1890 Series Gum Question

Hey guys, I was wondering why this piece doesn't have any gum whereas my other mint stamps in the series do.
I hope it wasn't because it was washed or something like that because it's centered quite nicely.
Thanks

Could just be used ?


Peter

All stamps in the 1890 small banknote set were issued with gum. The light red color on the reverse shows that the stamp has been soaked to remove from paper. The stamp shows a little darkness at lower right on the front so it may be used.

Thanks for the replies!
Does that mean that they washed the postmark off of it? Can it be done as to not hinder the surface coloring?

And one more question: Would this mean that any eBay sale that claims "Mint - NG" is actually a washed stamp (If the series they are selling originally had gum)?

"And one more question: Would this mean that any eBay sale that claims "Mint - NG" is actually a washed stamp (If the series they are selling originally had gum)?"

If by washed you mean they removed a cancel, then no, most have not been washed. If by washed you just mean they had gum removed, then yes. There was a time when some collectors routinely removed the gum from their mint stamps out of fear for what the gum would do to the stamps over time. Also some stamps get stuck down due to poor storage and the main way to remove them without thinning them is to soak them off.

Homes were not air conditioned and many were quite humid inside. No doubt gum on stamps began to stick to whatever they were stored in, so gum was removed to prevent this by some. Because a stamp is listed in eBay as MNG does not mean it is truly mint. If the stamp's color seems weak it could be the cancel was removed - obviously not a 'mint' stamp. Use your own best judgement.

This stamp was the workhorse stamp of its era with huge quantities printed. There are many scenarios why/how this stamp lost its gum. The reason now does not matter, but the slight running of the non-fast ink suggests strongly that it was soaked, as wtcrowe noted. The standard black canceling ink is not really washable, so it is highly unlikely this stamp ever passed through the mail.

I would not get lost in the "mint" weeds of other's eBay descriptions, etc. The descriptions there must be taken with a large grain of salt to reduce the hype effect. This stamp is not "mint", but perhaps more accurately described as "unused, no gum". From a marketing standpoint, most collectors seeking a mint stamp want gum and those seeking a used stamp want an actual cancel, either light, fancy or otherwise interesting. Both collectors also lean strongly toward a copy perforated on all four sides. (and two short perfs at bottom center.) The stamp in question doesn't have much going for it from a demand angle.

Makes a lot of sense! Thanks for the help!
I've read that this particular color was a problem for the mint because it tends to bleed more often than not, so I assumed that may have been the cause.

Most eBay sellers (and many collectors, for that matter) tend to use the term "mint" to mean "unused," regardless of gum condition. This terminological issue has been debated elsewhere on this forum, but for me "mint" should be reserved to describe stamps as they were sold over the counter at the post office, i.e. uncancelled with full OG.

Perhaps Mint = As exactly issued
to accommodate NGAI No Gum as Issued.

I completely agree with that. It potentially lowers the value of actual 'mint' pieces when the term is thrown around loosely to accommodate multiple viewpoints. It should be as coins are, in that any coin showing signs of soaking/handling is then considered "circulated" rather than "uncirculated".

There are multiple meanings because stamps are collected around the world, not just one corner of it. In the UK, "mint" means a substantial amount of gum, but previous hinging etc. In France "neuf" has the same meaning. They're then qualified for stamps that haven't been hinged - "unmounted" in the UK, "sans charnière" in France.

I would range the value of a stamp respectively as followed:
1. Mint (w/gum)
2. Mint Hinged (lightly to heavily depending on the situation)
3. Unmarked (meaning despite not being processed, there is either no gum or it has other medium to major flaws)
4. Marked (lost it's intrinsic value with a postmark).

Anything else (centering/desirable postmarks etc.) should fall into the realm of subjectivity, which could still potentially increase the stamp's value!
So #4 wouldn't necessarily always be the bottom of the barrel, only generally speaking.
Much like nice toning or punch marks could increase the value of a coin, a beautifully done postmark could accomplish the same. But it would be nice to keep those realms separate.

And would just make sense honestly rather than changing the definition of a word.
More often than not, such an un-agreed-upon plethora of meaning would just be taken advantage of by sellers artificially inflating a stamp's value with word-salad.

Geoff you know a lot about the world! I guess that's what stamp collecting can do for a person!