Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
Maybe I'm wrong, but looks like a mint stamp to me! I don't see anything that looks used on this stamp.
Login to Like
this post
Is there not a hint of a cancellation in the bottom margin beneath the E in TWENTY? Or perhaps that's an artifact of what seems to be a thin when viewed from the back. Also some markings at the upper left, although that could be toning.
Possibly it's unused, although I think that's in question. Given its condition I don't know that I'd call it "mint."
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Not a nice mint stamp for sure. Likely used, but who knows?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I would not classify it as mint as its condition is too rough regardless of whether any ink from a postmark is involved.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Wow, this idea is new to me, of course each collector has to decide for themselves.
Let me and please correct, Mint stamps are not consider mint if there are faults, from some of the posting to this thread?
Login to Like
this post
1899
The description of a stamp as "mint" is totally meaningless. The word "mint" ALWAYS has to be qualified.
Eg Mint Never Hinged (MNH) ie as it came out the post office, totally undamaged with full gum
or Mint Hinged (MH) ie With gum but has been hinged with a stamp hinge.
or Mint No Gum (MNG) ie a stamp that was issued without gum.
These are internationally recognised terms throughout the stamp world.
The stamp shown if it has gum, has obviously been hinged, therefore it should be described as Mint Hinged. It is not the best example of that issue so should not be priced at a premium.
Login to Like
this post
'Priced at a premium"?....... where did you get the idea I was even remotely thinking of doing that? But, I certainly appreciate you giving me advice on how to list my stamps
Login to Like
this post
Bigcreekdad
My response was not directed at you it was for everyones benefit.
However as everyone seems to be so so sensitive and takes everything so personally this will probably be the last time I will respond to any post about stamps on here.
As we say in Old Caledonia "Goodnight Vienna".
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Good grief!!!! You guys.
Is there a gas leak somewhere or is there something in the air, water or some other environmental contaminant that I need to know about? What is wrong with everyone? Has everyone lost sight of why Stamporama was started in the first place? Apparently so!
I'm taking a hiatus from this site for a while.
Jeremy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Brechinite....sorry lad. I overreacted a bit ( I'm Irish.....never a good thing when one thinks he's getting poked at). I really was questioning its "mint" status from the get go. I will post it as "likely used" as I think it's not clearly used.
I was really hoping for some thoughts on the left side perfs and apparent debris of some kind on the ends. That's why I wondered about re-gumming.
Login to Like
this post
I would not use the mint when there is the smudge. I
I think a better way to approach it as how would someone describe it in an auction catalog rather than just say what is not. I cannot tell if it has full gum on back.
Login to Like
this post
Time for a sabbatical. Been too chippy of late, and I have likely contributed towards it. I'll be in the wings, but will refrain from posting for awhile.
Before I go, I sure wish someone could pipe in on the left side perfs.
Login to Like
this post
12:40:24pm
If I were describing this for sale or auction I would write:
=======================
Canada #94 Unused original gum. Couple of hinge remnants and a bit of gum toning. Couple of small hinge thins (top and bottom) (-- to be confirmed by holding up to the light, or watermark fluid). Some gum disturbance along the left perfs from hinge removal.
=======================
I believe the adhesion on the left hand perfs is from the removal of a hinge. The position of the hinge at the bottom indicates to me that this was likely part of a block of 4 and the bottom hinge reinforced the perfs. I see nothing that would indicate regumming, just some ancient heavy hinging.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
May I ask what is an unused stamp?
Login to Like
this post
02:47:43pm
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Roy....I really don't want this thread to go further, but...."unused, original gum" is contrary to what others have have opined. What leads you to believe this? Not challenging you at all.
Also, thanks much for your thoughts on the left hinges.
Login to Like
this post
03:51:22pm
It has full gum that looks right. I see no signs of a cancellation. The "smudge" that others are referring to appears to me to be a thin showing through to the front (that's subject to a proper inspection in fluid or at least a light). I intentionally avoided the use of the word "mint" although Brechinite is correct, "in internationally recognized terms throughout the stamp world" the word does not not mean what many collectors want it to mean. It is best accepted as a synonym of "unused", although that term is most often used along with "no gum". Thus the "unused, original gum" should be interpreted as "mint, but not pretty".
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@Bigcreekdad,
You could have been more specific about what you wanted opinions on. (Incert smiley face)
My opinion is that it looks regummed to me. As Roy suggested, it may have come from a Block which might explain the messy lower right corner perfs, there appears to be a thin in that same area.
The perf tips don’t look right.
I see white rings around the perf holes between the selvage and the stamp on the face of the stamp.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Roy....the"smudge" is indeed exactly where the thin is holding up to light. Good eye!
However, some thought, I will list this as "Mint Superb".
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This is supposed to be mint. There is a LHR at top of reverse, and some evidence of a hinge down from it. Also, left perfs (from front) look odd. I'd say re-gummed, but the rear doesn't look like it. Any thoughts?
Login to Like
this post
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Maybe I'm wrong, but looks like a mint stamp to me! I don't see anything that looks used on this stamp.
Login to Like
this post
10:17:16pm
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Is there not a hint of a cancellation in the bottom margin beneath the E in TWENTY? Or perhaps that's an artifact of what seems to be a thin when viewed from the back. Also some markings at the upper left, although that could be toning.
Possibly it's unused, although I think that's in question. Given its condition I don't know that I'd call it "mint."
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:04:40am
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Not a nice mint stamp for sure. Likely used, but who knows?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
I would not classify it as mint as its condition is too rough regardless of whether any ink from a postmark is involved.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Wow, this idea is new to me, of course each collector has to decide for themselves.
Let me and please correct, Mint stamps are not consider mint if there are faults, from some of the posting to this thread?
Login to Like
this post
12:11:19pm
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
1899
The description of a stamp as "mint" is totally meaningless. The word "mint" ALWAYS has to be qualified.
Eg Mint Never Hinged (MNH) ie as it came out the post office, totally undamaged with full gum
or Mint Hinged (MH) ie With gum but has been hinged with a stamp hinge.
or Mint No Gum (MNG) ie a stamp that was issued without gum.
These are internationally recognised terms throughout the stamp world.
The stamp shown if it has gum, has obviously been hinged, therefore it should be described as Mint Hinged. It is not the best example of that issue so should not be priced at a premium.
Login to Like
this post
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
'Priced at a premium"?....... where did you get the idea I was even remotely thinking of doing that? But, I certainly appreciate you giving me advice on how to list my stamps
Login to Like
this post
02:28:49pm
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Bigcreekdad
My response was not directed at you it was for everyones benefit.
However as everyone seems to be so so sensitive and takes everything so personally this will probably be the last time I will respond to any post about stamps on here.
As we say in Old Caledonia "Goodnight Vienna".
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
03:04:51pm
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Good grief!!!! You guys.
Is there a gas leak somewhere or is there something in the air, water or some other environmental contaminant that I need to know about? What is wrong with everyone? Has everyone lost sight of why Stamporama was started in the first place? Apparently so!
I'm taking a hiatus from this site for a while.
Jeremy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Brechinite....sorry lad. I overreacted a bit ( I'm Irish.....never a good thing when one thinks he's getting poked at). I really was questioning its "mint" status from the get go. I will post it as "likely used" as I think it's not clearly used.
I was really hoping for some thoughts on the left side perfs and apparent debris of some kind on the ends. That's why I wondered about re-gumming.
Login to Like
this post
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
I would not use the mint when there is the smudge. I
I think a better way to approach it as how would someone describe it in an auction catalog rather than just say what is not. I cannot tell if it has full gum on back.
Login to Like
this post
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Time for a sabbatical. Been too chippy of late, and I have likely contributed towards it. I'll be in the wings, but will refrain from posting for awhile.
Before I go, I sure wish someone could pipe in on the left side perfs.
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
18 Jun 2025
12:40:24pm
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
If I were describing this for sale or auction I would write:
=======================
Canada #94 Unused original gum. Couple of hinge remnants and a bit of gum toning. Couple of small hinge thins (top and bottom) (-- to be confirmed by holding up to the light, or watermark fluid). Some gum disturbance along the left perfs from hinge removal.
=======================
I believe the adhesion on the left hand perfs is from the removal of a hinge. The position of the hinge at the bottom indicates to me that this was likely part of a block of 4 and the bottom hinge reinforced the perfs. I see nothing that would indicate regumming, just some ancient heavy hinging.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
May I ask what is an unused stamp?
Login to Like
this post
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
18 Jun 2025
02:47:43pm
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Roy....I really don't want this thread to go further, but...."unused, original gum" is contrary to what others have have opined. What leads you to believe this? Not challenging you at all.
Also, thanks much for your thoughts on the left hinges.
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
18 Jun 2025
03:51:22pm
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
It has full gum that looks right. I see no signs of a cancellation. The "smudge" that others are referring to appears to me to be a thin showing through to the front (that's subject to a proper inspection in fluid or at least a light). I intentionally avoided the use of the word "mint" although Brechinite is correct, "in internationally recognized terms throughout the stamp world" the word does not not mean what many collectors want it to mean. It is best accepted as a synonym of "unused", although that term is most often used along with "no gum". Thus the "unused, original gum" should be interpreted as "mint, but not pretty".
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
@Bigcreekdad,
You could have been more specific about what you wanted opinions on. (Incert smiley face)
My opinion is that it looks regummed to me. As Roy suggested, it may have come from a Block which might explain the messy lower right corner perfs, there appears to be a thin in that same area.
The perf tips don’t look right.
I see white rings around the perf holes between the selvage and the stamp on the face of the stamp.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Thoughts on this Canada 94
Roy....the"smudge" is indeed exactly where the thin is holding up to light. Good eye!
However, some thought, I will list this as "Mint Superb".
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.