We watched “Charade” last night. The 1963 movie starring Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant told the story of a clueless widow pursued by unscrupulous men after her late husband’s fortune. No one had any idea where the fortune was, until the last 15 minutes of the movie, when it was revealed that the three stamps on an old envelope were worth $250,000.
Some facts were a little hard to swallow. For starters, Hepburn looked impossibly elegant running around in heels. Grant held the gun like it was a fashion accessory. He also, at one point in the movie, gleefully took a shower with his suit on. Ah, the sixties. But three stamps, $250,000?
That was when I reached for my Google and typed in “world’s most valuable stamp”. Folks, say hello to the Swedish Treskilling stamp, mistakenly printed in yellow instead of green in the 1880s, and bought by one very devoted fan for $2.2 million.
After a few similar Websites, I had learned a bit more about stamps than I wanted to. (Useless party cocktail chatter: Check.) One, printing mistakes often result in valuable stamps. Two, unused stamps are more valuable than used ones, no matter how rare they are.
I disagree. A stamp is made to be a stamp. If it has performed that function and has lived its life on the edge of an envelope, I say it is worth more than an unused exact one of its kind. Why assess the stamp as a work of art, to be unsullied, untouched, placed behind glass? I think the raison d’etre of the object must be considered. The beauty of a used stamp lies in its untold story of its birth, its sale, its sticky contact with its user, and its journey through many hands.
My husband Jay felt differently. There is still possibility left in the stamp, he said. That’s what makes it valuable. I don’t know. What I do know is I wouldn’t pay more for an unused stamp, coddled from birth, hidden in delicate sleeves, handled with tweezers. I want my stamps hardy, well-traveled, licked.
0 Responses to “To Lick Or Not To Lick”