Pencil Marks On Classic Mints

Don and essayk, I understand the nature of these reflections. But I don't share the view that successfully erasing a pencil mark, removing a hinge remnant from a used stamp, washing a soiled stamp in mild soap and water, etc., are necessarily documentable aspects of a stamp's history. These actions remove extraneous elements without affecting the condition of the stamp as it existed before the elements were introduced. On the other hand, if you were to market a stamp as "mint, PO fresh pristine and immaculate" or something like that then, yes, anything that happened to the stamp after it left the PO should be discoverable.

What baffles me is why any modern collector would continue to pencil on the backs of mint unhinged stamps? I have seen them penciled so heavily that you can read the number from the FRONT of the stamp! In my opinion that is a damaged stamp and I sure wouldn't buy from or trade with anyone who defaces good stamps in that manner. Boo hiss!

In any case, Kudos for starting this thread. It is an excellent idea to discuss these problems in forums like this to help educate new collectors so that they don't destroy the value of their stamps.

My grandmother used a permanent laundry pencil to write the catalog number & value on the face of every cover......






So it's not a real deal breaker if I'm looking to purchase an 80 year old stamp, but I'd never do it.

While I agree (in principle) marking the back of a gummed stamp, NH
or otherwise, indeed affects it's perceived intrinsic value, (which,
most certainly varies from collector to collector, both the highly
experienced collector and, perhaps to lesser degree, a more novice,
lesser experienced collector), I would most definitely never judge
*any* stamp as being damaged or 'defaced' (keyword 'face'), simply
due to pencil markings on the gum... there's *many* stamps, which
quite obviously maintain significant high-value not having gum...
a good number of my personal classics are ng's... and consistently
maintained strong value over the years...

My collection is mixed, which, I'm sure many are, in this regard...
however, I respect those whom are the 'gum perfectionists', I am
simply not of that genre, as I appreciate (sometimes with great
satisfaction and even amazement, on occasion), I have been able to
obtain a difficult issue (in VF or better, which is *my* personal
criteria), while gum (to me) is secondary (or, not at all, depending
upon the issue).

I began my prized collection long, long before the 'NH craze' began,
and I'm not about to change, anytime soon...

Randall

I have come to think of Original Gum as the ticking time bomb in my collection.

1) OG makes a stamp much more vulnerable to already unwelcome variations in temperature & humidity;

2) OG is always subject to newer/better detection technologies that render it not-so-O;

3) the OG premium rides on a set of values that - respect other people's choices or not - I'd prefer to see less of.

While the MNHOG Tyranny necessarily means that other stamps - such as those with pencil on their backs - are available at a significant discount to MNHOG prices, it does not necessarily mean that those prices are, in absolute terms, lower than they would otherwise be.

In other words, we can enjoy the feeling of a relative discount but, skilled in multiple regression analysis as I am (or once was), I would not have great confidence in any analysis that told me that lightly-hinged stamps would sell for more, or sell for less, in a less-MNHOG-obsessed world.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

I have been known to pencil notes on the back of stamps of whatever type, mint or used. If done lightly, it doesn't bother me. What irks me are when the notes are incorrect or when someone has attached a hinge. I would rather have graphite lightly applied than hinges.

I too don't understand the obsession with gum and the back of the stamp, unless collections are for investment. It's slightly more irksome than the fastidious casual collectors concern about minor defects and repairs.

This is apples and oranges. The creases and thins, whether visible to the naked eye or not are, without question "faults/defects" whereas erased pencil marks leaving no trace are definitely NOT a defect.

Is the fact that the pencil mark(s) was erased something a seller should be ethically obligated to disclose? I do not believe so. I don't see it as an ethical issue at all, I see it as visual evidence. In other words, there is NO visual evidence to discuss or describe as a "fault". Would you disclose as part of the sale of a stamp that you removed a hinge from it? That you took a perf tip that was folded over and unfolded it, leaving no trace of the "unfolding". While "full disclosure" seems like the moral/ethical thing to do, isn't there a line where we would need to cross before that even becomes an option? I don't necessarily think I have the EXACT answer to this question by Essayk. Others may think they do. I am happy to hear their arguments.

There is always that line of honesty of a seller that is never 24-karat honesty. Some 18-karat which is above average. 12 to 14-karat honesty which is par for the course, and then the 8-10 karat honesty of the intentionally ignorant or malignantly avaricious (or both). It is really not realistic to expect 24-karat honesty, much as I would love to believe it exists (except perhaps among the scrupulous and the daydreamers).

I think what a wonderful world if everyone used 24-karat honesty, but that world does not exist on this earth, just me longing for my final, eternal home.

I think what we can take away from this discussion is that different folks have different standards for what they want in their collection. If someone wants the nicest stamp that they can afford - from the front only - well that's just fine. If they want to insist on the nicest back of the stamp they can afford, well that's just fine, too. It is their collection after all. I can understand the resistance to the gum issue by those who don't really care, but think of the glass as half full instead! If you don't care about the back, you can fill your album spaces a whole lot cheaper than the person who is a gum fanatic! yahoo!

I fall somewhere in the middle. For modern material, I'd prefer pristine gum, but for classic material? Well then the front is a thousand times more important to me than the gum. My previous remark disparaging pencilling was in regards to writing on modern stamps so heavily as to emboss the paper.

Of justice and mercy, it is said that a world of only justice could not survive, and a world of only mercy could not survive.

Surely, if a bread crumb slobbers its way from my lips to my stamps, I am allowed to remove it without forever 'disclosing' that the stamp has been touched by a bit of insect-baiting whole wheat bread?

And, just as surely, as a buyer I would not want every listing I read to be festooned with this sort of detail?

After all, if I know that I left my album open during a nap, do I have to disclose for how many hours sunlight passed thru what grade of window glass, whether/not the sunlight hit the page directly? Even if that may have triggered a chemical process in the ink that has not yet run its course?

Similarly, if I rescued the stamp from a moldy album page, do I have to disclose the potential time bomb ticking within the fibers?

Surely, at some point, every stamp is for sale 'as is' (eg, 'as it is right now')?

23 karats?

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

I once almost bought a collection of mint stamps that had all of their catalog numbers penciled on the back of the gum of each stamp, but I didn't buy it because of this. Even though, one can erase the pencil marks, it takes a lot of work to do so and the stamp can potentially get damaged in the process with an accidental crease or more.

Nice commentary Ikey Pikey. Well said.

I would just like to insert parenthetically that this is probably the most thought-provoking thread I've seen in my relatively short time on this forum.

Here is a cover I have had for years and you can see in the bottom left corner the date "1893" in pencil..Was going to remove it with an eraser but worried that it will lighten up the paper and look obvious...And dont know how some one determined the year when the cancel does not show it.



And this one, 1891 cover..

Robert,
Interesting; it reflects some of the issues with these kinds of additional pencil remarks. Was this penciled in by someone who was 'guessing' or by someone who had hard evidence (such as a no-longer enclosed letter with date)?
In general, I would estimate that abut 25% of the time marks I find on stamp/covers are incorrect. What is everyone's else's opinion on the general accuracy of these kinds of pencil IDs?
Don