Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
The low value in a set of 1938 Ivan Dubasov stamps, which I've just upgraded from used/CTO to mint. This, then, is what arrived this morning:
Oh dear, oh dear! Poorly centred, and badly foxed. To be fair, the other three in the set were perfectly acceptable, but how many of you would put this one into your album?
This is a disadvantage of buying over the internet. No doubt condition was reflected in the asking price, so there's not much point in sending it back to Finland (whence it came via a Delcampe dealer), though I have asked if he has a better copy somewhere. We'll see if that gets a reply.
Soviet stamps of the 1930s are not easy to come by in good condition, so it comes down to the drawbacks of personal preference; if I insist on mint, then I have to take what's out there. But this one seems to me to fulfil anyone's description of 'spacefiller'.
Login to Like
this post
Personally, I have less of an issue with a CTO then I do foxing. Foxing seems to have the ability to "travel" over time. Also, in this case, the centering is better on the CTO. I would not swap out the first for the second.
However, neither fits your criteria for a mint stamp, so either would be a "spacefiller" depending on your personal preference as to condition and feelings toward using a spacefiller in the first place.
The point is, YOU are never going to be happy until YOU are satisfied with the stamps in YOUR collection. Any other point seems moot.
I hope the dealer in Finland can find you a copy that suits your needs.(sincerely) If not, keep looking, one will show up sooner or later. The thrill is in the chase, right?
WB
Login to Like
this post
"... I've just upgraded from used/CTO to mint ..."
On behalf of those of us who collect GPU (Genuinely Postally Used), may I object to the conjunction "used/CTO"? One has nothing to do with the other.
That having been said, are you certain that what you have is CTO and not GPU? It seems too sloppy (double-strike) & indistinct for a CTO, though the presence of the much-vaunted Original Gum would certainly settle the matter.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
What I have in three of the four is gumless and cancelled; the other, not pictured, is gummed and cancelled.
(I'd object to 'upgrade' if I collected fine used, but I use the oblique mark / to denote an alternative rather than an equivalent. 
)
Login to Like
this post
Ian, if the stamp with the foxing is ungummed, then you could give it a bath in ammonia to probably get rid of the foxing. By the way, if it is ungummed and was not issued that way, the stamp is not mint.
I recently bought a set of Pitcairn stamps from someone on eBay, and they explicitly said in the description that there was no foxing on any stamp. The set came and the stamps were brown with foxing. Got my money back. I don't play games with the sellers on eBay. If the stamps are not as described, I file a return request. In most matters, I have gotten a refund. A couple of times the seller sent me a replacement (which is what I asked all of the sellers to do if they had stamps to replace that were as described in the item description).
If you set is not as described, file a return request. I would never put a stamp with foxing in my collection. It is a mold, and the spores will spread an "infect" other stamps.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks for that advice, Michael. It's definitely a mint stamp with full gum.
The dealer writes back promptly to say he has not got another stamp but will refund the entire set if I send it back to him, or credit me with a small sum if I keep them.
On the other hand, I've just gone back to the original illustration he posted, and the foxing is quite clearly shown. I have simply not been as careful as I should have been. 
(Meanwhile, I'm having difficulty in sourcing household ammonia in Romford!)
Login to Like
this post
Ah, that's better!
Arrived from North Carolina after a mere 8 days - well done Mr Sandler! It did cost just over £10 more than the one I posted, but (of course) you get what you pay for.
Login to Like
this post
I collect mint stamps, and avoid CTOs (see elsewhere on these boards) unless used as spacefillers (ditto). Here is an example of the latter:
The low value in a set of 1938 Ivan Dubasov stamps, which I've just upgraded from used/CTO to mint. This, then, is what arrived this morning:
Oh dear, oh dear! Poorly centred, and badly foxed. To be fair, the other three in the set were perfectly acceptable, but how many of you would put this one into your album?
This is a disadvantage of buying over the internet. No doubt condition was reflected in the asking price, so there's not much point in sending it back to Finland (whence it came via a Delcampe dealer), though I have asked if he has a better copy somewhere. We'll see if that gets a reply.
Soviet stamps of the 1930s are not easy to come by in good condition, so it comes down to the drawbacks of personal preference; if I insist on mint, then I have to take what's out there. But this one seems to me to fulfil anyone's description of 'spacefiller'.
Login to Like
this post
re: Mint or used - a Polarised argument?
Personally, I have less of an issue with a CTO then I do foxing. Foxing seems to have the ability to "travel" over time. Also, in this case, the centering is better on the CTO. I would not swap out the first for the second.
However, neither fits your criteria for a mint stamp, so either would be a "spacefiller" depending on your personal preference as to condition and feelings toward using a spacefiller in the first place.
The point is, YOU are never going to be happy until YOU are satisfied with the stamps in YOUR collection. Any other point seems moot.
I hope the dealer in Finland can find you a copy that suits your needs.(sincerely) If not, keep looking, one will show up sooner or later. The thrill is in the chase, right?
WB
Login to Like
this post
re: Mint or used - a Polarised argument?
"... I've just upgraded from used/CTO to mint ..."
On behalf of those of us who collect GPU (Genuinely Postally Used), may I object to the conjunction "used/CTO"? One has nothing to do with the other.
That having been said, are you certain that what you have is CTO and not GPU? It seems too sloppy (double-strike) & indistinct for a CTO, though the presence of the much-vaunted Original Gum would certainly settle the matter.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
re: Mint or used - a Polarised argument?
What I have in three of the four is gumless and cancelled; the other, not pictured, is gummed and cancelled.
(I'd object to 'upgrade' if I collected fine used, but I use the oblique mark / to denote an alternative rather than an equivalent. )
Login to Like
this post
11:32:12pm
re: Mint or used - a Polarised argument?
Ian, if the stamp with the foxing is ungummed, then you could give it a bath in ammonia to probably get rid of the foxing. By the way, if it is ungummed and was not issued that way, the stamp is not mint.
I recently bought a set of Pitcairn stamps from someone on eBay, and they explicitly said in the description that there was no foxing on any stamp. The set came and the stamps were brown with foxing. Got my money back. I don't play games with the sellers on eBay. If the stamps are not as described, I file a return request. In most matters, I have gotten a refund. A couple of times the seller sent me a replacement (which is what I asked all of the sellers to do if they had stamps to replace that were as described in the item description).
If you set is not as described, file a return request. I would never put a stamp with foxing in my collection. It is a mold, and the spores will spread an "infect" other stamps.
Login to Like
this post
re: Mint or used - a Polarised argument?
Thanks for that advice, Michael. It's definitely a mint stamp with full gum.
The dealer writes back promptly to say he has not got another stamp but will refund the entire set if I send it back to him, or credit me with a small sum if I keep them.
On the other hand, I've just gone back to the original illustration he posted, and the foxing is quite clearly shown. I have simply not been as careful as I should have been.
(Meanwhile, I'm having difficulty in sourcing household ammonia in Romford!)
Login to Like
this post
re: Mint or used - a Polarised argument?
Ah, that's better!
Arrived from North Carolina after a mere 8 days - well done Mr Sandler! It did cost just over £10 more than the one I posted, but (of course) you get what you pay for.
Login to Like
this post