Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
"** = mint never hinged
Any set or single marked ** (no gum) were acquired as new issues, have never been hinged but lost gum from mounting, etc.
"
So the seller considers the stamps that he soaked the gum off (that's how they look to me) to continue to be mint never hinged, because he never put a hinge on those stamps.
From what I have seen of the gummed stamps that he calls MNH, he has a sloppy tongue where he slobbered up the entire back of a split back mount, and got his saliva onto the back of the stamps. So, while the gum has been disturbed or soaked off, he considers the stamps to be MNH, because he never put a hinge on them. Still, how can one tell on a soaked stamp if a hinged had or had not ever been on the stamp?
There is another book in the circuit where a different seller calls the stamps MNH, but the back of the stamps are written on with catalog numbers.
Login to Like
this post
04:58:20pm
Here is a photo of the definition of MNH from the front of the Scott catalog.
I would print this out and and stick a copy of it into the book on return to the APS. Hopefully the message will get back to the owner.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
I hear you. Some people feel that they have to do all that they can to try to justify charging a higher price for an item.
I have long believed that the terminology in philately is out-dated and too open for interpretation. Even worse, some terms are used interchangeably, such as "mint" and "unused". Philately needs a definitive "bible" of terminology.
Can you imagine a coin collector selling a coin stating, The coin was "brilliant uncirculated" when I obtained it. The scratches on it happened afterwards, but it is still "BU", because that is what it was when I bought the coin, and no one else has owned it.
Login to Like
this post
The coins can have bag marks. Coins have just been as bad on grading.
I would expect any marks on the back side to be declared.
The OP definition seems interesting. It was not hinged but lost the gum in mounting - fail!
Login to Like
this post
09:41:37am
Ultimately, there is no official definition for MNH, but I sell NH stamps to collectors of King George VI and they are very particular about what they buy and what they keep. So I form my definition based on their behavior.
Generally speaking, they expect the stamp to have perfect never disturbed full gum with no markings on it. Pencil marks with catalog numbers are frequently rejected. Only very expensive stamps should have a real expertiser's mark. I don't sell them, so I can't comment on that.
They also look for near perfect centering, full perfs, and normal color - so no fading, or tone unless it is normal for that stamp - like some early KGVI printings. I hope that helps.
Have anyone else seen used stamps marked NH on ebay? What do you think about that topic?
Personally, I think it indicates an inexperienced seller.
Login to Like
this post
Michael wrote:
"There is another book in the circuit where a different seller calls the stamps MNH, but the back of the stamps are written on with catalog numbers."
If I were listing a MNH stamp with a pencil notation on the back, I would describe it as MNH with a pencil notation on the back. I would do that because collectors' opinions differ with respect to the notation and its effect on the stamp.
I don't believe I've ever seen a notation in ink on a MNH stamp and would view that differently because the ink, unlike the pencil, could react with the gum and cause problems over time.
I'd rather not surprise a buyer who couldn't see the pencil notation in my scan. I want him/her to know its there. The same with the expertizers'/collectors' marks. I'll mention them in descriptions and try to identify the expertizer, but am not qualified to distinguish between the genuine and forged marks.
I miss things from time to time when describing stamps. I even missed a pinhole on a mint stamp earlier this year, but the buyer noticed! It wasn't a high value stamp, but embarrassing nonetheless.
Tom
Login to Like
this post
"Have anyone else seen used stamps marked NH on ebay? What do you think about that topic?"
I rarely look at eBay any more, but I would avoid that seller. Philatelic terminology can be confusing, and such listings could be the result of ignorance or designed to mislead inexperienced collectors. Or maybe it was just a mistake.
I suppose a stamp on cover could legitimately be described as NH! But, as far as I know, there is no way for a seller to prove a stamp's hinging/mounting history once the stamp has been soaked off the cover. In either case, it seems moronic for a seller to intentionally mark a used stamp as NH.
Login to Like
this post
Tom, I have some throw away stamps that are unused (no hinge markings) with the catalog numbers written in red ink on the back. These came from an entire collection of what would have been very nice stamps, but the collector wrote the catalog number in red ink on the back of each stamp.
Login to Like
this post
There are common terms which mean one thing, and specialized knowledge which mean something else.
To a non-stamp collector the term ‘mint’ may mean one thing (that car is mint, the coin was made in the mint, I like mint jelly). But certainly not the same as we think of it which typically is a stamp in the same unused condition, including full gum if issued with gum, in which it came from the post office.
In exactly the same way, we have a lot people in our hobby who use the term color ‘shade’ in the more common usage as opposed to someone who has a color background and uses it another way.
(The English language is not consistent. If the GH sound in the word ‘enough’ is pronounced “F” and the O in the word ‘women’ makes the short ‘I’ sound and the TI in the word ‘nation’ is pronounced “SH” then the word “GHOTI” is pronounced “FISH”? LOL)
Education is the only weapon in this war; this is why all philatelic sites should have a Glossary. In fact, if one of the national/international philatelic organizations had some vision they would offer (for free) a Glossary database that any website could add to their own site. This would go a long way in helping standardizing on philatelic terms and nomenclature.
I developed the Stamp Smarter Illustrate Glossary ( http://stampsmarter.com/Learning/GlossaryHome.html ) with this in mind but when I offered to donate the Glossary source code to the organizations they were not interested. But what better way to start getting everyone on the same terminology page then to publish a good, standardized philatelic glossary? APS treats their meager glossary as a ‘beginner’ thing!?!
Don
Login to Like
this post
09:18:55pm
There is already a perfectly good Glossary
detailing just about every philatelic term,
technique, rule, and custom available;
"This is Philately" by Ken Wood. (1982)
It is contained in three handy volumes and
while complete and thorough, it is written
in a light style.
The entry "mint" (page 461),
fills a half page, covering many aspects
of the word's meaning and how it became
so important to stampers.
An entry under "hinge" and "hinges",
plus a short note concerning "Never hinged"
and you have the whole story.
Probably that is more than what most people
need, or care to know, in fact.
The core of the definition of "Mint stamp"
is;
"A stamp with gum that is pristine and unmarked
by so much as the faintest shadow of a hinge mark."
Combine that with "Never hinged";
" ...a stamp that has never had a stamp hinge
applied to its gum."
And finally he added that the term "mint" refers
to the "state of the stamp rather than its
condition, gum excepted."
Condition comes under verbiage such as "fine'
or "very fine."
Amen.
Login to Like
this post
I'm just glad we aren't discussing MH v MLH v MVLH v MVVLH!
Login to Like
this post
Oh, I've seen stamps described as MVVLH that have hinge remnants...
Found an unused stamp today that I bought where a dealer wrote the price, "3 for 10" in ink on the back. It came from an SOR Approval Book too.
The seller didn't write that, but the seller didn't mention it either...
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"There is already a perfectly good Glossary detailing just about every philatelic term, technique, rule, and custom available…"
We are in full agreement; there are literality thousands of existing perfectly good philatelic glossaries. It is a wheel that has been invented over and over; virtually every single stamp catalog on earth defines the term ‘mint’. And some of them, like the Charlie mentions, requires a hobbyist to go buy a three volume set of books to understand the terms of a hobby. How is that going to help a non-collector use the correct, standardized word or term? A free online ‘standard’ that defines the basic philatelic terms is a solution.
Michael started this thread about a misdescribed APS circuit book that clearly demonstrates a lack of proper terminology use. Others weighted in with opinions that agreed that our hobby has plenty of confusion with terms. There are many clear indications that our hobby’s current approach to generating a hobby-wide understanding of its most basic terms needs improvement. Which definition of the term ‘mint’ are Stamporama sellers to use? Is it is up to each seller to guess or use their own understanding? How can a seller by expected to adhere to something that is not well defined and referenced? This is the ‘world-wide-web’ and we all do not work from the same catalogs nor can we expect every person to have access to the same reference books.
This is why my opinion (above) was that what was needed was a widely accepted free online ‘standard’ thereby establishing a single point-of-reference as the accepted ‘go to’ place for our hobby’s most common terms. If a few groups came together (i.e. APS, ASDA, some of the catalog publishers) and supported such an effort I think the standard would become adopted by the hobby. Putting a single ‘terms’ database together and then offering a small snippet of code to all websites owners that allowed them to replicate the database of terms on their sites for free would benefit the hobby immensely. This is not rocket science nor is it expensive to implement, it simply takes a bit of vision, cooperation, and coordination.
But having 12,788 different published works all defining terms as they see fit and all publishing independent glossaries does not help anything. (It helps even less when people publish a reference in 3 costly volumes if the objective is to get everyone on the same page.) But the way things stand now certainly makes for lengthy endless threads about bad listings by inexperience sellers who use terminology incorrectly (on every forum).
My post above was trying to address the issue with the current diffusion of responsibility and needless confusing replication that exists. There are some things in our hobby which can be greatly approved that transcend what a single person or single entity can do; it requires coming together. I think we can all agree that it helps our hobby to have less confusion with philatelic terms. Not only is every hobbyists a stakeholder in this issue, but every single hobby organization is a stakeholder. Is APS interested in seeing the hobby grow? Is the ASDA interested in improving the philatelic marketplace? Who would be against decreasing the number of mis-described listings and confusion about word definitions?
Lastly, it is frustrating to see memberships in our organizations deceasing in the internet age. It behooves our organizations to find ways to tap into the technology and use it to better the hobby. Sharing data via online databases is a key component of this kind of cooperation and mutual hobby-wide benefit. And in fact this approach and cooperation has already been done once in the form of the shared database and indexing of the best philatelic libraries. It seems to me that a similar effort for a standard basic glossary is a no-brainer. If our major organizations do not have the vision or the ability to come together and take advantage of online technologies; then the writing is indeed on the wall regarding their survival.
Don
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
The problem with standardization is that the "we" is never all no matter how many agree.
The majority of people agree on the basic terms. It is the uneducated, those that do not agree with the statement, or those that want to misrepresent that will continue to do it.
When someone says "Mint", a person should realize that not every accepts that it is NH. Since the term "unused" is not often seen it means most prefer mint as not indicating the hinging status.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Al,
Are you saying that improvements are not worth doing unless it fixes an issue 100% of the time or are you saying that there is not really a problem?
Don
Login to Like
this post
Getting more agreement on definition of Mint is at the point of dramatically diminishing returns. I have no issue with the ambiguity of Mint as Mint NH, Mint Hinged, etc. as I accept that definition. It has been that way for 50 yrs since I have been around stamps. Most buyers realize this quickly.
The education aspect to me is just being sure the buyer is aware of various differences and less about trying to police sellers to follow certain rules.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
If just a few entities - APS & ASDA come to mind - were to endorse & enforce use of any one freely available online glossary, the definition of 'mint' would be settled.
That's the way jargon works in every engineering discipline, etc.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Do you think these societies should ban members that did not follow the terms exactly?
Al
Login to Like
this post
"The problem with standardisation is that the "we" is never "all" no matter how many agree."
Correct!
The reality is that ALL collectors, be they buyers or sellers, are educated to different levels and have different levels of experience within the hobby.
Those that consider themselves "experts" should exercise tolerance, understanding and be willing to educate those that have not yet reached the level of the "experts".
Of course because of the internet, there is bound to be differences in language and terms. Here in the UK we say Unmounted Mint rather than Mint Never Hinged. Mounted Mint rather than Mint Hinged.
So any standardisation is a no go from the start. If any worldwide standardisation was to take place it would have to be in Chinese as they have more stamp collectors than any other country.
Login to Like
this post
Well, Ian, if ya'll learnt to talk tru English, then the boogers would be in the entrails of the maternally issue behind the fist of the right foot (in a non-metric sense, of course) and we'd all be in a wholesome antipathy of awareness in unknowingly knowing what we all want to speak.
Login to Like
this post
We have a saying "Are you taking the Micheal?"
Isn't language wonderful?
Retire this thread from shall I.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:09:01am
" .... And some of them, like the Charlie mentions, requires a hobbyist to go buy a three volume set of books to understand the terms of a hobby. How is that going to help a non-collector use the correct, standardized word or term?
Perhaps every potential collector should be born with all such knowledge hard wired so they never have to use the encyclopedic philatelic knowledge in reference books when they want to begin professional or semi-professional philatelic activities.
Login to Like
this post
Call me fussy, but I agree completely with Michael. We can disagree on this board concerning this matter, but I don't want anything I trade or sell to another buyer that I call MNH to be anything less than the condition it was issued.
BOB
Login to Like
this post
04:43:48pm
I found the following description on the cover of an APS Sales Book. What do you think?
"** = mint never hinged
Any set or single marked ** (no gum) were acquired as new issues, have never been hinged but lost gum from mounting, etc.
"
So the seller considers the stamps that he soaked the gum off (that's how they look to me) to continue to be mint never hinged, because he never put a hinge on those stamps.
From what I have seen of the gummed stamps that he calls MNH, he has a sloppy tongue where he slobbered up the entire back of a split back mount, and got his saliva onto the back of the stamps. So, while the gum has been disturbed or soaked off, he considers the stamps to be MNH, because he never put a hinge on them. Still, how can one tell on a soaked stamp if a hinged had or had not ever been on the stamp?
There is another book in the circuit where a different seller calls the stamps MNH, but the back of the stamps are written on with catalog numbers.
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
26 Dec 2018
04:58:20pm
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Here is a photo of the definition of MNH from the front of the Scott catalog.
I would print this out and and stick a copy of it into the book on return to the APS. Hopefully the message will get back to the owner.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
06:20:49pm
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
I hear you. Some people feel that they have to do all that they can to try to justify charging a higher price for an item.
I have long believed that the terminology in philately is out-dated and too open for interpretation. Even worse, some terms are used interchangeably, such as "mint" and "unused". Philately needs a definitive "bible" of terminology.
Can you imagine a coin collector selling a coin stating, The coin was "brilliant uncirculated" when I obtained it. The scratches on it happened afterwards, but it is still "BU", because that is what it was when I bought the coin, and no one else has owned it.
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
The coins can have bag marks. Coins have just been as bad on grading.
I would expect any marks on the back side to be declared.
The OP definition seems interesting. It was not hinged but lost the gum in mounting - fail!
Login to Like
this post
Collecting King George VI from all countries, and King Edward VII and King George V from the West Indies.
27 Dec 2018
09:41:37am
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Ultimately, there is no official definition for MNH, but I sell NH stamps to collectors of King George VI and they are very particular about what they buy and what they keep. So I form my definition based on their behavior.
Generally speaking, they expect the stamp to have perfect never disturbed full gum with no markings on it. Pencil marks with catalog numbers are frequently rejected. Only very expensive stamps should have a real expertiser's mark. I don't sell them, so I can't comment on that.
They also look for near perfect centering, full perfs, and normal color - so no fading, or tone unless it is normal for that stamp - like some early KGVI printings. I hope that helps.
Have anyone else seen used stamps marked NH on ebay? What do you think about that topic?
Personally, I think it indicates an inexperienced seller.
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Michael wrote:
"There is another book in the circuit where a different seller calls the stamps MNH, but the back of the stamps are written on with catalog numbers."
If I were listing a MNH stamp with a pencil notation on the back, I would describe it as MNH with a pencil notation on the back. I would do that because collectors' opinions differ with respect to the notation and its effect on the stamp.
I don't believe I've ever seen a notation in ink on a MNH stamp and would view that differently because the ink, unlike the pencil, could react with the gum and cause problems over time.
I'd rather not surprise a buyer who couldn't see the pencil notation in my scan. I want him/her to know its there. The same with the expertizers'/collectors' marks. I'll mention them in descriptions and try to identify the expertizer, but am not qualified to distinguish between the genuine and forged marks.
I miss things from time to time when describing stamps. I even missed a pinhole on a mint stamp earlier this year, but the buyer noticed! It wasn't a high value stamp, but embarrassing nonetheless.
Tom
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
"Have anyone else seen used stamps marked NH on ebay? What do you think about that topic?"
I rarely look at eBay any more, but I would avoid that seller. Philatelic terminology can be confusing, and such listings could be the result of ignorance or designed to mislead inexperienced collectors. Or maybe it was just a mistake.
I suppose a stamp on cover could legitimately be described as NH! But, as far as I know, there is no way for a seller to prove a stamp's hinging/mounting history once the stamp has been soaked off the cover. In either case, it seems moronic for a seller to intentionally mark a used stamp as NH.
Login to Like
this post
01:46:50pm
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Tom, I have some throw away stamps that are unused (no hinge markings) with the catalog numbers written in red ink on the back. These came from an entire collection of what would have been very nice stamps, but the collector wrote the catalog number in red ink on the back of each stamp.
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
There are common terms which mean one thing, and specialized knowledge which mean something else.
To a non-stamp collector the term ‘mint’ may mean one thing (that car is mint, the coin was made in the mint, I like mint jelly). But certainly not the same as we think of it which typically is a stamp in the same unused condition, including full gum if issued with gum, in which it came from the post office.
In exactly the same way, we have a lot people in our hobby who use the term color ‘shade’ in the more common usage as opposed to someone who has a color background and uses it another way.
(The English language is not consistent. If the GH sound in the word ‘enough’ is pronounced “F” and the O in the word ‘women’ makes the short ‘I’ sound and the TI in the word ‘nation’ is pronounced “SH” then the word “GHOTI” is pronounced “FISH”? LOL)
Education is the only weapon in this war; this is why all philatelic sites should have a Glossary. In fact, if one of the national/international philatelic organizations had some vision they would offer (for free) a Glossary database that any website could add to their own site. This would go a long way in helping standardizing on philatelic terms and nomenclature.
I developed the Stamp Smarter Illustrate Glossary ( http://stampsmarter.com/Learning/GlossaryHome.html ) with this in mind but when I offered to donate the Glossary source code to the organizations they were not interested. But what better way to start getting everyone on the same terminology page then to publish a good, standardized philatelic glossary? APS treats their meager glossary as a ‘beginner’ thing!?!
Don
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
27 Dec 2018
09:18:55pm
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
There is already a perfectly good Glossary
detailing just about every philatelic term,
technique, rule, and custom available;
"This is Philately" by Ken Wood. (1982)
It is contained in three handy volumes and
while complete and thorough, it is written
in a light style.
The entry "mint" (page 461),
fills a half page, covering many aspects
of the word's meaning and how it became
so important to stampers.
An entry under "hinge" and "hinges",
plus a short note concerning "Never hinged"
and you have the whole story.
Probably that is more than what most people
need, or care to know, in fact.
The core of the definition of "Mint stamp"
is;
"A stamp with gum that is pristine and unmarked
by so much as the faintest shadow of a hinge mark."
Combine that with "Never hinged";
" ...a stamp that has never had a stamp hinge
applied to its gum."
And finally he added that the term "mint" refers
to the "state of the stamp rather than its
condition, gum excepted."
Condition comes under verbiage such as "fine'
or "very fine."
Amen.
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
I'm just glad we aren't discussing MH v MLH v MVLH v MVVLH!
Login to Like
this post
01:18:21am
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Oh, I've seen stamps described as MVVLH that have hinge remnants...
Found an unused stamp today that I bought where a dealer wrote the price, "3 for 10" in ink on the back. It came from an SOR Approval Book too.
The seller didn't write that, but the seller didn't mention it either...
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
"There is already a perfectly good Glossary detailing just about every philatelic term, technique, rule, and custom available…"
We are in full agreement; there are literality thousands of existing perfectly good philatelic glossaries. It is a wheel that has been invented over and over; virtually every single stamp catalog on earth defines the term ‘mint’. And some of them, like the Charlie mentions, requires a hobbyist to go buy a three volume set of books to understand the terms of a hobby. How is that going to help a non-collector use the correct, standardized word or term? A free online ‘standard’ that defines the basic philatelic terms is a solution.
Michael started this thread about a misdescribed APS circuit book that clearly demonstrates a lack of proper terminology use. Others weighted in with opinions that agreed that our hobby has plenty of confusion with terms. There are many clear indications that our hobby’s current approach to generating a hobby-wide understanding of its most basic terms needs improvement. Which definition of the term ‘mint’ are Stamporama sellers to use? Is it is up to each seller to guess or use their own understanding? How can a seller by expected to adhere to something that is not well defined and referenced? This is the ‘world-wide-web’ and we all do not work from the same catalogs nor can we expect every person to have access to the same reference books.
This is why my opinion (above) was that what was needed was a widely accepted free online ‘standard’ thereby establishing a single point-of-reference as the accepted ‘go to’ place for our hobby’s most common terms. If a few groups came together (i.e. APS, ASDA, some of the catalog publishers) and supported such an effort I think the standard would become adopted by the hobby. Putting a single ‘terms’ database together and then offering a small snippet of code to all websites owners that allowed them to replicate the database of terms on their sites for free would benefit the hobby immensely. This is not rocket science nor is it expensive to implement, it simply takes a bit of vision, cooperation, and coordination.
But having 12,788 different published works all defining terms as they see fit and all publishing independent glossaries does not help anything. (It helps even less when people publish a reference in 3 costly volumes if the objective is to get everyone on the same page.) But the way things stand now certainly makes for lengthy endless threads about bad listings by inexperience sellers who use terminology incorrectly (on every forum).
My post above was trying to address the issue with the current diffusion of responsibility and needless confusing replication that exists. There are some things in our hobby which can be greatly approved that transcend what a single person or single entity can do; it requires coming together. I think we can all agree that it helps our hobby to have less confusion with philatelic terms. Not only is every hobbyists a stakeholder in this issue, but every single hobby organization is a stakeholder. Is APS interested in seeing the hobby grow? Is the ASDA interested in improving the philatelic marketplace? Who would be against decreasing the number of mis-described listings and confusion about word definitions?
Lastly, it is frustrating to see memberships in our organizations deceasing in the internet age. It behooves our organizations to find ways to tap into the technology and use it to better the hobby. Sharing data via online databases is a key component of this kind of cooperation and mutual hobby-wide benefit. And in fact this approach and cooperation has already been done once in the form of the shared database and indexing of the best philatelic libraries. It seems to me that a similar effort for a standard basic glossary is a no-brainer. If our major organizations do not have the vision or the ability to come together and take advantage of online technologies; then the writing is indeed on the wall regarding their survival.
Don
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
The problem with standardization is that the "we" is never all no matter how many agree.
The majority of people agree on the basic terms. It is the uneducated, those that do not agree with the statement, or those that want to misrepresent that will continue to do it.
When someone says "Mint", a person should realize that not every accepts that it is NH. Since the term "unused" is not often seen it means most prefer mint as not indicating the hinging status.
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Hi Al,
Are you saying that improvements are not worth doing unless it fixes an issue 100% of the time or are you saying that there is not really a problem?
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Getting more agreement on definition of Mint is at the point of dramatically diminishing returns. I have no issue with the ambiguity of Mint as Mint NH, Mint Hinged, etc. as I accept that definition. It has been that way for 50 yrs since I have been around stamps. Most buyers realize this quickly.
The education aspect to me is just being sure the buyer is aware of various differences and less about trying to police sellers to follow certain rules.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
If just a few entities - APS & ASDA come to mind - were to endorse & enforce use of any one freely available online glossary, the definition of 'mint' would be settled.
That's the way jargon works in every engineering discipline, etc.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Do you think these societies should ban members that did not follow the terms exactly?
Al
Login to Like
this post
06:34:13pm
Approvals
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
"The problem with standardisation is that the "we" is never "all" no matter how many agree."
Correct!
The reality is that ALL collectors, be they buyers or sellers, are educated to different levels and have different levels of experience within the hobby.
Those that consider themselves "experts" should exercise tolerance, understanding and be willing to educate those that have not yet reached the level of the "experts".
Of course because of the internet, there is bound to be differences in language and terms. Here in the UK we say Unmounted Mint rather than Mint Never Hinged. Mounted Mint rather than Mint Hinged.
So any standardisation is a no go from the start. If any worldwide standardisation was to take place it would have to be in Chinese as they have more stamp collectors than any other country.
Login to Like
this post
09:10:19pm
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Well, Ian, if ya'll learnt to talk tru English, then the boogers would be in the entrails of the maternally issue behind the fist of the right foot (in a non-metric sense, of course) and we'd all be in a wholesome antipathy of awareness in unknowingly knowing what we all want to speak.
Login to Like
this post
03:58:02am
Approvals
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
We have a saying "Are you taking the Micheal?"
Isn't language wonderful?
Retire this thread from shall I.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
31 Dec 2018
11:09:01am
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
" .... And some of them, like the Charlie mentions, requires a hobbyist to go buy a three volume set of books to understand the terms of a hobby. How is that going to help a non-collector use the correct, standardized word or term?
Perhaps every potential collector should be born with all such knowledge hard wired so they never have to use the encyclopedic philatelic knowledge in reference books when they want to begin professional or semi-professional philatelic activities.
Login to Like
this post
re: Would This Description Be Considered MNH?????
Call me fussy, but I agree completely with Michael. We can disagree on this board concerning this matter, but I don't want anything I trade or sell to another buyer that I call MNH to be anything less than the condition it was issued.
BOB
Login to Like
this post