Mng Vs Mnh/Mh

while looking for some new additions on ebay, found a set that I am interested in. the seller lists the set as MNG (mint, no gum). how does this rank and compare in catalog values?

just looking for personal opinions, to help me form my own.

would you consider this between MH and MNH, or rank it below MH?

and in theory, couldn't it just be the gum removed from MH?

it isn't a rare or expensive set, so I will probably hold out for something MNH, but curiosity has gotten the best of me.

A lot seems to depend on the collector,
but I would think highest to lowest hiearchy
would be MNH MH then MNG
Personally, and I would be in the minority
I would always choose MNG, because I think gum is detrimental
to the longevity of a stamp.
Certainly to hold catalogue values MNH is the best.

I wash the gum from the majority of my stamps,
but it's all a personal journey and regime.

Like Rod my ranking would be the same - MNH MH MNG

But we differ in that I prefer MNH (the orignal article without alteration)

But it is all about personal taste and preference - there is no right or wrong

And it depends hugely on the country and timeframe. A MNG from just about anywhere from the 1850s or 1860s will be worth a much bigger percentage of catalogue value than a 2011 MNG from just about anywhere.

I personally don't care about the distinction for the Indian States I collect. My favourite stamps were issued without gum anyway, and even for those that were gummed, the vast majority of Indian States collectors think as I do: who cares?

And who cares about gum when the Post Office has a nice big glue pot handy, as they did in Charkhari State:

Yes - Price wise it is MNH, MH, MNG. To me if the stamp is still visually sound from the front it does not bother me what the back looks like - I cannot remember the last time I took a stamp out to show a friend what the back looked like.

Then you also have to worry about regumming with the older issues. Now what about UMM and MM

Tony you do show the most interesting pieces!

Regards
Drew

I avoid purchasing MNG stamps in general (but extra careful on the classics) because I've seen quite a few that I suspect are used stamps with the cancel washed off. To me, it is not a catalog value issue, but how confident can I be that the stamp is actually truly unused. If you collect unused stamps and don't worry about these things, then you can save a whole bunch of money.

There are a few collectors who do prefer no-gum stamps, because they are more "stable" and can often be purchased with huge discounts (below wholesale prices). Just be careful of washed cancels or uncanceled used stamps -- especially if the catalog value of the mint stamps is 2 or more orders of magnitude greater than the used stamp.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, likewise be very careful of if the catalog value of the used stamp is 2 or more orders of magnitude greater than the mint stamp. In those cases, you will often encounter plenty of fake used stamps created by washing the gum off mint stamps and putting on fake/favor cancels.

I would also agree with that order.
But I find the MNG thing a bit of a misnomer. I always thought that if there was no gum then it was not mint. I think the term is 'unused'.

A few disconnected thoughts:

I agree that MNG is a bit of an oxymoron, but it is pretty descriptive.

Plenty of sellers use "Unused" for stamps that still have gum, so there is a big education/acceptance gap for that term (and I tend to agree that "Uncancelled" might be more accurate in most cases).

Before ruling out a Mint No Gum stamp, it is probably worth knowing (from the catalogue) whether it was actually No Gum As Issued (MNGAI or NGAI).

I haven't gone as far as Rod by actually removing gum, but in some circumstances, I'll accept a stamp without gum (at a huge discount from catalogue).

I still see sellers thinking they are doing us a favor by selling MNG at "only" 50% of catalogue. I'm thinking more like 5-7% of catalogue. (Again, it depends on the stamp.)

Good point. When the Scott catalog prices no gum stamps, it is often at 10-33% of the catalog value of mint HINGED stamps; with the very high ticket items upwards of 50%. And Scott will only price those for high catalog value stamps. You can pretty much infer that other no gum stamps will be <10%.

And yes, we are talking about stamps that were issued with gum, not the "issued without gum" stamps.

For the very oldest Canadian stamps (Large Queens and older), it's very unlikely to find any MNH issues for most of the values. Other than the 1/2 cent Large Queen and the two 15c Large Queens, there's not much of a chance of ever finding a MNH stamp. The catalogue price for these oldest stamps has a significant surcharge with partial original gum and is something I avoid, as it opens a whole can of worms about how partial does it need to be and how do you tell if it's original gum when the perf tips aren't gummed, etc.

So, I look for MNG earlies (or often regummed stamps, which I then wash). For the rest of my Canadian collection I aim for MNH, with the exception of a couple of unusual cases (Jubilees $2 and greater because of high catalogue values, same with the 10c Small Queen, and OX1 because it's noted as being too difficult to find with MNH gum). And for the earlies with mint values that are too rich for my blood, I go for used stamps - just picked up #2 and #5 at auction last week, yay!

Ryan

Very interesting opinions, enjoyed reading them all.
Being a world wide collector, it sets a lower standard just by
volume alone, but I am very much tending to collect multiples
as I go along, I may have a washed "uncancelled" stamp
at the beginning of a row horizontally across the album page,
followed by identical stamps exhibiting different cancellation formats.

I kinda feel that I have a story of the country's postal
history as the page builds.
As we worldwiders generally hinge, it makes sense to wash gum,
it prevents all sorts of adhesion problems along the way.
It is not a dogmatic ideal, I do have some remaining with gum,
and cross my fingers when I mount them, especially those with dodgy
ink problems (russia, netherlands indies etc)

Then I have the problem of the "undecideds" as my recent
purchase from LondonBus of the NewYork's world fair set.

Do I leave them gummed together? put them in the sweat box ?
or wash (which will be no small feat)
Washing in my opinion, will have them just like new, still,
in 100 years time.

I may have missed it, but I think an important point was left out.

No-gum stamps from the classic era have a higher than average chance of being used stamps with cancellations washed off, than modern stamps.

There is a huge discrepancy in value between original gum and no gum stamps for this very reason.

And it's because of this reason, I try to collect only original-gum stamps only.

Brian

I think Philb mentioned this point Brian,
would not a UV lamp easily identify washed cancellations?
(I realise not available when purchasing on-line)

This subject is right on target for my current project. I am currently breaking up a massive collection (150,000 - 200,000 stamps) mounted in numerous albums. The collector whom started the collection wasn't very careful as most mint stamps are stuck to the pages. Fortunately, there are accompaning used stamps, therefore I will have a great used collection when finished. But what to do with the mint stamps that are stuck to the pages? I could spend time soaking them all off, but then what do I have? Since there is no established value for them, are they then worthless? If they do have value, is it worth the time to soak them off? If I remove all of the used stamps and those mint ones that aren't stuck, is there any value in the pages with stuck stamps still on them? I have been throwing them out but you have me rethinking that position.

I always am wary of mint no gum descriptions, especially with classic US. I want to make sure that it has had a cleaned cancel. Which I have found on a bunch of classics, used and mint.

Gum on a mint stamp is proof of a mint stamp, mint no gum calls that into doubt. The premium paid for mint, never hinged is a nonsense, though.