Fingerprints

I am interested in hearing opinions about the impact of a fingerprint on an otherwise MNH stamp. I've received 5 or 6 recently (all but one on German definitives). Naturally, the sellers did not describe the fingerprints and professed ignorance when I told them.

For me, age of the stamp makes a difference. It is not a general expectation that 80-100 year old mnh stamps would be pristine, although they can be found - particularly the cheaper items. I have bought greatly discounted mnh German stamps from the 1980's with fingerprints, and in my mind they are less than mnh. The German term is "postfrisch" or postally fresh, meaning the stamp is in perfect condition. That really is the 'spirit' of mnh, and I certainly believe it applies to stamps produced after 1950.

Some would consider it as if hinged and others as if gum disturbed. Fingerprints on the gum of stamps can make the gum look dirty. This is an obvious stamp mishandling problem flaw that affects the condition of a stamp.

A stamp described as "MNH" would still be technically so even if the gum were covered with visible fingerprints. "Mint" has come to mean simply "unused with gum" rather than "post office fresh." To the extent that NH commands a premium, NH without fingerprints would be worth more than NH with fingerprints (even if it were "MNH with original fingerprints").

CORRECT

Technically, I have to agree that a MNH stamp with a fingerprint is still Mint, Never Hinged. But, I'd also argue that a more accurate description would be "Disturbed Gum" with a corresponding drop in value.

Fingerprints in the gum drives me nuts, especially on modern issues.

Self-Adhesives have fixed the "fingerprints in the gum" problem. Created new problems in the process, but that's what they call progress.

Thanks for the insights. I agree with Jarnick- not describing the stamp as "DG" is like not mentioning a tear even though the rest of the stamp is correctly described in all other aspects. To me a fingerprint is DG. Not mentioning something should always be considered deceitful if the condition issue materially affects the value of the stamp. I also agree a fingerprint on a stamp from any era is less valuable than one without gum disturbance.

German stamps of the 20s-50s often have very shiny, very sticky gum but that doesn't mean a fingerprint (or anything else that constitutes disturbed gum) shouldn't be mentioned.