[Headline as it appears in Linn's:]
Dealer Eric Jackson: ‘Sell all the U.S. revenues’


By Eric Jackson

In a press release dated Jan. 6, 2004, the Smithsonian’s National Postal Museum announced that they will sell some of the revenue stamps transferred to them by the Internal Revenue Service between 1954 and 1977. The holding comprises approximately 7.8 million stamps of which there are nearly 1,900 distinct revenue stamp varieties. In many cases, there are up to 50,000 copies of a stamp.

In the transfer to the Smithsonian, the IRS stated that the National Postal Museum utilize the revenue stamps for its collection and for such exchange purposes as it may deem proper and that any surplus copies may be destroyed. Proceeds gained from the sale of the revenue stamps are to be used to add to the National Postal Museum collection.

The proposal has sparked much discussion in the stamp collecting community. In my position as a dealer specializing in revenue stamps and as president of the American Revenue Association, I have heard from more than one hundred collectors and dealers via email, letters, phone calls or in person. There are three points that make up most of these communications: the destruction of stamps, the decision to sell, and the arbitrary selection of stamps to be sold.

The proposed destruction of the stamps is philatelic vandalism. I am appalled that the National Postal Museum, a part of the Smithsonian Institution, would even consider such an action. As philatelists, we are charged with the preservation of these items for future generations. Museums have the same responsibility. In fact, the mission statement of the NPM includes this line “The National Postal Museum, through its collections and library, is dedicated to the preservation, study and presentation of postal history and philately.”

The National Postal Museum is advised by its council of philatelists, a group of prominent stamp collectors that includes the current president and two past presidents of the American Philatelic Society. Wilson Hulme, curator at the museum, is a prominent philatelist and an APS member. Allen Kane, the director of the museum, is also an APS member. How and why such a prominent group of philatelists could advocate the destruction of stamps is beyond comprehension. Can you imagine the black blot that will hang over the National Postal Museum should they move forward with the destruction of most of the stamps?

The sale of the stamps has generated much discussion. Most collectors I have spoken with favor the sale. As a dealer, I always like to see new material on the market, especially a large hoard such as this. Properly marketed, we could see the number of revenue stamp collectors increase greatly. As a result, activity will increase, bringing more material to the marketplace, a winning situation for all.

Assuming the museum could scrap the plan to destroy the stamps (and I think it should scrap the destruction), it will have to do something with the stamps. Storage of the stamps presents problems and costs money. The museum also is seeking funds so that it can add to its collection.

Let’s be realistic. The museum wants to sell these stamps, and I believe that they will sell them. The sooner it does, the sooner we can enjoy them. For the sake of the philatelic community, let us hope that the museum sees the error of its way and releases the entire holding.

In the fact sheet on the museums’s website, one of the goals of the deaccession is to not adversely affect the market. The sale of the entire holding of stamps will not adversely affect the market, but will have a positive impact. A small group of people will feel a negative impact as a result of the sale. The only way the museum adversely affects the stamp marketplace is when it buys an item, thereby depriving collectors and dealers the opportunity to buy and sell that item, probably forever.

Next to the proposed destruction of the stamps, the second biggest mistake the museum is making is the arbitrary manner it is using to pick quantities to sell. The question most often asked by collectors about the sale of the stamps is “Why is the museum trying to protect a few rich collectors?”

For example, there is only one recorded example of the 1 7/10c Wine stamp (Scott RE182D) in private hands. The museum has 50,000, but its fact sheet states that only three examples will be sold. The owner of the one stamp is not pleased, but neither are scores, or possibly hundreds or thousands, of other collectors who might like to own one of these stamps. The museum is attempting to manipulate the rarity of this stamp.

Furthermore, its arbitrary attempts at manipulation are not consistent. Two groupings of $30 through $10,000 stock transfer stamps in imperforate pairs without serial numbers exist. (For the record, I am the owner of one of these sets along with several other stamps that will be impacted by this sale). The fact sheet states that 50 examples of such stamps will be sold. In this case with two known groups, the museum is willing to sell 50, but if only one stamp is known, they will sell only three. Such arbitrary quantities are another example of poor judgment.

The philatelic market is a resilient market. In the past 20 years, we have the seen American Bank Note Co. archives and the United Nations Postal Administration archives come to the marketplace and be readily absorbed. While the museum hoard of revenue stamps is slightly different, it too will be welcomed in its entirety by the marketplace.

The support by the philatelic community for the museum to discard its plans for destruction and sell all of the stamps is overwhelming. It is also just plain common sense. There is a ready market for the stamps, and the museum will realize more funds as a result of the sale of the entire holding.

Furthermore, it will avoid the costs of destruction and the labor involved in accounting for sales of small quantities. Lastly, the museum will be seen as a friend to the philatelic community by allowing this material to come to the market and avoid the black blot that it is currently heading toward.