Hey Mike, When's the new SMQ due out?
edueku
Posts: 985
in Stamps Forum
Hey Mike,
Is the new SMQ due out anytime soon? I'm just going by the Oct-Dec on the current issue. I'm always anxious to see the new articles and values. Another question,in your personal opinion, what do you think of the true market value/investment potential in regards to used graded material? For instance 95 and up for pre-1917 and 90 and up for 19th century. I realize the issue and denomination affects the value too. Do you see alot of used pre-1917 material come in for grading that achieves 95's or higher as opposed to mnh examples?(It would be pretty difficult to go through the entire pop report to come with a consensus) I see that in many cases the SMQ values for used 95's and 98's are much less than for MNH in the same grade. Now I can see why a OGph or OGh would be worth much less than MNH as being hinged is a collector affected stamp i.e. it is neither in the absolute original issued condition(nh) and it was not contemporaneously used as postage. I know the SMQ tries to use the REAL market as the basis for values and that it has in the past lagged it, but what are the factors that might contribute to the low comparative values? Here are a few ideas I have heard from other collectors and/or I have thought myself;
1."Not as many people collect used as MNH"
OK, that makes sense but are these collectors collecting graded material or mostly just used stamps UNgraded?
2. "Used graded material is purely a collector's item" (That's probably not the exact wording though)
It seems to me that anyone spending money on ANY early higher graded material is spending a significant enough amount of money that the thought of "investment" must enter their mind to a certain degree. And so what would "collector's item" mean and how would that make it worth less?
3. "There isn't enough quality used graded material in the marketplace available to create a strong collector base and thus stronger values."
Now that makes sense. It is strange though that the scarcity of something could actually cause it to be worth less as it would be difficult to put together even a small issue of stamps if there aren't at least a couple of high grades of each Sc. # extant.
4. "MNH examples are much rarer than used examples."
Maybe of certain issues but with the experience I've had submitting used examples compared to MNH, it seems used stamps are much more likely to have some sort of flaw just from having been used. I have a hard time even finding a used example of anything that I'm comfortable submitting. Just the fact that the cancel affects the grade seems to be a big factor, that would, of course never affect the grading of a MNH example.
I have noticed that some used imperforate 20th century stamps are approaching or surpassing the MNH examples, and that makes sense. But it would seem that the same logic would apply to perforated issues. I have still been watching the 98 used E1 barely move in value($440) while a mnh example is valued at $23,200. Somehow that seems a little disparate. The MNH value is over 50 times the used price. E4 is even a more extreme example, Used 98 $375, MNH $41,800. Is it because it's a BOB stamp? I see for example that on the Columbian issue in used verse MNH, the used value ranges from at least 5%+ of the MNH value. Some random examples;
232 98 $425/$3900
236 98 $400/$5500
241 95 $2400/$38500
243 95 $3650/$42500
I do notice though, that the same disparate values occur on many other issues besides the E1 I have(the 1894 issue, for example #251,258,). Is there some logic to this? Is it because commemoratives are valued differently or are THAT much more collectible/valuable than regular issues? Is it the higher the denomination the higher the MNH value goes exponentially? I guess maybe there are too many variables to factor. Do you see any real rise to graded used in the future, in your opinion, compared to their MNH counterparts? If I'm correct there are very few used graded stamps in high profile auctions also, so that must affect inherent value. Well I'm probably flogging a dead horse (again). But since not ALL the values are based on actual market prices when there are so few examples, shouldn't the used prices be a bit higher in comparison to the MNH values on several issues? Well maybe I'm getting in over my head, any thoughts? Can't wait to see the new SMQ, the best publication on graded,and it's FREE!
Wishing you a Merry X-Mas and Happy New year!
Is the new SMQ due out anytime soon? I'm just going by the Oct-Dec on the current issue. I'm always anxious to see the new articles and values. Another question,in your personal opinion, what do you think of the true market value/investment potential in regards to used graded material? For instance 95 and up for pre-1917 and 90 and up for 19th century. I realize the issue and denomination affects the value too. Do you see alot of used pre-1917 material come in for grading that achieves 95's or higher as opposed to mnh examples?(It would be pretty difficult to go through the entire pop report to come with a consensus) I see that in many cases the SMQ values for used 95's and 98's are much less than for MNH in the same grade. Now I can see why a OGph or OGh would be worth much less than MNH as being hinged is a collector affected stamp i.e. it is neither in the absolute original issued condition(nh) and it was not contemporaneously used as postage. I know the SMQ tries to use the REAL market as the basis for values and that it has in the past lagged it, but what are the factors that might contribute to the low comparative values? Here are a few ideas I have heard from other collectors and/or I have thought myself;
1."Not as many people collect used as MNH"
OK, that makes sense but are these collectors collecting graded material or mostly just used stamps UNgraded?
2. "Used graded material is purely a collector's item" (That's probably not the exact wording though)
It seems to me that anyone spending money on ANY early higher graded material is spending a significant enough amount of money that the thought of "investment" must enter their mind to a certain degree. And so what would "collector's item" mean and how would that make it worth less?
3. "There isn't enough quality used graded material in the marketplace available to create a strong collector base and thus stronger values."
Now that makes sense. It is strange though that the scarcity of something could actually cause it to be worth less as it would be difficult to put together even a small issue of stamps if there aren't at least a couple of high grades of each Sc. # extant.
4. "MNH examples are much rarer than used examples."
Maybe of certain issues but with the experience I've had submitting used examples compared to MNH, it seems used stamps are much more likely to have some sort of flaw just from having been used. I have a hard time even finding a used example of anything that I'm comfortable submitting. Just the fact that the cancel affects the grade seems to be a big factor, that would, of course never affect the grading of a MNH example.
I have noticed that some used imperforate 20th century stamps are approaching or surpassing the MNH examples, and that makes sense. But it would seem that the same logic would apply to perforated issues. I have still been watching the 98 used E1 barely move in value($440) while a mnh example is valued at $23,200. Somehow that seems a little disparate. The MNH value is over 50 times the used price. E4 is even a more extreme example, Used 98 $375, MNH $41,800. Is it because it's a BOB stamp? I see for example that on the Columbian issue in used verse MNH, the used value ranges from at least 5%+ of the MNH value. Some random examples;
232 98 $425/$3900
236 98 $400/$5500
241 95 $2400/$38500
243 95 $3650/$42500
I do notice though, that the same disparate values occur on many other issues besides the E1 I have(the 1894 issue, for example #251,258,). Is there some logic to this? Is it because commemoratives are valued differently or are THAT much more collectible/valuable than regular issues? Is it the higher the denomination the higher the MNH value goes exponentially? I guess maybe there are too many variables to factor. Do you see any real rise to graded used in the future, in your opinion, compared to their MNH counterparts? If I'm correct there are very few used graded stamps in high profile auctions also, so that must affect inherent value. Well I'm probably flogging a dead horse (again). But since not ALL the values are based on actual market prices when there are so few examples, shouldn't the used prices be a bit higher in comparison to the MNH values on several issues? Well maybe I'm getting in over my head, any thoughts? Can't wait to see the new SMQ, the best publication on graded,and it's FREE!
Wishing you a Merry X-Mas and Happy New year!
0
Comments
Thanks for your interesting question. I have some thoughts and statistics on the subject of used stamps (of which I am a big fan) and will write a longer response over the weekend when I have more time. To answer one question, the SMQ is still in progress. The price changes (of which there are many) have been made, and most of the editorial has been written. I expect it to go to the printer around Jan 10, and we should have delivery by around the 15th.
Sorry for the late response, but we're very busy with quarter end, and I haven't checked the board as often as I should.
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
Jerry
Your observations are accurate. Nice, attractive high-grade 19th century used stamps are both scarce, and in high demand. From the October Pop report (I cheated, and used the Excel file) PSE has graded 638 Used 19th century stamps in XF-Sup 95, and 120 in Sup 98 vs. 646 Mint NH 19th century stamps in XF-Sup 95 and 140 in Sup 98. So the numbers are pretty close, yet as you pointed out, values are far higher (for most stamps) for Mint NH examples.
Used stamps have the important additional component of a cancel, which plays a huge part in eye appeal. Aside from the demand for special, odd or unusual cancels (which is unto itself a separate field) nice light red or green cancels are obviously preferable to a heavy obscuring black cancel. So the demand, and by definition value of any used stamp is also impacted by its cancel.
Since eye appeal is the most subjective aspect of grading, that makes valuing used stamps the trickiest of the areas to get accurate. If a used stamp sells for a huge premium over the SMQ, it can often be due to a special cancel (by design, or from a particular town).
You also correctly noted that the SMQ lags the market. Not sure if "lags" is the right term, since it implies a direction, but the SMQ is certainly low. I know Bill likes to use the word "conservative". The next issue (Jan-Mar '07) will have a lengthy review of the Fall 2006 auction season, which saw over 2,200 graded PSE stamps sell.
One of the conclusions, so to speak, from the analysis is that the SMQ is more undervalued for Used, than for Mint NH stamps. Average auction values for XF 90s show that Mint NH stamps brought an average of 1.15X SMQ values, while Used brought an average of 1.69X SMQ. 95s show a multiple of 1.31X for Mint NH and 2.39X for Used, and 98s are 1.74X for Mint NH and 2.31X for Used.
These are not trivial differences, so the real market is valuing high grade Used stamps a lot closer to Mint NH than the SMQ indicates. Bill has made a record number of price changes this time, and time does not permit me to analyze them here, but higher grade 19th century Used appears up around 10%-20% across the board.
Personally, I have always preferred Used stuff to Mint. In coins, I've always liked nice, original VF early (pre-1808) type coins, and in stamps, I collect 90-95 Used mid-19th century. Real "collectors" stuff. I've never been infatuated with ultra-high grade modern items in either numismatics or philatelics. Again, I'm speaking for myself. The "market" has often said otherwise.
In any event, your insightful comments are always interesting to read, and I thank our growing number of board participants for their contributions. Let's all hope 2007 brings further growth to this fine hobby.
Best,
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
Went to the printer last Friday (1/12). We expect to see a proof on Monday, and if all goes smoothly (as we anticipate) should be on press Tuesday (1/16). We expect delivery Thursday or Friday. I will post the new online prices when we receive it.
We apologize for the delay this time. Between the VERY active fall auction schedule (which led to a longer editorial), Dr. Litle's vacation and the year end holidays in general, we got behind. We expect to be back on track for the April-June issue. There have been a lot of prices changes this time around, and we believe it's our best issue ever. So I hope you won't be disappointed.
As always, we offer double your money back if not satisfied. :-)
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
Thanks,
John
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
<< <i>New Jan-Mar 2007 SMQ prices are now online. >>
Mike,
Thanks! How can I get one?
John Wondowski
Just send us a written request, or submit some stamps.
All submitters get the SMQ for a year automatically.
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
<< <i>John,
Just send us a written request, or submit some stamps.
All submitters get the SMQ for a year automatically. >>
Mike,
Thank you.
john
john