Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Pet Peeve #187: "Mint Revenue, Scott Unlisted, Rare!"

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 2 / Views: 1,883Next Topic  
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
5307 Posts
Posted 06/19/2014   9:59 pm  Show Profile Check revenuecollector's eBay Listings Bookmark this topic Add revenuecollector to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
[Let me preface by saying that this is MY personal opinion. It may not reflect that of other collectors of U.S. revenue stamps. Some may consider it to be splitting hairs, but I believe the distinction to be an important one.]

There's nothing more annoying to me than when I see one of the 1st-3rd issue U.S. revenues offered, whether on eBay, Bidstart, the StampStore, at auction, or in a show dealer's stock, as "Mint, Scott unlisted, rare, LQQK!!"... and it's a stamp without gum.

I know that with front-of-book material, an uncancelled stamp without gum is considered unused, albeit below the level of "mint", e.g., "mint no gum" or "MNG". In my opinion it is exactly the OPPOSITE case with early revenues. Uncancelled revenues are "used but uncancelled". The majority have been soaked or sweated off documents.

Unlike the USPS, which was fairly diligent in ensuring that stamps were canceled, revenue stamps, depending on the business or person in question, were at times just slapped onto documents without care as to cancellation, despite regulations requiring that they be cancelled. I'm sure that they felt that as long as they were sticking the stamps on there, the required tax was being paid, and they were doing their due diligence.

I cannot count the number of revenue-affixed documents I have seen where the documents are uncancelled... that doesn't mean they are unused.

This is far more frequently the case with revenue stamps than postage stamps.

Therefore, the only way to truly consider one of the 1st-3rd issue revenues as "unused" is if (1) the stamp is uncancelled, (2) it has a large part original gum, and (3) it shows no evidence of document offset. I have seen plenty of cancelled and uncancelled fully gummed revenues with offset from the document they were affixed to. Presumably, temperature and humidity fluctuations over the years allowed the stamps to "pop" off the document, especially if the amount of water/saliva used to affix them was minimal to begin with.

If someone wants to pay a premium because they are trying to build a collection of uncancelled early revenues, then more power to them (it's actually much harder than it sounds, and uncancelled revenues showing the designs in all their glory ARE beautiful), but the buyer should know what it is they are actually buying.

I find some of the sales tactics annoying... I see sellers/dealers frequently trying to charge premiums for uncancelled no-gum revenues, using the fact that Scott does not price the 1st-3rd issues (and the 1st and 2nd issue Proprietaries) unused vs. used as evidence of scarcity and therefore worthy of large premiums. Well, if they are actually mint 1st-3rd issue revenues, they *are* fairly scarce... but most of what is being offered out there as mint, in fact is not.

In my opinion, the standard has to be: no gum? It's used.

Is it a huge deal? Probably not... but it is annoying nonetheless.

Related observations: The 1st and 2nd issue Proprietaries seem to be more common with full gum than the 1st-3rd issue revenues. 2nd and 3rd issue revenues that are truly mint are considerably more scarce than 1st issue. 1st issue imperforates and part perforates are virtually IMPOSSIBLE to find as mint full gum.

Here endeth the rant.

A few examples of early revenues with full gum (scanners don't do as good a job showing reflection on gum as cameras do):




Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
United States
7605 Posts
Posted 06/19/2014   10:32 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add revcollector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I agree, there are no "unused" revenues. There are many NGAI revenues, but any revenue issued with gum MUST have gum to be a mint stamp.
The reason there are more mint proprietaries is that documentaries were used by everyone, but proprietaries were only used by companies that were selling a product. If a company went out of business they might have small quantities of proprietary revenue stamps left over that were never redeemed or used. No doubt some of these wound up in collector's hands. Any documentaries left over could be used by anyone with a need, so there would be less chance of a collector winding up with them.

It is very common on eBay,etc to see match & medicines treated the same way (sometimes even by very experienced dealers who certainly know better). Because the law stated "stamps can be either torn upon opening or cancelled", most were not cancelled and even stamps showing obvious signs of use are often called "mint no gum".
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2880 Posts
Posted 06/20/2014   10:59 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Rileysan to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thank you - this is good information! Although I don't call myself a revenue collector, I have a lot of them. I have wondered to myself why Scott didn't list mint values, and now I understand why.

Brian
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous TopicReplies: 2 / Views: 1,883Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2021 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2021 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.45 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05