Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
#208 is the same as the Scott #194 design with the “1921” overprint. Scott says both were issued in 1921. The 2018 catalog lists unused values as $32.00 and $60.00, respectively. I started out trying to prepare #208 for sale and then decided to look at #194 to see if it would help me understand what I was seeing on the back of #208. It was no help. Some of their condition issues are different. Focusing on the back side, I think we can skip discussion of the obvious hinging/mounting residue, the paper adhesion on #194, the crease below the upper right-hand corner and pencil notation on #208. Unfortunately, I’ve had a lot of experience describing those types of issues.
Both stamps were part of a fairly complete 1950s era Liberia collection I obtained many years ago. These were lightly mounted with hinges on the album pages, and the hinge residue on these stamps probably originated with an earlier owner of the stamps. Both stamps have significant gum crackling, and a portion of the crackled gum on each stamp is yellow. The white areas on the #208 are irregular patches while they are linear on the #194. The boundaries between the yellow and white areas of the gum are distinct and the crackling in the yellow portions is more clearly defined on both stamps.
Stamp #208
When I look at the back of the #208 stamp with a magnifier at various angles (and rotate it) under bright light, both the white and yellow areas seem to show the same level of reflection of the light. There are a couple of very small areas without reflection that are presumably indicating gum loss. Overall, the reflected light hides the color difference and seems to show insignificant difference between the white and yellowed areas—except for the more pronounced crackling in the yellow areas. Many crackling lines cross the boundaries between the white areas and the yellow areas. That seems to suggest the crackling occurred first and then something happened later to cause the differences between the white and yellow gum areas. What would have caused the creation of two distinctly different gum conditions?
Stamp #194
I am also puzzled by the appearance of the gum on #194. In this case, most of the stamp is covered by the crackled yellow gum, but there are those raised white ridges! A few faint crackling lines do cross the white ridges from the yellow areas, but crackling is nearly non-existent on those ridges. (Those ridges correspond to valleys on the face of the stamp). Also, those ridges are much less reflective under bright light than the flat areas of the stamp. The ridges are not totally without light reflection, but the difference between the white ridges and the areas with yellow gum is significant. What does that suggest? Are those ridges simply extreme examples of gum bends or something else? Why do they show dramatically reduced reflectivity of the gum and far less evidence of the crackling? Is it more likely that the ridges came before the crackling developed or vice versa?
Even if the evolution of these conditions cannot be explained, I would appreciate your suggestions for describing the conditions. Setting aside the obvious and easy to explain condition issues, what is the proper way to describe the yellow versus white gum color and crackling differences on each stamp? What are the white ridges on #194 and how would you suggest describing those?
Login to Like
this post
I'm inclined to suggest "Really $,&($ Up" but seriously...I've been thinking lately - looking at various offerings, and preparing some of my own - if there would be a willingness to adopt a SoR-specific terminology (I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy).
PRIMARY
For instances where the gum-side is as (more?) important as the stamp-face, MNH (Mint Never Hinged) could be an omnibus descriptor that the gum is free of "ALL defects or alterations". No hinge marks, no paper remnants, no gum disturbances, no discolouration, no wrinkles (unless a feature of the printing process - and described as such), no marks (including pencil/pen), etc.
SECONDARY
Where the face of the stamp is the desired factor, and the gum-side is of lesser (but not "null") importance something like MIG (Mint Imperfect Gum) could be the terminology for an Unused stamp with some of the "issues" noted above, or no gum. Along this line, I think Greg/soundcrest applies the simple term "Mint" to an unused stamp that is not MNH, but also not damaged, with no complaints from customers.
TERTIARY
Any Unused stamp that has a real and substantial gum defect (even if not apparent on the face-side) - bend, crease, any marking, etc - could be termed MDG (Mint Damaged Gum).
This isn't "standard terminology" - but it doesn't have to be. We are a "private" (yet inclusive, welcoming, and semi-tolerant) group and can define our own rules to fit our own needs. We can just define it somewhere in "The Rules". Alternatively, we can continue to debate this to death - as we have - with no resolution for another 10 years.
Maybe a "trial" period and a re-think later?
Thoughts?
Dave.
P.S. I'll test this by having another look at these stamps and categorizing them accordingly.
Login to Like
this post
OK, here's my evaluation of the original question...
Both stamps posted by Thomas/keesindy are very nice and (if I collected that area) I'd be happy to buy them - not even seeing the gum side - if they were described as MIG (using my suggested simple categorizations).
If I wanted to I could erase the pencil marking, remove the archaic hinge-remnant, and iron-out the gum wrinkles. So if/when a friend is over at a cocktail party at our place - and asks me "yer, a'ight mate - real prettyish - but let's have a peek-see at the gummer" - I'd be unembarrassed to flip the stamp over.
Dave.
Login to Like
this post
This I am sure you know, but I will throw it out there just for fun:
If more than 50% of gum is missing it might be described as "Large part O.G."
If less than 50% of gum is missing it might be described as "Small part O.G."
The term O.G. takes into account deterioration by aging. Which appears to be the fate of the gum here.
Anyway that is how I understand the definition given in the Scott Catalogue. You may be looking for something a bit more descriptive than that, but your scans look pretty good as far as conveying the condition.
The stamps are quite nice (at least the front). 5$ stamps in 1921 Liberia! must have been a heavy package.
Cheers
Login to Like
this post
If I encountered gum in this condition on any stamps in my collection, I would immediately suspect re-gumming has occurred; and badly done. However, this could only be confirmed by close examination of the perf tips.
If this proves to be inconclusive, I would probably describe the back as "gum exhibits craquelure effect".
Login to Like
this post
Thanks, all, for your comments and suggestions.
Dave and Wine, I failed to mention that I typically write a sentence or two describing stamps I'm listing for sale. So I'm actually looking for terminology to fit into the title as well as more detail to include in the description. I always include scans of the back sides when cat values are $25 or greater. These two back sides would be included even if they were MNH or NG. Of course, that wouldn't require much of a description. In this case, I would include the enlarged scan of the back of each stamp. Maybe in these two cases, I should just tell prospective buyers to "look at the scans and you decide for yourself what caused this train wreck. I haven't a clue!" 
Dave and Wine, you might change your minds about how nice the #194 is if you were looking at it in person. My scan is misleading and makes the stamp look better than it does in real life. The scanner didn't effectively pick up those valleys on the face that correspond to the white ridges on the back. I need to try rotating and rescanning the face of that stamp to get a better impression of what it really looks like.
I'll leave the wrinkle ironing to others. Until this past year when I first experimented with the sulphurization (hydrogen peroxide)and foxing (ammonia), I had done little more than soak some used stamps to remove multiple hinge remnants. Since my collecting interest was always mint, there wasn't even much of that soaking activity. Items with faults that came to me in the collections I bought remained in the condition in which I found them. E.g., these Liberia stamps!
Ningpo, I suppose the craquelure term is something I should have remembered from art history class, but that was a long, long time ago..............
Regumming was one of the first things that crossed my mind, but my limited experience with detecting regumming is part of my problem. I know to look at perf tooth tips for gum "blobs," but could not detect any on these two stamps. Beyond that, I would have a difficult time distinguishing OG from regummed. I know even less when it comes to identifying failed regumming efforts.
Tom
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
If by any chance this has been regummed (taking into account you can see no evidence on the perf tips), there is a possibility that additional gum has been craftily applied inside the perf margins. That craquelure effect looks like a reaction of 'new' different gum over old, where there has been a resistance. Just like the 'art' effect when applied to furniture to deliberately produce that effect.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
02:28:03am
I'd consider carefully soaking the gum off before the gum cracking damages the paper.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I’m trying to write descriptions for selling stamps and encountered a problem with the gum side of Liberia Scott #208. I didn’t understand what I was seeing. I am curious and am wondering if someone here can explain how this stamp and #194 came to be in this condition. If someone can explain that for me, great. If not, that’s OK. My primary interest is in getting help in describing the gum-related faults in a way that helps potential buyers understand what they would be getting.
#208 is the same as the Scott #194 design with the “1921” overprint. Scott says both were issued in 1921. The 2018 catalog lists unused values as $32.00 and $60.00, respectively. I started out trying to prepare #208 for sale and then decided to look at #194 to see if it would help me understand what I was seeing on the back of #208. It was no help. Some of their condition issues are different. Focusing on the back side, I think we can skip discussion of the obvious hinging/mounting residue, the paper adhesion on #194, the crease below the upper right-hand corner and pencil notation on #208. Unfortunately, I’ve had a lot of experience describing those types of issues.
Both stamps were part of a fairly complete 1950s era Liberia collection I obtained many years ago. These were lightly mounted with hinges on the album pages, and the hinge residue on these stamps probably originated with an earlier owner of the stamps. Both stamps have significant gum crackling, and a portion of the crackled gum on each stamp is yellow. The white areas on the #208 are irregular patches while they are linear on the #194. The boundaries between the yellow and white areas of the gum are distinct and the crackling in the yellow portions is more clearly defined on both stamps.
Stamp #208
When I look at the back of the #208 stamp with a magnifier at various angles (and rotate it) under bright light, both the white and yellow areas seem to show the same level of reflection of the light. There are a couple of very small areas without reflection that are presumably indicating gum loss. Overall, the reflected light hides the color difference and seems to show insignificant difference between the white and yellowed areas—except for the more pronounced crackling in the yellow areas. Many crackling lines cross the boundaries between the white areas and the yellow areas. That seems to suggest the crackling occurred first and then something happened later to cause the differences between the white and yellow gum areas. What would have caused the creation of two distinctly different gum conditions?
Stamp #194
I am also puzzled by the appearance of the gum on #194. In this case, most of the stamp is covered by the crackled yellow gum, but there are those raised white ridges! A few faint crackling lines do cross the white ridges from the yellow areas, but crackling is nearly non-existent on those ridges. (Those ridges correspond to valleys on the face of the stamp). Also, those ridges are much less reflective under bright light than the flat areas of the stamp. The ridges are not totally without light reflection, but the difference between the white ridges and the areas with yellow gum is significant. What does that suggest? Are those ridges simply extreme examples of gum bends or something else? Why do they show dramatically reduced reflectivity of the gum and far less evidence of the crackling? Is it more likely that the ridges came before the crackling developed or vice versa?
Even if the evolution of these conditions cannot be explained, I would appreciate your suggestions for describing the conditions. Setting aside the obvious and easy to explain condition issues, what is the proper way to describe the yellow versus white gum color and crackling differences on each stamp? What are the white ridges on #194 and how would you suggest describing those?
Login to Like
this post
re: How would you describe the gum on these two Liberia stamps?
I'm inclined to suggest "Really $,&($ Up" but seriously...I've been thinking lately - looking at various offerings, and preparing some of my own - if there would be a willingness to adopt a SoR-specific terminology (I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy).
PRIMARY
For instances where the gum-side is as (more?) important as the stamp-face, MNH (Mint Never Hinged) could be an omnibus descriptor that the gum is free of "ALL defects or alterations". No hinge marks, no paper remnants, no gum disturbances, no discolouration, no wrinkles (unless a feature of the printing process - and described as such), no marks (including pencil/pen), etc.
SECONDARY
Where the face of the stamp is the desired factor, and the gum-side is of lesser (but not "null") importance something like MIG (Mint Imperfect Gum) could be the terminology for an Unused stamp with some of the "issues" noted above, or no gum. Along this line, I think Greg/soundcrest applies the simple term "Mint" to an unused stamp that is not MNH, but also not damaged, with no complaints from customers.
TERTIARY
Any Unused stamp that has a real and substantial gum defect (even if not apparent on the face-side) - bend, crease, any marking, etc - could be termed MDG (Mint Damaged Gum).
This isn't "standard terminology" - but it doesn't have to be. We are a "private" (yet inclusive, welcoming, and semi-tolerant) group and can define our own rules to fit our own needs. We can just define it somewhere in "The Rules". Alternatively, we can continue to debate this to death - as we have - with no resolution for another 10 years.
Maybe a "trial" period and a re-think later?
Thoughts?
Dave.
P.S. I'll test this by having another look at these stamps and categorizing them accordingly.
Login to Like
this post
re: How would you describe the gum on these two Liberia stamps?
OK, here's my evaluation of the original question...
Both stamps posted by Thomas/keesindy are very nice and (if I collected that area) I'd be happy to buy them - not even seeing the gum side - if they were described as MIG (using my suggested simple categorizations).
If I wanted to I could erase the pencil marking, remove the archaic hinge-remnant, and iron-out the gum wrinkles. So if/when a friend is over at a cocktail party at our place - and asks me "yer, a'ight mate - real prettyish - but let's have a peek-see at the gummer" - I'd be unembarrassed to flip the stamp over.
Dave.
Login to Like
this post
re: How would you describe the gum on these two Liberia stamps?
This I am sure you know, but I will throw it out there just for fun:
If more than 50% of gum is missing it might be described as "Large part O.G."
If less than 50% of gum is missing it might be described as "Small part O.G."
The term O.G. takes into account deterioration by aging. Which appears to be the fate of the gum here.
Anyway that is how I understand the definition given in the Scott Catalogue. You may be looking for something a bit more descriptive than that, but your scans look pretty good as far as conveying the condition.
The stamps are quite nice (at least the front). 5$ stamps in 1921 Liberia! must have been a heavy package.
Cheers
Login to Like
this post
re: How would you describe the gum on these two Liberia stamps?
If I encountered gum in this condition on any stamps in my collection, I would immediately suspect re-gumming has occurred; and badly done. However, this could only be confirmed by close examination of the perf tips.
If this proves to be inconclusive, I would probably describe the back as "gum exhibits craquelure effect".
Login to Like
this post
re: How would you describe the gum on these two Liberia stamps?
Thanks, all, for your comments and suggestions.
Dave and Wine, I failed to mention that I typically write a sentence or two describing stamps I'm listing for sale. So I'm actually looking for terminology to fit into the title as well as more detail to include in the description. I always include scans of the back sides when cat values are $25 or greater. These two back sides would be included even if they were MNH or NG. Of course, that wouldn't require much of a description. In this case, I would include the enlarged scan of the back of each stamp. Maybe in these two cases, I should just tell prospective buyers to "look at the scans and you decide for yourself what caused this train wreck. I haven't a clue!"
Dave and Wine, you might change your minds about how nice the #194 is if you were looking at it in person. My scan is misleading and makes the stamp look better than it does in real life. The scanner didn't effectively pick up those valleys on the face that correspond to the white ridges on the back. I need to try rotating and rescanning the face of that stamp to get a better impression of what it really looks like.
I'll leave the wrinkle ironing to others. Until this past year when I first experimented with the sulphurization (hydrogen peroxide)and foxing (ammonia), I had done little more than soak some used stamps to remove multiple hinge remnants. Since my collecting interest was always mint, there wasn't even much of that soaking activity. Items with faults that came to me in the collections I bought remained in the condition in which I found them. E.g., these Liberia stamps!
Ningpo, I suppose the craquelure term is something I should have remembered from art history class, but that was a long, long time ago..............
Regumming was one of the first things that crossed my mind, but my limited experience with detecting regumming is part of my problem. I know to look at perf tooth tips for gum "blobs," but could not detect any on these two stamps. Beyond that, I would have a difficult time distinguishing OG from regummed. I know even less when it comes to identifying failed regumming efforts.
Tom
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: How would you describe the gum on these two Liberia stamps?
If by any chance this has been regummed (taking into account you can see no evidence on the perf tips), there is a possibility that additional gum has been craftily applied inside the perf margins. That craquelure effect looks like a reaction of 'new' different gum over old, where there has been a resistance. Just like the 'art' effect when applied to furniture to deliberately produce that effect.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
11 Oct 2017
02:28:03am
re: How would you describe the gum on these two Liberia stamps?
I'd consider carefully soaking the gum off before the gum cracking damages the paper.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.