How Do You Grade No Gum Mint Vs Mnh, Mh Etc?

Hi guys,

Running in to a dilemma where there is a nice 1860s Canadian stamp for sale mint, VF but NG. Is there a general guideline I can use to determine the approx CV compared to the standard grades? So I'm wondering if VFMNG would be the same as VFMH or perhaps should be graded as FMH?

I just want to be able to formulate an appropriate bid price based on a real value... right now the seller is basing the CV on the VFMH value, but the stamp has no gum.

Any tips or suggestions on the formula you guys use would be appreciated.

Edit - Disclaimer against laziness: I did try to search for this topic as I'm sure I'm not the first to ask, but didn't find anything that answered by question. :D

Thanks!
Dan

Btw I did find this great topic https://goscf.com/t/15548&SearchTerms=no,gum but it didn't really cover how to establish a value.

Not sure. But I was told to consider them used. They had gum and now no gum, how did that happen?

Stanley Gibbons has some information regarding the gum/no gum/ part gum/ hinged etc

http://www.stanleygibbons.com/stanl..._stamp_guide

Scroll down to the gum section as it does mention early Canada stamps. Difficult to set any normal pricing value as it seems to depend on the issue involved and other factors but this article may assist a little.

I like to use the term, 'stamps in limbo'. They were most likely used and did not receive a cancel, or, they may have been stuck together with another mint stamp(s) and were soaked to 'save' them rather than throw them out. That is always a possibility.

If forced to make a choice, I too lean toward used, not mint. Be careful with this choice though because some countries value their used stamps higher than mint, so, I grade them as used but discounted because of the lack of a cancellation.

Chimo

Bujutsu

It's common, as far as I've seen, to remove gum from older stamps because the gum actually damages the stamp over time. Not sure about Canadian stamps, but might be a possibility.

Unless it is a stamp with a significant premium (>$500) or a stamp which is known to have gum removed to prevent acid damage...

...the selling price should be <10% of catalog of unused price. That's assuming you are confident it is genuinely unused. Without gum, unless you know the history, how can one know if it was originally a mint stamp that stuck and had to be soaked, or if it was a used stamp that didn't get canceled or had a light cancel washed off? Whether mint or used, it's a major fault to have no gum or no cancellation. But describing it correctly is often a gray area.

For some premium items, some specialty catalogs will provide a price for unused no gum stamps (e.g., Scott US Specialized for some of the classic US stamps). On the high premium items, if memory serves correct, the "unused no gum" price ranged roughly from 10%-33% of the "unused hinged with original gum" catalog value. So you can assume on the less valuable items, the expected price should be <10%.

Scott Specialized (2010 edition) does not list a value for unused stamps with no-gum after scott #218 and the 19th. century stamps in the back of the book (some exceptions noted below). I check the percentage on a random selection (about a dozen or so) and it ranged for 29% to 40% of mint, hinged retail pricing (Not mint, origional gum pricing). The older the issue, the higher the percentage seems to be the case. I've read, on this site somewhere (I think it was this site?) that many early collectors washed the gum off mint stamps because of concerns about stamps sticking to pages and perhaps other concerns (due to climate and temperature I'm guessing) so I suppose that there is a higher frequency of no- gum "mint" stamps on earlier issues. There is also concerns for used stamps on early issues that have the cancels removed to be considered, as stated by khj above. For common issues after #218, 10% possibly is the high side. For higher values, it could be more or less depending upon supply/demand/condition etc. I should note that the $1.00 postage value and above Columbian, Trans-Mississippi and Bureau issues do reflect a no-gum price. From the third bureau issues on, I didn't see any no-gum pricing even for rare issues such as #482A. Many collectors of mint stamps generally view no-gummmed issues, after the early classics, as used stamps.

WOW guys, thank you so much, I certainly didn't expect so many helpful answers so quickly! Well the stamp in question was a small queen Canada stamp valued at $900 for mint hinged but was actually being sold as VF Mint no gum, no faults and sold for $26! I didn't end up grabbing it (completely forgot to bid) but thought for that price, it would make an excellent show stamp for the album. In terms of older stamps, I would never bother with a no gum mint stamp that is newer than say C# 200 or so... just no point. But for stamps that sell for more than $500 for mint hinged, it's not a bad alternative.

Thanks again everyone, I really appreciate the input and I've bookmarked this thread for re-reading and reference :)

Dan

Assuming it wasn't altered and showed absolutely no signs of any sort of residual cancel or postal usage, <3% catalog is not a bad price.

If you plan on buying premium unused no gum stamps as a habit, you should invest in a VERY good magnifier and a strong dual wavelength UV lamp to weed out the altered/misrepresented ones. It's not unusual for sellers to unintentionally miss a residual cancel. Be especially careful with stamps that have an order of magnitude difference between the unused and used prices.

Thanks for checking the numbers, 'Gator. I thought I remembered seeing 1-2 in the 10-15% range, but my memory is not reliable.

kjh, There very well may be many/some in the 10-15% range. My sampling wasn't intended to imply most were in that 29-40% range, certainly not a scientific study, just the way it fell on those I checked---and it was random---an interesting exercise anyway. As I get older, memory does slip away........and it gets harder and harder to remember things too!

It may turn out you are still right and my memory is just plain unreliable!

Only one solution, go play with our stamps!

Not much to add, as my general thoughts have already been said. I'd also treat 5-10% as a starting point and go up or down from there. I can still be tempted by a beautiful XF stamp without gum, but it is going to have to have a big discount off of what I might normally pay.

It was touched on above, but if a stamp has any other special characteristic (e.g., a surcharge variety), NG is a nonstarter for me. Too much opportunity for hijinks at some point along the line. (And yes, I know that 5 euros and international postage to Germany will get someone a fair regumming, so gum shouldn't be much comfort, at all.)

In light of this subject. Kevin in the current SCF sales has a pair of stamps Scott # 300 & 301 that he lists as Mint but they both have no Gum. I have sent him two P.M.'s asking him how they could be Mint with no gum . I asked him the first time about four days ago and the last time I sent him a P.M. two days ago. He has not replied to either of my P.M.'S. I think He is ignoring my question and trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. Buyer beware.

I can certainly understand soaking a mint stamp that's stuck to a mounting page or something, but unless you're completely aware of why the gum was removed, I would certainly be wary. Anyhow, I think in the end I will just treat the stamp as used and base my price offering off that. Thanks again guys, appreciate everyone that took to the time to provide from feedback for me.

Dan