What we collect!

 

Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps



What we collect!
What we collect!


General Philatelic/Gen. Discussion : Grading covers

 

Author
Postings
Arno Forst (Rhinelander)

10 Feb 2008
06:19:36pm
I have been looking at some cover lots on ebay and elsewhere and need some help with frequent language in the descriptions.

If the condition is described as "fine" in one lot versus "very good to fine" in another, which lot has the neater covers?

For stamps, where the introduction to the Scott catalog provides some authoritative guidance, I would consider a condition of "fine" as barely collectible for 98% of common stamps. Accordingly, does "fine" when used to describe covers generally mean "junk," i.e. roughly opened, creases, tears etc. of a substantial nature? Or are covers graded on a different scale?
Like
Login to Like
this post
Bob Ingraham (Bobstamp)

10 Feb 2008
07:32:33pm
re: Grading covers

All philatelic grading is subjective. There is a strong tendency among sellers to puff up their offerings, as there is one among buyers to downgrade perceived condition. That's why good images are so important in the philatelic trade.

The "Fine" as found in stamp catalogues refers to centering of the image: a stamp with equal margins is referred to as "Very Fine," one with unequal margins is "Fine," and one which has the perforations cutting into the design is "Very Good." I'm not saying these are good descriptions, but they've been in use forever. You'll find a discussion of them in the introductions of all of the Scott catalogues. (You'll sometimes see "XF" for "Extra Fine," but this seems mainly to be a way for dealers to point out perfect or nearly perfect centering and therefore raise the price of a particular stamp.)

"XF," "VF," "F" and "VG" have no relationship to the overall condition of a stamp. A stamp that is missing all or some gum, or is heavily hinged, or scuffed, or faded, or creased, or torn, or stained can still be well-centered and therefore "VF."

A stamp that in Arno's words is "barely collectible" might be perfectly acceptable to another and a wonderful find to a third. As far as I'm concerned, any stamp that appeals to me for some reason is collectible, even though it may have obvious faults. I don't think we should any more discriminating about stamps than we are about people; I'm sure that my wife would never have "collected" me if she hadn't been able to ignore my faults and seen my "collectible" attributes!

Covers are a somewhat different animal, but are still governed by subjective opinion. If a collector is looking for a particular cancellation, or evidence of postal routes, or correspondce from or to a particular person, condition is of secondary importance. Of course, all cover collectors want the most attractive covers they can find, but they will accept just about any cover that has the sought-after attributes, regardless of condition. The stamps that frank covers are often ignored because have little to do with the cover's provenance.

I suppose that the importance of condition in cover collecting is inversely proporational to rarity. It would make no sense to buy any damaged official first-day cover issued since the 1950s since pristine copies of the same cover are commonly available. Neither would it make sense to turn down a shabby looking cover that was rare. I just learned today of a grubby postcard that sold for $500 on eBay: if I could have afforded it, I would have paid more, because it was mailed by a Japanese soldier during the Second World War from the occupied Aleutian island of Kiska. Now that's rare!

In a curious but nevertheless logical twist, collectors demand that some covers come to them with serious damage. These are "Adversity Covers," generated as a result of a plane crash, ship sinking, earthquake, etc. Generally speaking, the more damage to such covers the higher the value, assuming that they can be linked to the disaster. A heard a story just a couple of days ago about a dealer who was showing a partially-burned plane-crash cover to a collector. "But it doesn't show enough damage!" the customer complained, whereupon the dealer took out his cigarette lighter and burned up one end of the cover. "Who's going to know?" he asked the collector. I don't know whether the collector bought the cover, but it gives me pause about some of my own crash covers!

Bob

Like
Login to Like
this post
Arno Forst (Rhinelander)

11 Feb 2008
10:49:19am
re: Grading covers

Bob,

You are right the Scott grading system described in the introduction to the catalog only refers to the centering. I guess I never bothered to read up on the details. For the vast majority of stamps, centering is of very little concern. Again, it speaks to the general inadaequacy of the Scott catalog to provide little guidance as to the other value relevant factors of stamp condition.

Here is the respective page from a Michel catalog:

[IMG]http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r28/forsta/michcond.jpg[/IMG]

Guidance is provided for cut, roulette, perforation, centering, and cancellation. In the catalog part, for each listed stamp reference is made to the chart to clarify what represents the condition on which valuation has been based. For modern stamps the expected condition tends to be figure 12 & 17.

Back to my question about condition grades for covers. I am fully aware that sometimes one has to settle for what is available. Standards of preservation should not be unreasonable and take the nature of the material into account (soldier's mail, crash mail etc.). However, for the vast majority of common modern postal history material (meaning post-WWII, maybe even post-WWI) specimens are plentiful. Some type of uniformly understood grading systems would serve a useful purpose. So I am asking: Is there an understood nomenclature used among knowledgeable collectors and dealers for decribing the condition of covers? For beginners: Is "very good" uniformly understood to be not as good as "fine" etc.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Bob Ingraham (Bobstamp)

11 Feb 2008
11:11:19am
re: Grading covers

I am not aware of any uniform grading systems for covers. Dealers usully describe particular attributes of covers, both to promote interest in potential buyers and to provide informtion about defects that may not be visible in scanned images.

Most dealers I encounter provide little specific information about condtiion, but rely on images. A few might state that a particular cover is "clean" or "rare" or that a cancellation is a "clean strike. They might provide a bit of information about its provenance. I don't think that any grading system would work since most covers are unique. Grading covers is a lot like grading antiques -- value depends on a great many variables, which may apply to some items and not to others. Antiques Road Show is instructive in this regard.

I wish a cover dealer would jump in here, but they seem to be too busy selling covers!

Bob

Like
Login to Like
this post
David Teisler (Teisler)

11 Feb 2008
04:12:03pm
re: Grading covers

Not a cover dealer, but a buyer, willing to enter the fray. Arno, unfortunately, there is no nomenclature to provide shorthand help to a cover's condition and grading. This is just as well as many of the terms used to describe a stamp have been co-opted by darker powers, For example, why would anyone need to further describe a stamp that is "mint" when "mint" indicates "post-office fresh" or some other variable. No "mint" stamps are issued by the USPS or other stamp-issuing entities with hinges. But, surprise, I digress.

I think the more honorable sellers indicate the pertinent faults of an envelope: tears, front only, creases, tinting, and the like. Many even describe the reverse, assuming they don't also picture it.

The demand for condition is surely higher for philatelic covers (FDCs, FFs, keel-layings, and such) as many were never expected to be subjected to barbarities encountered in the mail stream.

I'm seldom interested in the cover's grading. Most of my favorites are well-travelled, and for those of us who've been around the block a couple of times, each time around seems a little rougher than the last. A cachet maker might swoon to see her cachet defaced by a due sticker or a forwarding mark, but I would, and have, happily pluck an interesting FDC that's been rerouted to accommodate the intended recipient.

All this is to say that there is no acceptable nomenclature, only accurate descriptions.

David

Like
Login to Like
this post
        

 

Author/Postings
Arno Forst (Rhinelander)

10 Feb 2008
06:19:36pm

I have been looking at some cover lots on ebay and elsewhere and need some help with frequent language in the descriptions.

If the condition is described as "fine" in one lot versus "very good to fine" in another, which lot has the neater covers?

For stamps, where the introduction to the Scott catalog provides some authoritative guidance, I would consider a condition of "fine" as barely collectible for 98% of common stamps. Accordingly, does "fine" when used to describe covers generally mean "junk," i.e. roughly opened, creases, tears etc. of a substantial nature? Or are covers graded on a different scale?

Like
Login to Like
this post
Bob Ingraham (Bobstamp)

10 Feb 2008
07:32:33pm

re: Grading covers

All philatelic grading is subjective. There is a strong tendency among sellers to puff up their offerings, as there is one among buyers to downgrade perceived condition. That's why good images are so important in the philatelic trade.

The "Fine" as found in stamp catalogues refers to centering of the image: a stamp with equal margins is referred to as "Very Fine," one with unequal margins is "Fine," and one which has the perforations cutting into the design is "Very Good." I'm not saying these are good descriptions, but they've been in use forever. You'll find a discussion of them in the introductions of all of the Scott catalogues. (You'll sometimes see "XF" for "Extra Fine," but this seems mainly to be a way for dealers to point out perfect or nearly perfect centering and therefore raise the price of a particular stamp.)

"XF," "VF," "F" and "VG" have no relationship to the overall condition of a stamp. A stamp that is missing all or some gum, or is heavily hinged, or scuffed, or faded, or creased, or torn, or stained can still be well-centered and therefore "VF."

A stamp that in Arno's words is "barely collectible" might be perfectly acceptable to another and a wonderful find to a third. As far as I'm concerned, any stamp that appeals to me for some reason is collectible, even though it may have obvious faults. I don't think we should any more discriminating about stamps than we are about people; I'm sure that my wife would never have "collected" me if she hadn't been able to ignore my faults and seen my "collectible" attributes!

Covers are a somewhat different animal, but are still governed by subjective opinion. If a collector is looking for a particular cancellation, or evidence of postal routes, or correspondce from or to a particular person, condition is of secondary importance. Of course, all cover collectors want the most attractive covers they can find, but they will accept just about any cover that has the sought-after attributes, regardless of condition. The stamps that frank covers are often ignored because have little to do with the cover's provenance.

I suppose that the importance of condition in cover collecting is inversely proporational to rarity. It would make no sense to buy any damaged official first-day cover issued since the 1950s since pristine copies of the same cover are commonly available. Neither would it make sense to turn down a shabby looking cover that was rare. I just learned today of a grubby postcard that sold for $500 on eBay: if I could have afforded it, I would have paid more, because it was mailed by a Japanese soldier during the Second World War from the occupied Aleutian island of Kiska. Now that's rare!

In a curious but nevertheless logical twist, collectors demand that some covers come to them with serious damage. These are "Adversity Covers," generated as a result of a plane crash, ship sinking, earthquake, etc. Generally speaking, the more damage to such covers the higher the value, assuming that they can be linked to the disaster. A heard a story just a couple of days ago about a dealer who was showing a partially-burned plane-crash cover to a collector. "But it doesn't show enough damage!" the customer complained, whereupon the dealer took out his cigarette lighter and burned up one end of the cover. "Who's going to know?" he asked the collector. I don't know whether the collector bought the cover, but it gives me pause about some of my own crash covers!

Bob

Like
Login to Like
this post
Arno Forst (Rhinelander)

11 Feb 2008
10:49:19am

re: Grading covers

Bob,

You are right the Scott grading system described in the introduction to the catalog only refers to the centering. I guess I never bothered to read up on the details. For the vast majority of stamps, centering is of very little concern. Again, it speaks to the general inadaequacy of the Scott catalog to provide little guidance as to the other value relevant factors of stamp condition.

Here is the respective page from a Michel catalog:

[IMG]http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r28/forsta/michcond.jpg[/IMG]

Guidance is provided for cut, roulette, perforation, centering, and cancellation. In the catalog part, for each listed stamp reference is made to the chart to clarify what represents the condition on which valuation has been based. For modern stamps the expected condition tends to be figure 12 & 17.

Back to my question about condition grades for covers. I am fully aware that sometimes one has to settle for what is available. Standards of preservation should not be unreasonable and take the nature of the material into account (soldier's mail, crash mail etc.). However, for the vast majority of common modern postal history material (meaning post-WWII, maybe even post-WWI) specimens are plentiful. Some type of uniformly understood grading systems would serve a useful purpose. So I am asking: Is there an understood nomenclature used among knowledgeable collectors and dealers for decribing the condition of covers? For beginners: Is "very good" uniformly understood to be not as good as "fine" etc.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Bob Ingraham (Bobstamp)

11 Feb 2008
11:11:19am

re: Grading covers

I am not aware of any uniform grading systems for covers. Dealers usully describe particular attributes of covers, both to promote interest in potential buyers and to provide informtion about defects that may not be visible in scanned images.

Most dealers I encounter provide little specific information about condtiion, but rely on images. A few might state that a particular cover is "clean" or "rare" or that a cancellation is a "clean strike. They might provide a bit of information about its provenance. I don't think that any grading system would work since most covers are unique. Grading covers is a lot like grading antiques -- value depends on a great many variables, which may apply to some items and not to others. Antiques Road Show is instructive in this regard.

I wish a cover dealer would jump in here, but they seem to be too busy selling covers!

Bob

Like
Login to Like
this post
David Teisler (Teisler)

11 Feb 2008
04:12:03pm

re: Grading covers

Not a cover dealer, but a buyer, willing to enter the fray. Arno, unfortunately, there is no nomenclature to provide shorthand help to a cover's condition and grading. This is just as well as many of the terms used to describe a stamp have been co-opted by darker powers, For example, why would anyone need to further describe a stamp that is "mint" when "mint" indicates "post-office fresh" or some other variable. No "mint" stamps are issued by the USPS or other stamp-issuing entities with hinges. But, surprise, I digress.

I think the more honorable sellers indicate the pertinent faults of an envelope: tears, front only, creases, tinting, and the like. Many even describe the reverse, assuming they don't also picture it.

The demand for condition is surely higher for philatelic covers (FDCs, FFs, keel-layings, and such) as many were never expected to be subjected to barbarities encountered in the mail stream.

I'm seldom interested in the cover's grading. Most of my favorites are well-travelled, and for those of us who've been around the block a couple of times, each time around seems a little rougher than the last. A cachet maker might swoon to see her cachet defaced by a due sticker or a forwarding mark, but I would, and have, happily pluck an interesting FDC that's been rerouted to accommodate the intended recipient.

All this is to say that there is no acceptable nomenclature, only accurate descriptions.

David

Like
Login to Like
this post
        

Contact Webmaster | Visitors Online | Unsubscribe Emails | Facebook


User Agreement

Copyright © 2024 Stamporama.com