Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
In our auctions, the word "sound" means exactly that, no if/ands/buts. It means the item described is free of all defects-period.Anything less than that is not listed as "sound".
I guess most of you already know that, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Dan C.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thank you, Dan.
I completely agree....
"sound" also means NO missing perfs as well.
Randy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
06:34:49pm
In my mind, a sound stamp is just that, a sound collectable example free of any obvious major flaws.
Such subjective meanings are open to interpretation by the user. Unless it is clearly defined somewhere such as a set of auction rules, a written contract or the introduction of a catalog, it is just and example of what the legal community calls "Salesman's puffery".
(Message edited by cdj1122 on April 19, 2011)
Login to Like
this post
In my mind, a 'sound' stamp wouldn't be just free of MAJOR flaws - it would be free of MINOR flaws as well....
Just as MINT is MINT, so sound is just that -sound in every way.
IMHO.....
Randy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Isn't the real problem not advertizing a stamps as "sound except for missing performations" but as "sound" without mention of the missing perforations?
I know, it is a little daring to begin a description of a stamp with the word "sound" when indeed major faults are present, but I do have to give credit for at all noting the missing perfs.
Another one is a descrition of a lot of stamps as being in "mixed condition" which invariably means "all damaged."
Arno
Login to Like
this post
Dear Guys,
Randy is quite right-"sound" as used in SOR auction ought to mean "flaw/defect free" in every specific.There are no minor/major distinctions as there are in other auction venues. This is the way I, as a seller and a buyer, require it to be for our SOR family. If there is a problem with this, let's air it out and get it resolved.
Of course, David and other folks have the final words on the issue, but I did feel obligated to share my personal impressions.
Dan C.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"sound" really ought not to be used unless the stamp is free of flaws. "sound" is a good way to describe a stamp's condition without referring to its other qualities, like centering, for instance. A "sound" stamp should have no scuffs, thins, trimmed or pulled perfs, etc. And "sound" shouldn't be used with modifiers. it is sound or not.
Unfortuantately, as Randy alludes, we've long ago lost the battle on defining "mint" as a word without adjectives. It is commonly used as a starting point, as in MNH, MLH, MNG, MDG, etc. Only the former seems real, the others oxymorons.
I like my descriptions to be factual and words to have meanings that are understood.
David, the auctioneer
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
07:27:31pm
While in the SOR auction rules there may be a specific definition, I am absolutely certain that there are nearly as many nuances to what constitutes "sound" in our hobby as there are ways of collecting the stamps themselves.
As long as that definition is clearly stated it can be enforced within the specific auction.
Even if the meaning became generally accepted thoughout the hobby it is still too subjective a term to mean free of all flaws to all collectors in such a free wheeling hobby.
I suspect that there are many who would agree with the less restrictive idea that the word means to me; "a sound stamp without any obvious major flaws".
That is all I would expect in most settings, especially in the wild and wooly world of eBay.
Winston Churchill once remarked something about the British and American people being separated by a common language, and it seemed to imply that while we all use very similar words (Not always with the same spelling) there is a wide range of meaning to many such words.
Login to Like
this post
I can't think of many adjectives that have just one meaning. Even the word "dead" can be nuanced -- we don't speak of the dead in hushed tones because we believe they are dead, but because we think of them as not quite dead! In any event, I'm certain that the people of all stripes are capable of defining words to suit their purposes, which are not necessarily my purposes or yours. Unless I know a stamp or cover dealer well, I'm just not going put much trust in his or her descriptions of items I'm interested in buying.
What I do trust for the most part is good images. If a dealer can't show me an image of a stamp or cover that's large enough and clear enough for me to tell if it has faults, then I don't how its described. As a result, I simply don't buy from dealers who can't or won't learn how to scan stamps and covers with sufficient detail to show me what I'm interested in buying.
One of my pet peeves is the offer of a cover which doesn't show me the back! It's one thing for the dealer to say that there are no postal markings on the back. It's quite another to fail to mention the back and not show it, especially with older covers. For that matter, it's just good policy to show the back of any cover, as dealers often do with stamps. In a stamp shop you'd look at front and back of any item. I appreciate the same opportunity when shopping on-line.
Bob
(Message edited by Bobstamp on April 21, 2011)
Login to Like
this post
Bob makes an excellent point regarding the scans of covers; backs should be scanned as well as fronts, even though it may have no markings. It is a show of proof that the reverse is in as good (or poor) condition as the front.
Unfortunately, Charlie makes a good point as well; terms are SO subjective from one individual to the next that it's virtually impossible to make anything universally "standard" regarding descriptive terms and their usage.
As David and I and many others know, we made our own futile attempt at such an endeavor not long ago, the end result being our "Descriptive Terms" list posted on this site (which - by the way - is a good "refresher" that everyone should peruse every now and again just to help with auction postings)
....might be a 'can of worms' here, but I'm glad Dan brought it up....a good reminder for all, myself included....
....thanks, Dan!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
Perhaps I think too much, but I'm thinking that there are stamps that simply don't exist in "sound" condition.
In some cases, primitive printing methods as well as inks and papers of variable quality means that virtually all existing copies have deteriorated to some degree.
One of the first Canadian self-adhesive issues apparently cannot be found in pristine condition because the adhesive has stained the paper.
Some stamps were issued with gum that contained sulphuric acid -- Germany B68 and C57-58 are three such stamps. The Scott catalogues recommend soaking the gum off mint copies -- so much for soundness there!
Sound copies of stamps printed with fugitive inks probably would be OK on a planet without water, but are at risk, and therefore unsound, on watery planet Earth!
Bob
Login to Like
this post
06:34:35am
I may be in the minority here but I don't think I need the seller to tell me that the stamp is "sound". I go on the assumption that the stamp is sound unless the seller tells me that there is a problem with the stamp or I can visibly see a problem. I also don't need sellers to tell me the centering unless I'm buying graded stamps (which I don't do). I'll make that determination.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Dear Bob's(Bobstamp & Parkinlot),
You're both right in what you are saying, but I don't think you're talking exactly about the same things. Perhaps I'm wrong-you'll decide. Bob "B" is referencing 'sound' to mean close to perfection, and is using the term rather strictly. Bob "P" comes from a background of knowledge that allows him to make judgments based upon his own experience.
Both of you can agree that there are many starting, newer collectors who are members and who are trying auction bidding/buying/selling for the first time. For them, the greater care we take on descriptions of offerings is a must for our "in house" family auction style. Granted that neither of you more experienced folk may actually need that, but it is a protective shield we long ago adopted to best serve our members.
Bob "B" is as hard on the language as he is on himself- demanding clarity. precision and near perfection.
Bob "P" is also demanding, but uses his knowledge base to come to his own decisions without relying on others.
To my eye, both are excellent, both are correct, and I don't think that they are addressing the exact issues raised by the other-or am I way off base here?
As always though, both points of view enrich us all.
All good thoughts,
Dan C.
Login to Like
this post
09:25:53am
Dan,
I think you are correct. Being a collector for many years I sometimes take some things for granted. To a new collector, telling them that the stamp is sound is a good thing. I also think that adding the centering can be helpful (if accurate) for someone searching for that particular centering. The rub there is if I'm searching for VF, I'm going to be upset if I come up with stamps that I perceive as less than VF. Perceive is the key word unless the stamp is graded. If someone is using over embelished descriptions of their material I'm probably not going to look at their lots in the future.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Happy Good Friday morning,
I've just had the chance to read through this string of messages on the the subject of "sound," after David sent me an email to ask if I could add something to our descriptive terms FAQs.
In between logging out of my email account and making my way to the bottom of this page, I thought to myself, "What is sound?" Talk about nuances - I don't think I've ever thought of a stamp in those terms. The Oxford Dictionary defines sound as "undamaged, in good condition." We philatelists already have our gradings for quality; and a picture in the auction tells us the story better than any words ever can. One person's trader is another collector's perfect stamp because our own individual perceptions matter so much in our collecting world.
I think I've advanced a sound argument towards not adding this word to our descriptive terms, after giving this topic sound consideration; and I don't think that the definition is a sound investment of our time. No hard feelings. I hope everyone will sleep soundly after reading this post. First, though, I'm off to look at my "perfect" stamps.
But seriously, if everyone still wants "sound" to be included in the FAQs, I will be happy to help out.
Andrew
Login to Like
this post
I just have to get in on this topic. Black is black, white is white. Sound means no imperfections or damages. One should not have to say sound in a listing, only list the imperfections,
I, like Bob, never state sound, for if a stamp has no problems, it is assumed to be sound. I will only list it if there is a problem such as a tear, thin, missing perf, no gum, etc.
I think that this is really a cut and dried issue, and need not be continued
Richaard
Login to Like
this post
When it comes to descriptions, the problem is that there are too many individual definitions and interpretations of every word. I have seen stamps described as "superb, thin and torn perfs." What they mean by "superb" is the centering. Totally bogus, just like the example regarding "sound". Other things the bug the crap out of me are vintage, rare, scarce, beautiful, fantastic, and l@@k! This is starting to piss me off, so I'll not write anymore...another shot of tequila is in order now, so excuse me for a moment...
Login to Like
this post
02:12:57pm
What about "A sound copy for that issue" ?
or
" F to VF for this issue." followed by a scan of a stamp that is so heavily cancelled that you are not sure if it is Wilhelmena or an early Posthorn?
How does that sound to you ?
Login to Like
this post
Richaard said, "if a stamp has no problems, it is assumed to be sound";
I think an issue here is the ASSUMPTION. If no flaws are listed, are we to automatically assume that it is sound/perfect/unflawed???
Is this always true? In a perfect world, yes; in our real world, NO WAY.
I would welcome the proper use of the term :sound"....if auction listers would use the descriptive terms as they were meant to be used, we wouldn't be having this discussion, so maybe Andrew is right - maybe it wouldn't do any good, anyway.
Randy
Login to Like
this post
Just wanted to say that this very question has been mulling in my head for the past few days, in much the same way as originally posed by Dan. The ensuing discussion above has been most helpful.
I'm wondering if this has progressed any further in the past several years?
And now for the curious, some of my research findings (aka "Google searches)...
Merriam Webster provides a general definition for the adjective "sound":
: in good condition
: solid and strong
: in good health
: free from mistakes
: showing good judgment
: free from injury or disease
: free from flaw, defect, or decay
Specific to stamps, the APS website did not help but there were several definitions of "sound," with the most succinct being on a "WikiHow" page:
"Stamp grade can be expressed in three broad terms: sound, faulty, or defective. A faulty stamp is one that has minor imperfections, such as a small crease in the corner. A defective stamp is one with major imperfections such as large creases, pinholes, abrasions, or stains. A sound stamp has no imperfections. "
That page is here: http://www.wikihow.com/Find-The-Value-Of-a-Stamp
The WikiHow page is somewhat amateurish, but I wondered if there was any authority behind that definition? I'm guessing the answer is "no."
The Philatelic Foundation provides a list of faults in one of their their pages on expertization:
http://www.philatelicfoundation.org/expertizing-process/why-expertize/
o Thins
o Reperforating
o Added perforations
o Added margins
o Rebacking
o Tears
o Tone spots
o Design repainting
o Perforations trimmed off
o Creases
Is that list of faults complete? I didn't know "rebacking" was even a thing before reading that.
The Philatelic Foundation offers a 43 MB "Grading Manual" that is quite interesting in its own right, although it only uses the word "sound" once:
http://www.philatelicfoundation.org/expertizing-process/
I also found this more recent SOR thread to be quite helpful (and fun to read!):
http://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=22&id=72721#72721
Okay, now that I've spent my entire hobby-time budget on research,
I have no additional stamps sorted or mounted today, but maybe I am just a little bit wiser. 
-Steve
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
When I see the word "sound" I think:
No creases
No rounded corners
No pulled perfs
No thins
No stains
No scuffs
No toning
No hinge damage (deformities due to heavy hinging)
Perfs do not cut into the design
And in fact no other flaws or alterations whatsoever.
And really, in the case of most stamps being sold on Stamporama which are common stamps with a street value of less than $10, is there any good reason to sell anything but sound examples (as described above)?
I realize covers are a different matter, even less than sound covers may have an appeal and should be described accordingly.
Thanks for listening,
Antonio
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
11:33:11am
"Perfs do not cut into the design"
smauggie:
I agree with all your points except this one. The centering of a stamp is part of the production of the stamp and in my opinion, should be considered independently of any faults. A stamp can be off center, but still be "sound".
Roy
Login to Like
this post
agree with Roy's agreement and revision
David
Login to Like
this post
...and I second Roy's statements.
Wow - this is an old thread!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
"Wow - this is an old thread!"
An oldie but a goodie!
Login to Like
this post
"Perfs do not cut into the design"
Perhaps in your minds faults=damage. In my mind, the perfs cutting into the design is a fault, and a production fault to be sure. Such stamps are generally not considered collectible especially the more common stamps generally seen for sale here.
Even so, I am happy to agree to disagree.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Everyone;
"Perfs do not cut into the design"
Scott's catalog has a note in their catalog, preceding the 19th century listings for all stamp
issues up to Victoria Jubilee issues. It states that because subjects were placed so close
together on the production printing plate, that stamps that were clear of perfs touching
the design on all four sides were scarce to very rare and command substantially higher prices
than listed. The same thing applies to cancels of the period, that were typically very heavy,
and that medium to light CDS cancels were also scarce to very rare and again, fetching sub-
stantially higher prices!
I have also noticed this in some of the Edward VII issues, that one with very good centering
are not all that common, and same with cancellations also, are not super common.
Just an observation....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
Antonio, it's so rare that we disagree, but we do on perfs.
Sound doesn't refer to the collectibility of the stamp, but the absence of flaws introduced post production. Misregistration of colors similarly is a production problem, but doesn't make the stamp unsound; it just changes it from a C3 to C3a. Similarly, a production design that doesn't take into account the space required for perfs, paper shrinkage, and misregistration doesn't make it unsound, merely moves it from desirable to less desirable until the problem is so pronounced that it turns it into Dan Cohen's treasured territory: EFOs.
You needn't reply; leaving me with the last word is fine. Like the C3a, it's a rarity.
David
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Is this a sound stamp? I vote no.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/311412924517?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Login to Like
this post
According to PSE centering & soundness are separate issues
Here is the pdf version
Grading Stamps
"The preliminary grade of a stamp has two components:
Soundness - the presence or absence of faults
Centering - the balance among the four margins
SOUNDNESS
. Faultless: The stamp is completely sound, free of all faults.
. Very Minor Fault: Minor gum skips or short gumming on NH stamps
. Minor Fault: Tiny thin spot (
1mm), Tiny natural paper inclusion, Natural surface wrinkle on the face of a rotary press stamp, Small corner perf crease, Tiny toned spot, etc.
.Fault: Light crease, Small thin (1-4 mm) or two tiny thins, Small tear (
1mm), Short perf (even with the bottom of the holes), Pinhole, Small stain, Natural straight edge, etc.
.Major Fault: Heavy crease or two light creases, Thin, two small thins or three tiny thins, Large tear or two small tears, Large stain, Repair (e.g., filled thin, added perf, etc.), Natural straight edge on two sides, Several faulty, clipped pulled or short perfs, etc."
For some countries, the design cut into the perfs is still centered such as these 1899 Brazil issues (Sc 140-150A) noted as such in the catalogue.
Login to Like
this post
Look at the hole next to the J. That's a fault.
Login to Like
this post
Sharyn,
you are correct; that lovely centered, full margined PB is not sound. The hole is a post-production fault.
David
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks, David.
Login to Like
this post
The big problem is that most sellers do not bother to describe anything to do with condition. You cannot usually see a Thin, small tear or light crease from a scan or even less a picture. Not only do I want sellers I buy from to note any faults but also want them to confirm that there are not any. I also do not buy anything sight unseen nor expect anyone to buy from me without a scan. I provide good scans on black backround so that buyer can see what they are getting and any perf faults show up well as compared to a White backround. I would suspect that every stamp is "damaged" when viewed with an electron microscope! So where does one draw the line and how much time does one spend on a stamp valued at a couple dollars that your are going to sell for 70 cents. After determining correct I.D., I hold each stamp up to the light to check for thins and check for tears creases stains, scuffs etc. The more expensive the stamp the longer I look at it. My standard description of condition for stamps that I cannot see any faults is "Sound stamp. No thins, tears etc. Perfs as per scan". If I do detect faults I note them as accurately as possible without making the stamp seem like a complete turd, unless it is. If there is something nice to say about a damaged stamp then I will often state that in the description as well. Damaged stamps are then priced according to their misgivings usually at 10% or less. I have sold and traded 10's of thousands of stamps in the last 30 years with probably less than 10 complaints. I can't say my experience is any where close when it comes to buying. Centering has nothing to do with a stamp being sound or not.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Hi AntoniusRa;
There is another side of that coin as far as what you would like sellers to go to the trouble to do,
to satisfy that you are getting a quality stamp. In another thread I read what you said about not
wanting to pay more than 10-15% of catalog value. You kinda get what you pay for and in most
sellers opinion 10-15% is not enough to justify that extra effort.
I do take that extra effort and my buyers know that. I never sell for less than 66% of catalog, ex-
cept for damaged stamps. No I do not sell all of the stamps that I list. But sell more than enough
to satisfy my needs. The last three months I transfered $50-$80+/month to my checking account
from PayPal. Stamp sales is all I use that account for.
Most of my 15 buyers are repeat buyers many times over. They return because they know if I re-
commend a particular item that I know they need, I don't send other buyers there to bid them up.
I set a starting bid at the least amount I'm expecting. So I don't need but one bidder. That is
called excellent customer service and worth the higher price.
Just my opinion....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
TuskenRaider,
I do not buy from dealers. Everything I buy comes from one forgiegn auction house. They always have many items I need, weekly, with little competition and few reserves.
I also have an advantage in that I know most world wide material better than the auction house does. I would never let them auction any of my own collections because I would lose.
I seldom buy singles or stocks but usually collections or parts of collections. I said I did not like paying over 10-15% but in most instances I actually pay 3.5-5%.
However, I will pay 100% of catalog for stamps (pre 1950) that catalogs under a dollar if they help my collection. There are some stamps that one cannot get in the 10-15% range due to their popularity. However all of these except a very few can be had for 1/3 of catalog but it requires patience and a good source.
I don't know how I can improve on my service. I provide 300dpi scans and accurate descriptions. I ship within 24 hours and guarantee satisfaction.
Many dealers will try to make you think that their stamps are better than others, even though condition is equal. Also most dealers of world wide material do not know the material as much as they would like you to think. Mis-identification and being out of touch with real world values is very very common.
Most dealers are selling their own material that they have bought at auction or estate sales. An exception are a few of the biggest and worst dealers on Ebay (NYStamps, Noble Spirit come to mind) who often times are selling other peoples collections for a percentage. They are usually junkie and totally over hyped and overpriced and give many newer collectors a bad view of the reality of growing their collections. As in most things most people want to be told what is good for them because it is easier than finding out for themselves. Unfortunately they seem impressed with bells and whistles and semi convincing B.S.
For any of you that are still buying from Mystic, Harris or any of the old big firms, you are throwing your money away.
This is my view and it works for me, I have very few damaged stamps in my collection.
Everyone has their own view and if they are happy with the way things are going then why change.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Of late I've been coming across items in eBay described as "sound" which, when one reads further, is followed by the words 'but', 'except for', 'with only' followed by the defects for the stamp.
In our auctions, the word "sound" means exactly that, no if/ands/buts. It means the item described is free of all defects-period.Anything less than that is not listed as "sound".
I guess most of you already know that, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Dan C.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Thank you, Dan.
I completely agree....
"sound" also means NO missing perfs as well.
Randy
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..
19 Apr 2011
06:34:49pm
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
In my mind, a sound stamp is just that, a sound collectable example free of any obvious major flaws.
Such subjective meanings are open to interpretation by the user. Unless it is clearly defined somewhere such as a set of auction rules, a written contract or the introduction of a catalog, it is just and example of what the legal community calls "Salesman's puffery".
(Message edited by cdj1122 on April 19, 2011)
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
In my mind, a 'sound' stamp wouldn't be just free of MAJOR flaws - it would be free of MINOR flaws as well....
Just as MINT is MINT, so sound is just that -sound in every way.
IMHO.....
Randy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Isn't the real problem not advertizing a stamps as "sound except for missing performations" but as "sound" without mention of the missing perforations?
I know, it is a little daring to begin a description of a stamp with the word "sound" when indeed major faults are present, but I do have to give credit for at all noting the missing perfs.
Another one is a descrition of a lot of stamps as being in "mixed condition" which invariably means "all damaged."
Arno
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Dear Guys,
Randy is quite right-"sound" as used in SOR auction ought to mean "flaw/defect free" in every specific.There are no minor/major distinctions as there are in other auction venues. This is the way I, as a seller and a buyer, require it to be for our SOR family. If there is a problem with this, let's air it out and get it resolved.
Of course, David and other folks have the final words on the issue, but I did feel obligated to share my personal impressions.
Dan C.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
"sound" really ought not to be used unless the stamp is free of flaws. "sound" is a good way to describe a stamp's condition without referring to its other qualities, like centering, for instance. A "sound" stamp should have no scuffs, thins, trimmed or pulled perfs, etc. And "sound" shouldn't be used with modifiers. it is sound or not.
Unfortuantately, as Randy alludes, we've long ago lost the battle on defining "mint" as a word without adjectives. It is commonly used as a starting point, as in MNH, MLH, MNG, MDG, etc. Only the former seems real, the others oxymorons.
I like my descriptions to be factual and words to have meanings that are understood.
David, the auctioneer
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..
20 Apr 2011
07:27:31pm
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
While in the SOR auction rules there may be a specific definition, I am absolutely certain that there are nearly as many nuances to what constitutes "sound" in our hobby as there are ways of collecting the stamps themselves.
As long as that definition is clearly stated it can be enforced within the specific auction.
Even if the meaning became generally accepted thoughout the hobby it is still too subjective a term to mean free of all flaws to all collectors in such a free wheeling hobby.
I suspect that there are many who would agree with the less restrictive idea that the word means to me; "a sound stamp without any obvious major flaws".
That is all I would expect in most settings, especially in the wild and wooly world of eBay.
Winston Churchill once remarked something about the British and American people being separated by a common language, and it seemed to imply that while we all use very similar words (Not always with the same spelling) there is a wide range of meaning to many such words.
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
I can't think of many adjectives that have just one meaning. Even the word "dead" can be nuanced -- we don't speak of the dead in hushed tones because we believe they are dead, but because we think of them as not quite dead! In any event, I'm certain that the people of all stripes are capable of defining words to suit their purposes, which are not necessarily my purposes or yours. Unless I know a stamp or cover dealer well, I'm just not going put much trust in his or her descriptions of items I'm interested in buying.
What I do trust for the most part is good images. If a dealer can't show me an image of a stamp or cover that's large enough and clear enough for me to tell if it has faults, then I don't how its described. As a result, I simply don't buy from dealers who can't or won't learn how to scan stamps and covers with sufficient detail to show me what I'm interested in buying.
One of my pet peeves is the offer of a cover which doesn't show me the back! It's one thing for the dealer to say that there are no postal markings on the back. It's quite another to fail to mention the back and not show it, especially with older covers. For that matter, it's just good policy to show the back of any cover, as dealers often do with stamps. In a stamp shop you'd look at front and back of any item. I appreciate the same opportunity when shopping on-line.
Bob
(Message edited by Bobstamp on April 21, 2011)
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Bob makes an excellent point regarding the scans of covers; backs should be scanned as well as fronts, even though it may have no markings. It is a show of proof that the reverse is in as good (or poor) condition as the front.
Unfortunately, Charlie makes a good point as well; terms are SO subjective from one individual to the next that it's virtually impossible to make anything universally "standard" regarding descriptive terms and their usage.
As David and I and many others know, we made our own futile attempt at such an endeavor not long ago, the end result being our "Descriptive Terms" list posted on this site (which - by the way - is a good "refresher" that everyone should peruse every now and again just to help with auction postings)
....might be a 'can of worms' here, but I'm glad Dan brought it up....a good reminder for all, myself included....
....thanks, Dan!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Perhaps I think too much, but I'm thinking that there are stamps that simply don't exist in "sound" condition.
In some cases, primitive printing methods as well as inks and papers of variable quality means that virtually all existing copies have deteriorated to some degree.
One of the first Canadian self-adhesive issues apparently cannot be found in pristine condition because the adhesive has stained the paper.
Some stamps were issued with gum that contained sulphuric acid -- Germany B68 and C57-58 are three such stamps. The Scott catalogues recommend soaking the gum off mint copies -- so much for soundness there!
Sound copies of stamps printed with fugitive inks probably would be OK on a planet without water, but are at risk, and therefore unsound, on watery planet Earth!
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Immediate Past President - West Essex Philatelic Society www.wepsonline.org
22 Apr 2011
06:34:35am
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
I may be in the minority here but I don't think I need the seller to tell me that the stamp is "sound". I go on the assumption that the stamp is sound unless the seller tells me that there is a problem with the stamp or I can visibly see a problem. I also don't need sellers to tell me the centering unless I'm buying graded stamps (which I don't do). I'll make that determination.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Dear Bob's(Bobstamp & Parkinlot),
You're both right in what you are saying, but I don't think you're talking exactly about the same things. Perhaps I'm wrong-you'll decide. Bob "B" is referencing 'sound' to mean close to perfection, and is using the term rather strictly. Bob "P" comes from a background of knowledge that allows him to make judgments based upon his own experience.
Both of you can agree that there are many starting, newer collectors who are members and who are trying auction bidding/buying/selling for the first time. For them, the greater care we take on descriptions of offerings is a must for our "in house" family auction style. Granted that neither of you more experienced folk may actually need that, but it is a protective shield we long ago adopted to best serve our members.
Bob "B" is as hard on the language as he is on himself- demanding clarity. precision and near perfection.
Bob "P" is also demanding, but uses his knowledge base to come to his own decisions without relying on others.
To my eye, both are excellent, both are correct, and I don't think that they are addressing the exact issues raised by the other-or am I way off base here?
As always though, both points of view enrich us all.
All good thoughts,
Dan C.
Login to Like
this post
Immediate Past President - West Essex Philatelic Society www.wepsonline.org
22 Apr 2011
09:25:53am
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Dan,
I think you are correct. Being a collector for many years I sometimes take some things for granted. To a new collector, telling them that the stamp is sound is a good thing. I also think that adding the centering can be helpful (if accurate) for someone searching for that particular centering. The rub there is if I'm searching for VF, I'm going to be upset if I come up with stamps that I perceive as less than VF. Perceive is the key word unless the stamp is graded. If someone is using over embelished descriptions of their material I'm probably not going to look at their lots in the future.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Happy Good Friday morning,
I've just had the chance to read through this string of messages on the the subject of "sound," after David sent me an email to ask if I could add something to our descriptive terms FAQs.
In between logging out of my email account and making my way to the bottom of this page, I thought to myself, "What is sound?" Talk about nuances - I don't think I've ever thought of a stamp in those terms. The Oxford Dictionary defines sound as "undamaged, in good condition." We philatelists already have our gradings for quality; and a picture in the auction tells us the story better than any words ever can. One person's trader is another collector's perfect stamp because our own individual perceptions matter so much in our collecting world.
I think I've advanced a sound argument towards not adding this word to our descriptive terms, after giving this topic sound consideration; and I don't think that the definition is a sound investment of our time. No hard feelings. I hope everyone will sleep soundly after reading this post. First, though, I'm off to look at my "perfect" stamps.
But seriously, if everyone still wants "sound" to be included in the FAQs, I will be happy to help out.
Andrew
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
I just have to get in on this topic. Black is black, white is white. Sound means no imperfections or damages. One should not have to say sound in a listing, only list the imperfections,
I, like Bob, never state sound, for if a stamp has no problems, it is assumed to be sound. I will only list it if there is a problem such as a tear, thin, missing perf, no gum, etc.
I think that this is really a cut and dried issue, and need not be continued
Richaard
Login to Like
this post
05:21:02pm
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
When it comes to descriptions, the problem is that there are too many individual definitions and interpretations of every word. I have seen stamps described as "superb, thin and torn perfs." What they mean by "superb" is the centering. Totally bogus, just like the example regarding "sound". Other things the bug the crap out of me are vintage, rare, scarce, beautiful, fantastic, and l@@k! This is starting to piss me off, so I'll not write anymore...another shot of tequila is in order now, so excuse me for a moment...
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
23 Apr 2011
02:12:57pm
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
What about "A sound copy for that issue" ?
or
" F to VF for this issue." followed by a scan of a stamp that is so heavily cancelled that you are not sure if it is Wilhelmena or an early Posthorn?
How does that sound to you ?
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Richaard said, "if a stamp has no problems, it is assumed to be sound";
I think an issue here is the ASSUMPTION. If no flaws are listed, are we to automatically assume that it is sound/perfect/unflawed???
Is this always true? In a perfect world, yes; in our real world, NO WAY.
I would welcome the proper use of the term :sound"....if auction listers would use the descriptive terms as they were meant to be used, we wouldn't be having this discussion, so maybe Andrew is right - maybe it wouldn't do any good, anyway.
Randy
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Just wanted to say that this very question has been mulling in my head for the past few days, in much the same way as originally posed by Dan. The ensuing discussion above has been most helpful.
I'm wondering if this has progressed any further in the past several years?
And now for the curious, some of my research findings (aka "Google searches)...
Merriam Webster provides a general definition for the adjective "sound":
: in good condition
: solid and strong
: in good health
: free from mistakes
: showing good judgment
: free from injury or disease
: free from flaw, defect, or decay
Specific to stamps, the APS website did not help but there were several definitions of "sound," with the most succinct being on a "WikiHow" page:
"Stamp grade can be expressed in three broad terms: sound, faulty, or defective. A faulty stamp is one that has minor imperfections, such as a small crease in the corner. A defective stamp is one with major imperfections such as large creases, pinholes, abrasions, or stains. A sound stamp has no imperfections. "
That page is here: http://www.wikihow.com/Find-The-Value-Of-a-Stamp
The WikiHow page is somewhat amateurish, but I wondered if there was any authority behind that definition? I'm guessing the answer is "no."
The Philatelic Foundation provides a list of faults in one of their their pages on expertization:
http://www.philatelicfoundation.org/expertizing-process/why-expertize/
o Thins
o Reperforating
o Added perforations
o Added margins
o Rebacking
o Tears
o Tone spots
o Design repainting
o Perforations trimmed off
o Creases
Is that list of faults complete? I didn't know "rebacking" was even a thing before reading that.
The Philatelic Foundation offers a 43 MB "Grading Manual" that is quite interesting in its own right, although it only uses the word "sound" once:
http://www.philatelicfoundation.org/expertizing-process/
I also found this more recent SOR thread to be quite helpful (and fun to read!):
http://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=22&id=72721#72721
Okay, now that I've spent my entire hobby-time budget on research,
I have no additional stamps sorted or mounted today, but maybe I am just a little bit wiser. -Steve
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
When I see the word "sound" I think:
No creases
No rounded corners
No pulled perfs
No thins
No stains
No scuffs
No toning
No hinge damage (deformities due to heavy hinging)
Perfs do not cut into the design
And in fact no other flaws or alterations whatsoever.
And really, in the case of most stamps being sold on Stamporama which are common stamps with a street value of less than $10, is there any good reason to sell anything but sound examples (as described above)?
I realize covers are a different matter, even less than sound covers may have an appeal and should be described accordingly.
Thanks for listening,
Antonio
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
12 Jun 2015
11:33:11am
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
"Perfs do not cut into the design"
smauggie:
I agree with all your points except this one. The centering of a stamp is part of the production of the stamp and in my opinion, should be considered independently of any faults. A stamp can be off center, but still be "sound".
Roy
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
agree with Roy's agreement and revision
David
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
...and I second Roy's statements.
Wow - this is an old thread!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
"Wow - this is an old thread!"
An oldie but a goodie!
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
"Perfs do not cut into the design"
Perhaps in your minds faults=damage. In my mind, the perfs cutting into the design is a fault, and a production fault to be sure. Such stamps are generally not considered collectible especially the more common stamps generally seen for sale here.
Even so, I am happy to agree to disagree.
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Hi Everyone;
"Perfs do not cut into the design"
Scott's catalog has a note in their catalog, preceding the 19th century listings for all stamp
issues up to Victoria Jubilee issues. It states that because subjects were placed so close
together on the production printing plate, that stamps that were clear of perfs touching
the design on all four sides were scarce to very rare and command substantially higher prices
than listed. The same thing applies to cancels of the period, that were typically very heavy,
and that medium to light CDS cancels were also scarce to very rare and again, fetching sub-
stantially higher prices!
I have also noticed this in some of the Edward VII issues, that one with very good centering
are not all that common, and same with cancellations also, are not super common.
Just an observation....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Antonio, it's so rare that we disagree, but we do on perfs.
Sound doesn't refer to the collectibility of the stamp, but the absence of flaws introduced post production. Misregistration of colors similarly is a production problem, but doesn't make the stamp unsound; it just changes it from a C3 to C3a. Similarly, a production design that doesn't take into account the space required for perfs, paper shrinkage, and misregistration doesn't make it unsound, merely moves it from desirable to less desirable until the problem is so pronounced that it turns it into Dan Cohen's treasured territory: EFOs.
You needn't reply; leaving me with the last word is fine. Like the C3a, it's a rarity.
David
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Dogs are my favorite people. I hang with this one as often as I can.
01 Aug 2015
08:43:07am
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Is this a sound stamp? I vote no.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/311412924517?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Login to Like
this post
09:26:01am
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
According to PSE centering & soundness are separate issues
Here is the pdf version
Grading Stamps
"The preliminary grade of a stamp has two components:
Soundness - the presence or absence of faults
Centering - the balance among the four margins
SOUNDNESS
. Faultless: The stamp is completely sound, free of all faults.
. Very Minor Fault: Minor gum skips or short gumming on NH stamps
. Minor Fault: Tiny thin spot (
1mm), Tiny natural paper inclusion, Natural surface wrinkle on the face of a rotary press stamp, Small corner perf crease, Tiny toned spot, etc.
.Fault: Light crease, Small thin (1-4 mm) or two tiny thins, Small tear (
1mm), Short perf (even with the bottom of the holes), Pinhole, Small stain, Natural straight edge, etc.
.Major Fault: Heavy crease or two light creases, Thin, two small thins or three tiny thins, Large tear or two small tears, Large stain, Repair (e.g., filled thin, added perf, etc.), Natural straight edge on two sides, Several faulty, clipped pulled or short perfs, etc."
For some countries, the design cut into the perfs is still centered such as these 1899 Brazil issues (Sc 140-150A) noted as such in the catalogue.
Login to Like
this post
Dogs are my favorite people. I hang with this one as often as I can.
01 Aug 2015
10:13:44am
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Look at the hole next to the J. That's a fault.
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Sharyn,
you are correct; that lovely centered, full margined PB is not sound. The hole is a post-production fault.
David
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Dogs are my favorite people. I hang with this one as often as I can.
02 Aug 2015
05:43:29am
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Thanks, David.
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
The big problem is that most sellers do not bother to describe anything to do with condition. You cannot usually see a Thin, small tear or light crease from a scan or even less a picture. Not only do I want sellers I buy from to note any faults but also want them to confirm that there are not any. I also do not buy anything sight unseen nor expect anyone to buy from me without a scan. I provide good scans on black backround so that buyer can see what they are getting and any perf faults show up well as compared to a White backround. I would suspect that every stamp is "damaged" when viewed with an electron microscope! So where does one draw the line and how much time does one spend on a stamp valued at a couple dollars that your are going to sell for 70 cents. After determining correct I.D., I hold each stamp up to the light to check for thins and check for tears creases stains, scuffs etc. The more expensive the stamp the longer I look at it. My standard description of condition for stamps that I cannot see any faults is "Sound stamp. No thins, tears etc. Perfs as per scan". If I do detect faults I note them as accurately as possible without making the stamp seem like a complete turd, unless it is. If there is something nice to say about a damaged stamp then I will often state that in the description as well. Damaged stamps are then priced according to their misgivings usually at 10% or less. I have sold and traded 10's of thousands of stamps in the last 30 years with probably less than 10 complaints. I can't say my experience is any where close when it comes to buying. Centering has nothing to do with a stamp being sound or not.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
Hi AntoniusRa;
There is another side of that coin as far as what you would like sellers to go to the trouble to do,
to satisfy that you are getting a quality stamp. In another thread I read what you said about not
wanting to pay more than 10-15% of catalog value. You kinda get what you pay for and in most
sellers opinion 10-15% is not enough to justify that extra effort.
I do take that extra effort and my buyers know that. I never sell for less than 66% of catalog, ex-
cept for damaged stamps. No I do not sell all of the stamps that I list. But sell more than enough
to satisfy my needs. The last three months I transfered $50-$80+/month to my checking account
from PayPal. Stamp sales is all I use that account for.
Most of my 15 buyers are repeat buyers many times over. They return because they know if I re-
commend a particular item that I know they need, I don't send other buyers there to bid them up.
I set a starting bid at the least amount I'm expecting. So I don't need but one bidder. That is
called excellent customer service and worth the higher price.
Just my opinion....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
re: Definition of "Sound"-as it applies to stamps
TuskenRaider,
I do not buy from dealers. Everything I buy comes from one forgiegn auction house. They always have many items I need, weekly, with little competition and few reserves.
I also have an advantage in that I know most world wide material better than the auction house does. I would never let them auction any of my own collections because I would lose.
I seldom buy singles or stocks but usually collections or parts of collections. I said I did not like paying over 10-15% but in most instances I actually pay 3.5-5%.
However, I will pay 100% of catalog for stamps (pre 1950) that catalogs under a dollar if they help my collection. There are some stamps that one cannot get in the 10-15% range due to their popularity. However all of these except a very few can be had for 1/3 of catalog but it requires patience and a good source.
I don't know how I can improve on my service. I provide 300dpi scans and accurate descriptions. I ship within 24 hours and guarantee satisfaction.
Many dealers will try to make you think that their stamps are better than others, even though condition is equal. Also most dealers of world wide material do not know the material as much as they would like you to think. Mis-identification and being out of touch with real world values is very very common.
Most dealers are selling their own material that they have bought at auction or estate sales. An exception are a few of the biggest and worst dealers on Ebay (NYStamps, Noble Spirit come to mind) who often times are selling other peoples collections for a percentage. They are usually junkie and totally over hyped and overpriced and give many newer collectors a bad view of the reality of growing their collections. As in most things most people want to be told what is good for them because it is easier than finding out for themselves. Unfortunately they seem impressed with bells and whistles and semi convincing B.S.
For any of you that are still buying from Mystic, Harris or any of the old big firms, you are throwing your money away.
This is my view and it works for me, I have very few damaged stamps in my collection.
Everyone has their own view and if they are happy with the way things are going then why change.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.