Question on Stamp Collecting Procedure

OK, here's kind of an obvious question. I'm just checking to make sure that
I'm doing the right thing. I've got 2 stamps that are still connected that
were used to mail a letter. Is it better to put them in your boos as is or
doesn't it matter if you separate them and only put one in your collection.
My initial thought is that two connected stamps is better than a single
stamp, but I'm just checking to see if there's a difference.

Another question is, at what point do you reject a stamp from your
collection. How beat up or inked (from the postmark) does it have to be in
order for it to be not worth it. In your opinion.

OK, last question. I also have a few stamps which are fairly inked up, but
in perfect writing on the stamp is the name of the PO. I have stamps that
say the following in perfect ink on the stamp (all in the corresponding
case):
BOSTON
MASS.

NEW
YORK
N.Y.

INDIANAPOLIS
IND

San Francisco
Calif.

So, what should I do with those. They are old US stamps so I don't want to
throw them, but I feel that the writing blocks too much of the portrait.
-Luther

"Luther Bell" skrev i en meddelelse
...
were used to mail a letter. Is it better to put them in your boos as is
or
doesn't it matter if you separate them and only put one in your
collection.

Two are better than one..

Another question is, at what point do you reject a stamp from your
collection. How beat up or inked (from the postmark) does it have to be
in
order for it to be not worth it. In your opinion.

I reject stamps with physical errors, like missing teeth, bends, thinness
etc.. Unless it is a rare one, i which case i will keep the defect until a
better one (suited for my purse) shows up.

The cancellation (ink) does not disqualify. I prefer a stamp with a clear
cancellation, which (often) tells me that the stamp was genuinely used. So,
the postmark often tells more than the stamp itself.

So, what should I do with those. They are old US stamps so I don't want
to
throw them, but I feel that the writing blocks too much of the portrait.

Well, again, it depends on whether you are interested in the postal history
or the image on the stamp.

Michael

Each collector has his own preferences and here are many pitfalls along the
way.
I prefer single stamps, they are easier to mount and one good example is enough
for me.
I initially started out wanting good postally used stamps, they were easy to
find sixty years ago, not so today.
My collection is now mixed with mint and used.

The cancelled stamps you mentioned sound like precancels to me. They were quite
common many years back.

Don't even consider the stamps you collect [aying for a cruise someday. That is
the wrong reason to collect stamps. Collectbthem for fun and enjoyment.

Ralphael the OLD master

"Luther Bell" wrote in message ...
OK, here's kind of an obvious question. I'm just checking to make sure that
I'm doing the right thing.

You're right to ask. A general rule in collecting _anything_ is not to
make irreversible changes unless you're sure.

I've got 2 stamps that are still connected that
were used to mail a letter. Is it better to put them in your boos as is or
doesn't it matter if you separate them and only put one in your collection.
My initial thought is that two connected stamps is better than a single
stamp, but I'm just checking to see if there's a difference.

Keep them togther if you prefer it that way. I always have a twinge of
guilt when separating stamps that have "been together now for 100
years". Generally, though, I separate common identical stamps unless
there's a good reason otherwise, like tête-bêche pairs (one
upside-down). Se tenant groups (a design across several stamps), or
bilingual pairs like S Africans, should _never_ be separated,
especially the SA pairs which are worth much more than 2 individual
stamps. If in doubt, especially with older stamps, check a specialised
catalogue carefully for subtle varieties, as an error attached to a
perfect example can be valuable and may even be required provenance.
An interesting postmark across stamps may justify keeping multiples,
keeping them "on piece" or even the whole envelope rather than
soaking. If you use pre-printed pages marked out for each specific
stamp, it's best to put these extras on separate "graph paper" pages
after the main ones, rather than overlap the printed squares or shove
them into blank spaces (though I must admit to doing that!)

Another question is, at what point do you reject a stamp from your
collection. How beat up or inked (from the postmark) does it have to be in
order for it to be not worth it. In your opinion.

IMHO the worst condition stamp of all is a blank space on the album
page. So I mount even very badly beat-up examples. At least it gives
you an idea of what the stamp looks like so when a better one comes
along you know where to put it (I'm assuming you're mounting stamps in
some kind of order) without poring over the catalogue again. One
problem to watch is when a fault is only visible from the back, e.g.
thins and repaired tears, which may mean you don't notice that you
need a replacement.

OK, last question. I also have a few stamps which are fairly inked up, but
in perfect writing on the stamp is the name of the PO. I have stamps that
say the following in perfect ink on the stamp (all in the corresponding
case):
BOSTON
MASS.

NEW
YORK
N.Y.

INDIANAPOLIS
IND

San Francisco
Calif.

So, what should I do with those. They are old US stamps so I don't want to
throw them, but I feel that the writing blocks too much of the portrait.
-Luther

These precancels can make an interesting study in themselves. Again,
put a lightly/normally-cancelled example on the main page and have a
following one for a collection of different cities. This is a good way
to get more mileage out of mixed "kiloware" bags. For the same reason,
I also keep booklet stamps with different edges perfed and attempt to
reconstruct the pages.

The bottom line, as stated in the first book I ever read on stamp
collecting at a tender age: "This is _your_ collection, you can keep
it in any way you want."

Chris