targets of more importance. After those are handled, the item shown would become of interest again.

How can I, "parcelpostguy" be so laid back about the item? Well it does have a lot of Q-9s but my fewer Q9s used as revenues on a similar document already filled my need. My item was unknown to those circulating the $12,000 price item. My item surfaced in a brief public appearance decades ago in a public auction as an overlooked lot. There was no record of it before, and has been hidden since. Nor is the auction firm's catalogs and prices realized available on line. Nutmeg picked it up as part of a huge "remainder" holding lot in another sale which only sold the cream of a collection as individual lots, many essays and proofs, Q-11 and Q-12 plus the FDCs both 1-1-1913 and 7-1-1913.

So sometimes waiting can pay off, but the older we get the less fruitful waiting may be. More importantly finding materiel "under the radar" can help a lot as well. That said, revenuecollector, you did right passing at $12,000 and pulling the trigger on the E5 block. Good job.

Edited for missing "d."

If you don't mind, I would love to see an image of your piece just for reference purposes. I wasn't aware of another example of parcel post stamps used as revenues.




Yeah, I can't tell you the number of times I've seen gems buried in balance lots. It becomes problematic if you don't have the resources to be able to buy balance lots, snag the item(s) you covet, and flip the remainder. Luckily the revenue collecting community is relatively small, so you can frequently find out who purchased a given lot and then make arrangements for specific items, either before or after the fact...

Now here is how I would have handled the document if I did not already own such a revenue usage.

Collecting US Q and JQ, Parcel Post and Parcel Post Postage Due, gets very expensive (at least for me) and beyond my means when looking at the essays and proofs of the stamps. However, I determined my collection period as beginning 12-31-1912. This date excludes all essay and proof material except for the 3 and 50 cent as well as the dollar values of the parcel post stamps. Those essays and proofs could be gotten with my budge. As and aside, I already had the 17 P2a set of Panama Pacific Proofs. The 12-31-12 date also allows me to include my ex-Chase, 12-31-12 Q-2 cover mailed by Chase himself. PFC if you want to find an image, issued circa 2007/8.

Now if I did not have a revenue use, I would have framed my collecting area to include only postal usages which include the WWI parcel tax revenues on mail matter but excludes the $12,000 revenue, non-postal use document. When, if, obtained for my $4K price idea, then my scope would expand to non-postal revenue usages.

Edited to prove English is my first language.

It will be a while as it is buried. Most images I show are from the internet but the Nutmeg auctions are not available nor was the quality worthy of down loading at the time. I do not have a scan at the moment. But your request is noted. I think we have messaged before so I have you in my email, correct?

The Merle Bothomley collection was sold by Shreves. The huge balance lot went to Nutmeg which sold it over several years. Bill Weiss (Auctions) and I together were an underbidder. Merle and I would talk periodically while he was still alive. The "remainder" went in 5 figures.

Edited a six to a five. Should have used my fingers to count.

In my twenties, I could wait for an item to come around again as it was easy to "outlive" the collector's interest. Now at 70, such is not a good guarantee of success. I will be posting such an item I recently purchased in this thread once it is in hand,or at least out of the hands of the seller.

However, irrespective of my above comment I can show this item, a real monstrosity. It took just 43 years to come my way. At what should it be priced? I have no flying clue. It is quite oversized by some measures, but just the right size for what it is, the collection of $6.62 of postage due in one transaction on June 30, 1923.

In comparison, a JQ3 "on cover" lists for $200.00 and a JQ2 also "on cover" lists for $225.00. As 40 plain single used stamps, they catalog a total of $513.50. This does not include any "block of four" premiums. For the JQ3 four cat at 4.50 with a block at $35. For the JQ2, four cat at $64.00 while a block is $140.00.



Why it interests me, forces me to be interested, is the problem that it represent the most JQ2s used on an item, 29 and the most JQ3s used, 11, on an item. In comparison JQ1 is 19 and I will not bore with the 4 or 5. But my "largest multiple" JQ set is complete now.

Thus I again ask what is the correct asking price? I still have no idea. I know what my maximum bid was and just sat back to see what other thought it was worth and then beat them. It sold for $230.50. A good deal, I would say, even not knowing what the true value would be.

Comments?

And just wait to see the next item I post.

Neat item! I had it on my watchlist as I was curious where it would end. I wasn't actively planning to bid as it's not in focus for what I collect, but it definitely caught my eye. A bargain at the price realized IMO, although the market interest is likely to be very narrow.

For sure it would be worth a whole lot more if both addresses were still on the wrapper. This is the type of item that is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. The catalog values are just a very rough guide.

Not part of a wrapper rather cardboard used as bulk postage due collection bill as some where to affix the stamps. The East Lee, MA clerk was clearing out the drawer on this one. I will post a wrapper version shortly.

For this piece, what is more important to me is knowing the class of mail for the due collected, first or parcel post.

Ahh, so a follow sheet like we discussed in this thread?

https://goscf.com/t/85151