¤Þ¥Î

¤Þ¥Î²Ä150¼Óming8686¤_2013-11-15 12:23µoªíªº  :
¬ü°êUAW (United Automobile Workers) ¼vÅT¤O¤§¤j®£«D±`¤H¥i·Q¹³.  ¬°¤F­n°t¦X¥´Ây©u¸`,  ¥L­Ì»P¤T¤j¨T¨®¤½¥qªº¥|¦~¦X¬ù¸Ì¦³¤@¶µ¬O±N°h¥î­x¤H¸`±q¬P´Á¤@²¾¨ì¬P´Á¤­................©Ò¥H©ú¤Ñ©ñ°².
Just found this cover in a box. The cover was franked with a SC#65 and was sent in 1866, which is one year after the civil war.  It has vertical imperforation on the left side.

The stamp was probably mis-perforated instead of imperforated. It is hard to determin if the stamp was originally franked on this cover.

¤Þ¥Î

¤Þ¥Î²Ä152¼Óming8686¤_2013-11-15 12:58µoªíªº ¦^ 151¼Ó(swift) ªº©«¤l :
Good point. I've thought about that too.  If it was mis-perforated, let's say the perforation  was somewhere on the further left which is outside of the stamp, what I don't understand is why the left side has a vertical straight cut (it almost looks like done by a machine)? Or someone must have used a pair of scissors to get that done. The cover was among a pile of very cheap covers I purchased a while ago and I'm not sure why someone would try to fake it without gaining anything, but that's not important since the cover doesn't mean much to me. It is the stamp itself that I'm interested in.

I checked the Scott catalog, it does say that there are vertical pair w/ horizontal imperf existing but does not say anything about vertical imperf. I guess your suggestion is probably right.

Hi ming,

You missed an important thing. The stamp was not tied to the cover. The stamp might have been lifed, maipulated, and then put back. This is a good example why advanced collectors prefer seeing stamps are tied to a cover. I did not say that it must be an altered stamp. I meant to say that the possibility is very very high.

I have some experiences that dealers threw some altered "nice" items into a collection only to help sell the lot. Total price was still low. The lot may have a good chance to go fast.

Hi ming,

It is not easy to figure out why and how the left perforation did not appear as it should. Frankly, I would not want to know.  I am not able to analyze cheaters' minds, either. The cover is just not conveniencing enough for me to believe that the stamp was from an imperforated pair.

On the other hand, the stamp is still a nice "oddity" or "freak". You must know there is a group of collectors specialized in so called EFOs (Errors, Freaks and Oddities). In the area of EFO, errors are much more valuable than freaks or oddities.

By the way, as I have said before, we are not sure if the stamp was originally on the cover we see. It is very easy to remove a stamp and put it on a different envelop when the stamp was not tied to its original enveleop.

I do not think that I can give any more on this cover.

This would have been a very nice cover without missing a stamp.

If I were you, I would keep it the way it is now and look for the missing stamp, even though the chance of finding the stamp is quite slim. Once the stamps are cut off, the cover only exists in picture even the missing stamp is found.

Normally, I would not offer more than a fair price for used stamps for such a cover. Some cases addressing significant postal historical meaning might be rare exceptions.

This is a very interesting question. I can only offer my own view point. Other collectors may see this matter differently.

Firstly, lifting a stamp (or stamps) off a cover has been a very old practice. This is supposed to be done with extreme care by skillful persons under only necessary occasions, such as to determine watermarks of a stamp on cover. All precautions are taken to prove that the stamp was originally on the cover before been lifted. For this reason, I do think that if a stamp fell off a cover, it should be OK to glue it back, given that no additional make-up work were added.

¤Þ¥Î

¤Þ¥Î²Ä173¼Óming8686¤_2013-11-21 00:54µoªíªº ¦^ 172¼Ó(swift) ªº©«¤l :
It sounds logical for the purpose you described. I do have a small reservation on this though. If a Qing Dynasty cover has glue that belongs to 21st century provided that someone needs to lift the stamp(s) then put it(them) back in order to verify something, would it hurt the value of the cover a little bit?

I guess if we follow the process of a typical antique restoration then this is not an issue. Is this considered as a process of restoration even if the cover is not damaged to begin with?

You brought up some very serious issue. I may not be able to comment on this in an objective way because I do not consider myself a typical collector. Anyway, here is my two cents worth opinion.

¡§Value¡¨ and ¡§price¡¨ are two different concepts without clear boundary in the philatelic world. The ¡§value¡¨ of it can be very subjective. The ¡§price¡¨ of a cover is some kind of consensus among collectors and dealers. We do not expect that everyone agrees upon the same price for an individual item, however, a deal takes at least two parties. The price of a cover is defined when a transaction is made. Given that all the details about the cover are clearly and honestly stated, there should not be any ethical concern. The case that you mentioned about modern glue instead of adhesive from Chin dynasty might bother a few extremely fastidious collectors. However, I would think that most collectors would accept if the appearance does not show any trace of alternation after the retrieved stamp has been put back. (Of course, the stamp must be the correct one.)

I do not compete in any stamp exhibition. I am not sure what will happen if a cover under the condition that we have discussed is put into an exhibition. This will need someone who is familiar with exhibition rules to explain.

¤Þ¥Î

¤Þ¥Î²Ä174¼Óming8686¤_2013-11-21 08:57µoªíªº  :
½Ð°Ý¬°¦ó¤£µô¦b½u¤W? ³o¬O¥Ñ¤£¦P¾÷¾¹µô¥X¨Óªº¶Ü?

¦L¨ê¥þ±i³q±`¦³¦n´X­Óª©±i¡A¦L»s§¹¦¨«á¦Aµô¤Á¦¨¥X°âªºª©±i¡C¦³©w¦ì½uªº¡]±zªº³Ì¥ª¤W¹Ï¡^À³¸Ó¬O¥kÃ䪩±i¡A¨S¦³©w¦ì½uªº¨Ó¦Û¥ªÃ䪩±i¡C