To me (and probably most collectors) a stamp described as MNH with nothing further should be pristine and post office fresh. Any blemish, crease (even natural gum crease), tack down thin, set off/off set, etc. should be noted. For example, "Scott #1077 MNH with apparent design transfer from a stamp upon which it had been stacked, see scan." If a group of stamps are sold, the description may be something like "47 MNH stamps from Ghana, 10 of which have minor blemishes and/or gum disturbances."
Bobby is absolutely correct. When I buy stamps I expect any flaw to at least be noted, if not described.
None of those stamps are MNH. As soon as the gum is damaged, the stamp becomes unused with defects.
I, too, get quite aggravated when I buy MNH stamps, and then find a gum disturbance such as what you have shown, or tell-tale signs on the gum of too much liquid applied to the mount which seeped into the fold and damaged the gum. Also, finger prints are a gum disturbance. If I want to see fingerprints, I'll buy some powder and dust for prints.
Sellers justify their MNH designation by stating that there is no hinge mark on the stamp. Well, if they use the Scott catalog, the term MNH is well defined, and that is what applies, not a literal interpretation of "never hinged".
"They are mint. And they have never been hinged. So, what's the problem?" Ah, the good old smirky "got you on a technicality response". Sounds like something my teenage daughters would say if I called them on a house-rules infraction...
I'm in agreement with Bobby that regardless of fancy-dancing with the words MNH, that the broader concept of what that implies rules (i.e. anything visible to the naked eye should at least be reported to potential buyers). Even though some of your examples, as you noted, would be natural/common gum issues and not devalued.
I'm more of a get-even than get-mad guy, so you may appreciate this. A year ago I bought an older, high-value MNH Canadian stamp on eBay for $78. When received I found it had very clear "ghosting" on the gum like some of yours where clearly the stamps had been stacked and part of the face of the bottom stamp was transferred due (I assume) to humidity. The seller refused to refund even after I sent a picture and astonishingly became quite offensive about it saying "you own it now, find somebody more stupid and sell it to them"). I waited two weeks then sent him a nice email apologizing if I had been rude and impugned his honesty. I included a scan of a doctored cheque (from my own company) for $3,400 in payment for the "rare Canadian stamp, one of just two known copies accidentally printed on the obverse side". Needless to say he claimed selling it was an error and asked if I would split the proceeds with him "in good faith". I said I would be fair under the circumstances and credited his PayPal account with an additional $0.01.
Can't improve your gum-issues, but I hope it makes you feel better.
Cheers, Dave.
How underhanded, deceptive, vindictive, and spiteful of you - I LOVE IT!
Another great story, Dave. Revenge, I have read, is best served cold. Your tale is absolutely Arctic!
Bruce
Bought on eBay as MNH:
"The presence of an expertizer's mark does not disqualify a stamp from this designation."
OH! I feel your pain.
Bruce
When notified, the seller made a feeble remark along the lines of "It is mint, why do you stamp collectors always expect perfection?. Send it back then."
This I did, but in my rush didn't get 'proof of postage' and of course the nice chap got his MS back and kept the money.
the nice chap got his MS back and kept the money
Sorry this predated my contribution about the subject Ningpo. You would have known to send him an email afterwards that a dealer authenticated the signature as belonging to Margaret Thatcher, and apologize for the inappropriate complaint; adding a thank you for the $700 cheque you got when you subsequently sold it.
And now you know...
Cheers, Dave.
Dave, I love the way your mind works.
Have you ever bought mint never hinged stamps, received them, assigned them a cursory glance because of other pressing obligations, noting to yourself at that time that you will look at them on a later date?
Usually when stamps are bought as a set or individually and they are advertised as mint never hinged, there is an expectation of perfection for me anyway with certain exceptions that I will note with two examples at the end.
The Scott Publishing Company has defined never hinged in their postage stamp catalogs: "A never hinged stamp will have full original gum that will have no hinge mark or disturbance. The presence of an expertizer's mark does not disqualify a stamp from this designation."
Seems pretty straight forward.
These stamps were what I would call snuck in with other mint never hinged stamps. What was the person thinking? Was the person thinking?
I always mention irregularities like this to sellers unless I set the purchase aside and it's been a long time since I received them--I am at fault for the delay and I take or took my lumps. Truth be told, that was an error of my youth. Now, I'm pretty hawk-eyed as soon as stamps arrive. You should be, too.
Here are a couple answers that were sure to get the juices going:
"Well they sold for a very good price so why are you being such a perfectionist?"
"They are mint. And they have never been hinged. So, what's the problem?"
Rather than return the lots I either never buy from the person again, receive a proportional refund based on how many were not as described, etc.
But, what about these last two stamps?
The 40p Hitler head has some sort of gum disturbance at bottom center which when examined under the magnifying glass is clearly beneath the gum so, my conclusion is that this stamp garners an exception to the restrictions of the Scott Catalog definition.
The 6p Tenth Anniversary of NSV (A national health org)shows a random pattern of missing gum appearing as whitish dots of varying size (though hard to see in the scan) that also appear to originate at the printing house. There is also a brown dot which under the magnifying glass appears under the gum. Would this stamp also garner an exception to the restrictions applying to the definition of mint never hinged?
Bruce
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
To me (and probably most collectors) a stamp described as MNH with nothing further should be pristine and post office fresh. Any blemish, crease (even natural gum crease), tack down thin, set off/off set, etc. should be noted. For example, "Scott #1077 MNH with apparent design transfer from a stamp upon which it had been stacked, see scan." If a group of stamps are sold, the description may be something like "47 MNH stamps from Ghana, 10 of which have minor blemishes and/or gum disturbances."
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
Bobby is absolutely correct. When I buy stamps I expect any flaw to at least be noted, if not described.
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
None of those stamps are MNH. As soon as the gum is damaged, the stamp becomes unused with defects.
I, too, get quite aggravated when I buy MNH stamps, and then find a gum disturbance such as what you have shown, or tell-tale signs on the gum of too much liquid applied to the mount which seeped into the fold and damaged the gum. Also, finger prints are a gum disturbance. If I want to see fingerprints, I'll buy some powder and dust for prints.
Sellers justify their MNH designation by stating that there is no hinge mark on the stamp. Well, if they use the Scott catalog, the term MNH is well defined, and that is what applies, not a literal interpretation of "never hinged".
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
"They are mint. And they have never been hinged. So, what's the problem?" Ah, the good old smirky "got you on a technicality response". Sounds like something my teenage daughters would say if I called them on a house-rules infraction...
I'm in agreement with Bobby that regardless of fancy-dancing with the words MNH, that the broader concept of what that implies rules (i.e. anything visible to the naked eye should at least be reported to potential buyers). Even though some of your examples, as you noted, would be natural/common gum issues and not devalued.
I'm more of a get-even than get-mad guy, so you may appreciate this. A year ago I bought an older, high-value MNH Canadian stamp on eBay for $78. When received I found it had very clear "ghosting" on the gum like some of yours where clearly the stamps had been stacked and part of the face of the bottom stamp was transferred due (I assume) to humidity. The seller refused to refund even after I sent a picture and astonishingly became quite offensive about it saying "you own it now, find somebody more stupid and sell it to them"). I waited two weeks then sent him a nice email apologizing if I had been rude and impugned his honesty. I included a scan of a doctored cheque (from my own company) for $3,400 in payment for the "rare Canadian stamp, one of just two known copies accidentally printed on the obverse side". Needless to say he claimed selling it was an error and asked if I would split the proceeds with him "in good faith". I said I would be fair under the circumstances and credited his PayPal account with an additional $0.01.
Can't improve your gum-issues, but I hope it makes you feel better.
Cheers, Dave.
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
How underhanded, deceptive, vindictive, and spiteful of you - I LOVE IT!
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
Another great story, Dave. Revenge, I have read, is best served cold. Your tale is absolutely Arctic!
Bruce
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
Bought on eBay as MNH:
"The presence of an expertizer's mark does not disqualify a stamp from this designation."
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
OH! I feel your pain.
Bruce
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
When notified, the seller made a feeble remark along the lines of "It is mint, why do you stamp collectors always expect perfection?. Send it back then."
This I did, but in my rush didn't get 'proof of postage' and of course the nice chap got his MS back and kept the money.
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
the nice chap got his MS back and kept the money
Sorry this predated my contribution about the subject Ningpo. You would have known to send him an email afterwards that a dealer authenticated the signature as belonging to Margaret Thatcher, and apologize for the inappropriate complaint; adding a thank you for the $700 cheque you got when you subsequently sold it.
And now you know...
Cheers, Dave.
re: They're Mint. They've Never Been Hinged. They...
Dave, I love the way your mind works.