Cv Of An Unused Without Gum

If I were bidding on an unused, no-gum stamp (which I have done in the recent past), I'd consider what my max bid would be if it were mint hinged, which is usually around 30-50% of catalog value. With no gum, I'd cut that in half or so, or roughly 15-25% of catalog value. While that might be my max bid, online auctions for such material will often be won at less than that. In the case of the no-gum stamps I bid on, I was confident they were actually unused, since postal use of that particular set was pretty sparse and the set is valued much higher in used condition.

And for the record I have no problem per se with unused no gum stamps. It is a near certainty that I will never look at the back of that stamp again while it's mounted in its current album. It'll only ever be seen by me again if I were to remove it for sale or for remounting in a different album. It's not that I prefer no-gum stamps, but I've gotten some good deals on stamps that might otherwise be outside my price range, and they look just as good as stamps with gum once they're mounted.

@HungaryForStamps

No, I was a buyer.
At the end, I took the whole lot of the seller ( there was another additionnal stamp) and I got both for 20 dollars !

Now, the question is : At which % of the Catalogue Value of a Mint Hinged ( with gum) can I sell it ?
I will place it in my store, but I have to find the correct price.

As that kind of stamp ( unused without gum) is frequently encountered on ebay, I was thinking that there was a "rule"for estimating it ! But it seems that such a "rule" doesn't exist.

Do you think that it will be helpful to get some certification ?

When you read the original post on this thread......then, wade/plod through all the other postings you really get a better understanding of why the United Nations fails to resolve conflicts.

@XNBer
I don't understand where there is a derivation from my 1st post.
We are talking about Unused stamp without gum.

I took an example for a 30c that I would buy.
The stamp was on an auction and I would like to know before bidding with a high sum if it exists a cotation for reselling such kind of stamp.
But the topic was for all stamps like that one ( Unused, no gum).

After having received some advices from the present forum, I was much more careful than before; and as I know now that there is no "rule"for cotation od such stamps, I am no more giving high price for them.

I think that the other buyers knew that and they too didn't give high prices.

My first idea was to know if that "rule"was existing.
My stamp was only an example, typical for an huge difference between * and used.

Please note that I am always asking a % ( estimated according to your experiences)compared to a *stamp and not $ for my stamp!
Because that % can be applied to any stamps of such a type.

Priatel-
I am on your side.
I was only trying to prompt clearer answers to a question.
It just seemed to me that clarity in some answers suffered.
I've been wrong before, though.No doubt, I'll be wrong again.
Apologies to all.

I agree with everything that revcollector has said. And I would describe it (after verifyig that it has not been cleaned/cancel removed) as "Unused/no gum". And I value stamps only by market value and in the case of Swiss stamps, I do not know that market.

Many dealers/collectors use "mint" to refer to gummed stamps and "unused" to refer to gumless uncanceled stamps.

Personally, I would call it "Uncanceled" as there is no way to possibly know whether it was actually used or not.

Many U.S. revenues sold as "unused" were in fact used, but uncanceled, and then soaked/sweated from their documents. I've ranted about that mischaracterization before.

I know this is at odds with the front-of-book collectors, but I don't consider a stamp to be "unused" unless it has gum... it's merely uncanceled.

I believe the U.S. Specialized lists "No gum" prices for many early stamps. While it doesn't correlate to Swiss material, those listings might give you a representative of no-gum values vs. gummed at least for U.S. material.

Uncancelled but used revenues tends to be much more of an 1898 and later problem than an 1862-1883 problem. Those early revenues were almost always cancelled, but the same collectors were saving them in the 19th century, when habits and mounting conspired to lose the gum on a lot of mint stamps. I am not at all enamored with mint or unused revenues personally, so I will not pay a premium for them.

"I believe the U.S. Specialized lists "No gum" prices for many early stamps. While it doesn't correlate to Swiss material, those listings might give you a representative of no-gum values vs. gummed at least for U.S. material."

Yes it does, for more expensive stamps. The no gum alues tend to be around 1/3 to 1/2 of the value of mint hinged.

But the scarcity ratio that creates those values only relate to the specific US classic looked up. Classic Switzerland issues might be more or less common in both hinged and/or unused condition than the US issues, and so that percentage has no actual relevance to Swiss issues. Plus European collectors have always been very particular about their stamps, and that also plays into it.