his uncle said he couldn't destroy anything that was inherently valuable. as he said, he couldn't go buy a bunch of paintings and destroy them. so how did the stamp not disqualify him? he bought it and then used it (mailed it), that destroyed its value because he used it a regular postage. How is that not destroying its inherent value? I'm not a stamp collector or antique expert so maybe someone with knowledge in this area can help me.
shareNo!If he burned the stamp however,instead of using it,that would of disqualified him.
shareEven though the stamp had value, he used it for what its' original intended purpose was for...to mail a letter. Like the other poster said, if he burned it, or cut it up or destroyed it in any way, then yes, that would have gone against the rules. But to use it for its' intended purpose is fine.
shareIt is discussed on here in another subject. Rupert meant you couldn't just destroy things that were valuable and gave an example (using Picassos for firewood). Monty just mailed the stamp, which is what a stamp is supposed to be used for. He didn't just rip it up or flush it down the toilet. It is sort of like using depreciation on assets in bookkeeping. The value of the asset goes down with time, but it is still physically there.
shareMy question is why didn't he do that with every super-valuable stamp he could get his hands on?
share[deleted]