It’s been tried many many times. Recently there was a Pony Express stamp on eBay from a German seller. A used Pony Express stamp is more valuable than an unused one and of course the one on eBay had markings on it made to look used, but the markings were fake.
Destroying the second stamp would not necessarily have any effect on the value of the first. Rich collectors want a particular stamp, and are likely to pay as much if a second one is found as they would for the first one. In addition, the value of the original is not likely to be affected by a second. Only one person can own the stamp, and since there will only be a single one on the market at a time, then there’s no real competition.
If I’m willing to pay $1 million for a stamp, I’m still willing to pay $1 million for a second copy of it. If they second copy is destroyed, then I’m willing to pay $1 million for the first (why should I pay more, when that was my price?).
For the record there is one on eBay right now. $400k.
It wouldn’t work this way for a number of reasons. A substantial amount of the value of a stamp is tied to its rarity. Each additional copy makes the existing copies worth less. Additionally, to most collectors, the first copy is worth much more than the next.
If you continue your hypothetical, it’s pretty clear that it doesn’t work that way. When the 3rd copy is found, will he still pay $1 million for it? The 4th? The 700th? The 100,000th? It’s clear that at some point, he will not be willing to pay that much, both because getting his nth copy is not worth as much as getting his first and because the mere fact that there are n of them out there for sale makes them not worth as much to begin with.
For any sane/rational collector, the price that he’ll pay for additional copies is a curve. It’s not like he’s willing to pay $1 million each for the first 12, but the 13th drops off. It’s going to be a continuous reduction in value.
Whether the curve is steep enough to make the net effect of destroying a copy positive is left as an exercise for the reader. I would guess that it generally is not.
The high-value used ones would bear a postmark that could be verified as genuine from the era of the stamp. Merely being cancelled or defaced in some way is not the same as having a stamp that carries the genuine historical evidence that the stamp was postally used when issued.
Ordinarily, rare stamps are worth a great deal more when still affixed to their original envelope, called a “cover”, or “postal stationery”. Most collectors of rare stamps invest only in covers, and would not be interested in the isolated stamp removed from the cover, which would be worth a lot less. It’s much easier to forge a cancellation, than the stamp itself, and there are plenty of forged stamps.
In the 19th centuries, post offices used to be very scrupulous about heavily obliterating stamps, especially those of high denominations. It is a rare treat to find a lightly-cancelled 1-pound stamp from the colonies, particularly from a place like South Georgia.
One of the running gags in the movie is that a lot of his methods for throwing away money end up earning him returns, against all odds, so he has even MORE money he has to throw away.
In other words, that might have been intentional on the part of the filmmakers.
I don’t think destroying it would have any effect on the price that withholding from the market wouldn’t also have. The price is going to be determined not by the extant number of items in the world, but rather by the number of items being supplied vs the number of items being demanded. For super rare items, this mechanism would maybe work in a rather funky way but I’m sticking with it for the moment. Like in Goldfinger, where Goldfinger tries to increase the price of gold by making all of the gold in Fort Knox unavailable (but not destroying it), so that his gold would be worth more. I’m not sure that Goldfinger is intent on selling his gold after pulling off this stunt, but he’s an insane villain mastermind so it does not really matter what he wants anyway. The point is that there’s no reason to destroy the stamp, all you need to do is make it clear that you are not selling it, and that would then (presumably) reduce supply, thus increasing the price.
If memory serves correctly, wasn’t this basically Auric Goldfinger’s plan? Nuke Fort Knox so his own gold reserves would be worth exponentially more?
One assumes James Bond has better things to do with his time than thwart rogue stamp collectors, though. Unless Blofeld was a philatelist. It seems like the sort of hobby he’d have…
I think this gag was used in an Archie comic book once: Archie accidentally breaks a rare vase belonging to Veronica’s dad, and gets out of trouble by pointing out that he’s increased the value of the other one the dad has.
So we had a baby yesterday. I’m in our room at the hospital, the TV is on in the background as we have lunch. On the TV is Kojak. Wow, I haven’t seen Kojak in 30 years. Amazing. The episode? A guy who burns a stamp to try to increase the value of its pair, which he also owns.
What are the chances…
In “Ponzi Schemes, Invaders From Mars and More Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” Joseph Bulgatz tells a story that he says occurred during the tulip mania of the 1630’s where a collector heard of a cobbler with a bulb identical to one he owned. The collector then travelled to Harlem to buy the cobbler’s bulb,for which he paid 1500 guilders and promptly ground it to dust under his heel. This was at a time when a small house could be bought for 300 guilders.