Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Thanks,
David
Login to Like
this post
12:43:14pm
Paper adhesion: a bit of paper stuck to the gum, not from hinging the stamp in an album. Might be from adhering to the sheet below in a stack of sheets, or from one of the unmounted stamps in a block of 4 (subsequently separated) adhering to the album page.
I doubt any buyer would actually pay an "unmounted mint" price for it, but there is no point arguing whether semantically it should be described as such, since the description is complete and "descriptive", and that is the object.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
A piece of paper is stuck to the back of the stamp, damaging the gum. The stamp is not considered to be never hinged or unmounted. Some people will play a semantic game by saying that since a stamp hinge was never attached to the back of the stamp that it still qualifies as never hinged or unmounted no matter what else is on the back of the stamp.
Login to Like
this post
Beat me by a few seconds, Roy!
Login to Like
this post
If the paper adhesion is on the back, then it may be that it stuck to another sheet either during the manufacturing process (stacking of sheets), or the stamp was perhaps stored in a paper envelope that had a sticky residue. Even a tiny speck of damp may have caused this,
This has happened to me with some souvenir sheets, where the top edges all stuck together.
If this is the case, then describing this as 'un-mounted' mint is not truly accurate. Perhaps getting a scan would help you make your mind up.
Login to Like
this post
David, do they specify that the adhesion is on the back?
Out of curiosity—and ignorance—is a paper adhesion on the face of a stamp still an "adhesion" or is there another term that should be used? I've encountered a few of these over the years.
Login to Like
this post
Mint Unmounted (or Never Hinged) to me = Prestine Gum. Any damage to the gum, whether hinging, glossing from humidity, damage from improper mounting techniques, transfer of ink or paper from being stuck together with other stamps or album pages, or from accidental zapping by an alien raygun are all candidates for exclusion from the category of "Mint" or "Never Hinged". The only exception I can think of are natural phenomena from the stamp-making process, such a gum breaker ridges and natural gum skips. The latter is still listed as a fault, though, as a paper inclusion would be.
Login to Like
this post
Roy said,
" but there is no point arguing whether semantically it should be described as such, since the description is complete and "descriptive", and that is the object."
I thought this needed to be reiterated.
So -
maybe he should have said "unused with gum...."
the point is, you got the idea by the description posted.....as Roy said - that was the objective here.
Why continue to pick it apart?
Login to Like
this post
I have requested a scan, front and back, of the stamp in question.
If and when I receive it I will post it here. Hopefully a look will help us all understand how this particular auction house defines paper adhesions.
Login to Like
this post
Well I have received the scan, and I have to say it looks a lot like a hinge remnant to me. What do others think?
Login to Like
this post
It is not mint condition. It looks like a hinge remnant to me. What is the Scott number and what county is this stamp from? If it a common stamp I am sure you can find it from another dealer in MNH condition.
Vince
Login to Like
this post
It's hard to tell from the picture .. but my guess would be if it's glassine (hinge material) and it's an expensive stamp I would think that they would have lifted it (properly done it's very difficult to find). Otherwise it looks like either a paper inclusion (under gum) or paper adhesion (on top of gum).
Login to Like
this post
It's a Bermuda SG89i. The catalog value is £100.
I think I'm going to take a pass on this copy.
Login to Like
this post
This discussion is making me very nervous given my US Divestiture Auctions and some higher CV oldies to come.
Hopefully "blights" like this are acceptable on stamps described as "Used" and this micro-analysis is very specific to variations of "Mint" or "Unused", especially for higher value stamps. I've pointed out a few more that I might be compelled to add to my own descriptions.
Interesting debate, especially some of the semantic gymnastics. From a purely Perceptual Psychology perspective (nice alliteration, eh?) for the vast majority of people ("experts" here and everywhere excluded), using the primary term "Mint" in place of "Unused" would be better as it is a clearly "just noticeable difference" from "Used" and would be recognized as such.
A secondary descriptor (and appropriate acronyms) would obviously be required with respect to the overall big-picture gum condition as MNH (never hinged) MH (hinged) MNG (no gum) or MPG (partial gum). I've at least seen the first three in usage here and elsewhere, and they seem quite adequate.
Then there's a tertiary descriptor needed, which would be all other gum defects/flaws/faults/issues...such as your paper adhesion, fingerprints, pencil markings, etc...
But, in the final analysis, if the three levels of descriptors are used (apart from those who might still engage in micro-debating language) and a decent scan like this is provided - would everyone not find this acceptable?
In my usual long-winded way, I think I'm agreeing with Roy...
Cheers, Dave.
P.S. Maybe all stamp descriptions should be in French? I always thought they spoke "backwards" but red apple = pomme rouge = apple (which is) red - which I have learned to appreciate: start with "the important thing" then describe some aspect of that thing which would be of interest to your audience. Just saying...
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Well I think "MNH with (possible) paper adhesion(s)" Along with a good resolution back scan is perfectly acceptable to assess the purchase of this particular example.
However, if a seller says "paper adhesion" and doesn't include a backscan, I would not purchase the item period (unless less than 10% CV, maybe).
Frankly, most of what you have pointed to in the image above look like inclusions. There appear to be one or two paper adhesions that may or may not be hinge remnants. Given these occur in areas where I wouldn't expect the hinge, I would believe the seller. Probably glassine adhesion from storage. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether the paper is a hinge or not, even if the seller said "NH" instead of "LH", because the result is the same.
Login to Like
this post
It could be a "chad" - that is the round paper punched out of the perforation - it is certainly circular and looks about the right size. If so it is technically unmounted mint - however it is an imperfection and hence not worth full unmounted mint, but possibly slightly more than the mounted mint price.
As a "used only" collector I am slightly bemused by the unmounted mint fetish, but I would be extremely suspicious of "unmounted mint" stamps dated before the early 50s. A large number of the higher valued stamps have been skilfully regummed, and the stock sheets and stock books from this period are likely to have done far more damage to the front of the stamp than a hinge may have done to the back. The materials used were full of acids and plasticizers of very dubious chemical composition compared to todays offerings.
I would want to be sure that any unmounted stamps had been kept ( since new) in non-acid paper envelopes and not plastic envelopes or stock sheets.
Login to Like
this post
Good point on the stock books. I have gotten older stock books full of stamps in box lots. You can see the acid damage to the stamps. The bottom of the stamps have browned from the acid while the top part is normal. There's a very distinct line of demarcation on the stamp where the stock page sleeve ended!
Login to Like
this post
I was reviewing a new auction catalog this morning and something curious caught my eye. A stamp I am interest in was listed as "unmounted mint" (i.e. never hinged) but then the description went on to state that the stamp had a "tiny paper adhesion". Seems inconsistent. Can one of you more experienced members define what is meant by a paper adhesion?
Thanks,
David
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
07 Sep 2016
12:43:14pm
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
Paper adhesion: a bit of paper stuck to the gum, not from hinging the stamp in an album. Might be from adhering to the sheet below in a stack of sheets, or from one of the unmounted stamps in a block of 4 (subsequently separated) adhering to the album page.
I doubt any buyer would actually pay an "unmounted mint" price for it, but there is no point arguing whether semantically it should be described as such, since the description is complete and "descriptive", and that is the object.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
12:44:53pm
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
A piece of paper is stuck to the back of the stamp, damaging the gum. The stamp is not considered to be never hinged or unmounted. Some people will play a semantic game by saying that since a stamp hinge was never attached to the back of the stamp that it still qualifies as never hinged or unmounted no matter what else is on the back of the stamp.
Login to Like
this post
12:45:56pm
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
Beat me by a few seconds, Roy!
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
If the paper adhesion is on the back, then it may be that it stuck to another sheet either during the manufacturing process (stacking of sheets), or the stamp was perhaps stored in a paper envelope that had a sticky residue. Even a tiny speck of damp may have caused this,
This has happened to me with some souvenir sheets, where the top edges all stuck together.
If this is the case, then describing this as 'un-mounted' mint is not truly accurate. Perhaps getting a scan would help you make your mind up.
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
David, do they specify that the adhesion is on the back?
Out of curiosity—and ignorance—is a paper adhesion on the face of a stamp still an "adhesion" or is there another term that should be used? I've encountered a few of these over the years.
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
Mint Unmounted (or Never Hinged) to me = Prestine Gum. Any damage to the gum, whether hinging, glossing from humidity, damage from improper mounting techniques, transfer of ink or paper from being stuck together with other stamps or album pages, or from accidental zapping by an alien raygun are all candidates for exclusion from the category of "Mint" or "Never Hinged". The only exception I can think of are natural phenomena from the stamp-making process, such a gum breaker ridges and natural gum skips. The latter is still listed as a fault, though, as a paper inclusion would be.
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
Roy said,
" but there is no point arguing whether semantically it should be described as such, since the description is complete and "descriptive", and that is the object."
I thought this needed to be reiterated.
So -
maybe he should have said "unused with gum...."
the point is, you got the idea by the description posted.....as Roy said - that was the objective here.
Why continue to pick it apart?
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
I have requested a scan, front and back, of the stamp in question.
If and when I receive it I will post it here. Hopefully a look will help us all understand how this particular auction house defines paper adhesions.
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
Well I have received the scan, and I have to say it looks a lot like a hinge remnant to me. What do others think?
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
It is not mint condition. It looks like a hinge remnant to me. What is the Scott number and what county is this stamp from? If it a common stamp I am sure you can find it from another dealer in MNH condition.
Vince
Login to Like
this post
09:39:58am
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
It's hard to tell from the picture .. but my guess would be if it's glassine (hinge material) and it's an expensive stamp I would think that they would have lifted it (properly done it's very difficult to find). Otherwise it looks like either a paper inclusion (under gum) or paper adhesion (on top of gum).
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
It's a Bermuda SG89i. The catalog value is £100.
I think I'm going to take a pass on this copy.
Login to Like
this post
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
This discussion is making me very nervous given my US Divestiture Auctions and some higher CV oldies to come.
Hopefully "blights" like this are acceptable on stamps described as "Used" and this micro-analysis is very specific to variations of "Mint" or "Unused", especially for higher value stamps. I've pointed out a few more that I might be compelled to add to my own descriptions.
Interesting debate, especially some of the semantic gymnastics. From a purely Perceptual Psychology perspective (nice alliteration, eh?) for the vast majority of people ("experts" here and everywhere excluded), using the primary term "Mint" in place of "Unused" would be better as it is a clearly "just noticeable difference" from "Used" and would be recognized as such.
A secondary descriptor (and appropriate acronyms) would obviously be required with respect to the overall big-picture gum condition as MNH (never hinged) MH (hinged) MNG (no gum) or MPG (partial gum). I've at least seen the first three in usage here and elsewhere, and they seem quite adequate.
Then there's a tertiary descriptor needed, which would be all other gum defects/flaws/faults/issues...such as your paper adhesion, fingerprints, pencil markings, etc...
But, in the final analysis, if the three levels of descriptors are used (apart from those who might still engage in micro-debating language) and a decent scan like this is provided - would everyone not find this acceptable?
In my usual long-winded way, I think I'm agreeing with Roy...
Cheers, Dave.
P.S. Maybe all stamp descriptions should be in French? I always thought they spoke "backwards" but red apple = pomme rouge = apple (which is) red - which I have learned to appreciate: start with "the important thing" then describe some aspect of that thing which would be of interest to your audience. Just saying...
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
Well I think "MNH with (possible) paper adhesion(s)" Along with a good resolution back scan is perfectly acceptable to assess the purchase of this particular example.
However, if a seller says "paper adhesion" and doesn't include a backscan, I would not purchase the item period (unless less than 10% CV, maybe).
Frankly, most of what you have pointed to in the image above look like inclusions. There appear to be one or two paper adhesions that may or may not be hinge remnants. Given these occur in areas where I wouldn't expect the hinge, I would believe the seller. Probably glassine adhesion from storage. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether the paper is a hinge or not, even if the seller said "NH" instead of "LH", because the result is the same.
Login to Like
this post
11:52:22am
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
It could be a "chad" - that is the round paper punched out of the perforation - it is certainly circular and looks about the right size. If so it is technically unmounted mint - however it is an imperfection and hence not worth full unmounted mint, but possibly slightly more than the mounted mint price.
As a "used only" collector I am slightly bemused by the unmounted mint fetish, but I would be extremely suspicious of "unmounted mint" stamps dated before the early 50s. A large number of the higher valued stamps have been skilfully regummed, and the stock sheets and stock books from this period are likely to have done far more damage to the front of the stamp than a hinge may have done to the back. The materials used were full of acids and plasticizers of very dubious chemical composition compared to todays offerings.
I would want to be sure that any unmounted stamps had been kept ( since new) in non-acid paper envelopes and not plastic envelopes or stock sheets.
Login to Like
this post
01:23:28pm
re: Tiny Paper Adhesion
Good point on the stock books. I have gotten older stock books full of stamps in box lots. You can see the acid damage to the stamps. The bottom of the stamps have browned from the acid while the top part is normal. There's a very distinct line of demarcation on the stamp where the stock page sleeve ended!
Login to Like
this post