Is It Mint?

Have received some stamps recently that were supposed to be in MNH condition. Now the NH was true but not the MINT part in my opinion. Not being an expert I come to y'all for more knowledgeable opinions on what is mint condition.

This is a shot of the back of a coil pair that is supposed to be MNH.

The black and red discolorations are ink transfer from other stamps it was mailed with.

My understanding of MINT is "Mint means the stamp is in new condition, as it was when it was purchased from the Post Office". This stamp is clearly not in 'post office issue' condition.

So the questions and issues are, mint or not? Am I right in wanting an exchange for true mint stamps?

TIA for your thoughts.

Welcome Stampmutt.
In my opinion mint means unused with gum intact, as opposed to unused which I take to mean uncanceled with no gum.
I think I see gum on the backs of your stamps, it's difficult to tell from the photo.
Sometimes the images of stamps are transferred to the back of stamps after they have been printed and stacked while still damp.
Again, it's hard to tell whether your backs have image transfer (I don't see any distinctive stamp image) or just schmutz from poor storage.
If you got these on ebay (or some other auction site) and you are dissatisfied, then you are entitled to a refund or replacement. Perhaps you should email the seller and open a discussion with them.

Taken from Stamp.net

Mint. A stamp in the same condition as when it was issued and purchased at the post office. Original gum is on the reverse and the stamp has never been hinged into an album.

I agree with this as a Stamp with no gum or hinged should be referred to as "Unused"

older MINT stamps won't look like they just came from the post office.
Gum yellows with age, cracks, etc..
If there is not hinge mark, than it is fair to call it mint.
though there seems to be something going on along the bottom, form the left stamp into the right one.
Is that a gum disturbance?

I guess the other question is did you see a photo of the backs of these when you purchased them? I think if you did, then it's buyer beware, or aware.

Thanks for the thoughts y'all. Sorry for the bad photo. Haven't got the hang of avoiding glare or macro focus yet.

Those are fresh gum coils. The stamps are in VF condition. Full gum lined pair. Fronts are very clean.

The discoloration IS ink transfer from other stamps. This is not gum aging. This is a by product of bad shipping practices causing ink from one stamp to transfer to another. The transfers are not full image transfers. Mostly the amount shown above. The photo blurs the ink. IRL it looks worse.

Here maybe these will show it better:


Group shot from same lot:


I guess the bottom line question is whether I can keep these in my collection and classify them as MINT. If I could trade them as MINT to another collector with good conscience.

There were no photos of the backsides of the stamps. The front photos showed pristine issues and the claim was MNH.

My opinion - to trade or otherwise advertise with good conscience as mint, I would state with blemishes on reverse. At lease let a potential buyer/trader make an informed decision. Being honest may open up future opportunities with that individual which otherwise would not materialize.

In my opinion, a transfer of ink onto the back is a defect that needs to be mentioned. MNH does not tell the whole story without the addition of something like "ink transfer on gum" to the description. (And yes, I understand that it might not be "mint" any longer, but that is just a definitional issue we have to deal with...similar to MNG, which might be an oxymoron, but we generally know what the seller means.)

If I was inclined to pay a premium for "NH" stamps (and I am not), I would be disappointed with this pair, particularly if I had actually paid any sort of a premium for it.

The real issue might be the seller's choice of packing methods. This is definitely a storage or packing issue, and not a production issue, because of the different colors on each stamp of the pair. I'm surprised that so many sellers routinely overlap or stack gummed stamps, and I've had several issues with stuck stamps or gum transfers over the years. It is a risky practice that should at least be pointed out to the seller, even if you decide to live with it.

My 2d.

Stamp.net gives one possible definition. Always best to clarify with a seller first on how they define condition. For most people that I deal with for older cdn stamps define mint as unused and the define condition separately (very fine, fine, very good, etc) and also stated H or NH and NG or OG

Imo, buyer always assumes risk unless specific questions are asked and incorrect answers given

I'm not going to get into the debate on precise definitions, but it seems that the stamps may have been described accurately, and left the seller intact, but have been damaged by shoddy shipping practices. I would say if you're not happy then decide whether you would accept a part refund, or do you want to return them for a full refund, then contact the seller and explain the situation. He/she if fair will practise good customer service, recognise that you are unhappy, and rectify the situation.
If not, then you have a further battle on your hands, but hopefully it won't come to that.
I agree with cjd and nbuckeye, these are defects which should be mentioned if you sell them on.

Regarding your particular order, I would contact seller as previous posters state, it may be from shipping. The seller may dispute this and without pictures of the stamps prior to purchase, it would be a tough argument

Well, if the ink on the gum is from the stamp it was shipped with, then that other stamp should have spots with missing, or thinned ink. If that's true, then it is shipping problem. If the fronts of all the stamps are pristine, then stamps were sold like that. If that is the case, then by definition from scott, gum of the MNH stamp shouldn't have any disturbance. I think that if MNH stamp was stuck to another stamp at some point an bears foreign material on the gum, it is not a MNH stamp anymore.

In both situations you can do an exchange or refund

Oh I dunno, I kinda like the front of the stamp.Cant see the back in my albums.

It looks a MNH stamp to me - although certainly with ink transfer and perhaps some gum disturbance due to exposure to humidity, etc. Exposure to humidity may not necessarily be the fault of previous owners as improper PO storage/handling should, I think, be reasonably suspect in certain cases.

In my humble opinion, when buying a MNH stamp without first examining the gum side, you are taking on risks.