Stamp Condition Considerations.

I have been pondering the issue of "no gum" versus hinged. I tend to avoid NG stamps unless it is a hard to find stamp or a darn good price. I consider NG to be a major fault because it is user inflicted damage. If the gum was removed, I assume it was removed because of a major gum issue. Either a heavy hinge, multiple hinges, etc, and looking ugly. I do not know of any catalogs that list values for NG stamps that were issued gummed.

I consider tears as a very major issue and would only buy a stamp that is torn if it is a very rare stamp. A tear is from neglect.

A thin is a little more acceptable to me because it was "unintentional" damage by owner caused by a hinge removal.

I consider CTOs as cinderellas that look like stamps but only collectable as space fillers. They have no value and never will have value.

Off center stamps are less of an issue to me than back flaws. That was done by the printing company and not end owner damage yet that is what the catalogs want to set the value on. I am more concerned with damage done by the consumers.

Straight edges do not bother me if it was part of the original sheet (unless it was cut perfs). Others would set a lower value, which I could never understand.

What is every one else's opinion?
What do you avoid in your collections?

Bear in mind NG may also indicate a the gum was deliberately removed to avoid crackling gum/paper on classics or outright damage due to undesirable gum composition.

Still I basically share a your opinion, particularly about CTO. I'm away from my catalogs right now, but seem to remember that Scott Classical Specialized often list values for unused no gum for the classic issues of several countries.

As I am 'hingeless' collector myself, I think thins caused by hinges are unforgivable

Blaamand is correct. In an earlier age philatelists were advised to soak the gum off stamps to avoid just this sort of damage.

My thoughts: The "NG as a fault" proposition depends on your view of the stamp as a collectible item. If you regard it as a historical artifact then the loss of the gum removes the stamp that much farther from its pristine condition and hence is a negative. If you regard it as a form of art then the presence or absence of gum is irrelevant. I myself would regard any compromise of the integrity of the stamp paper (tear, thin, abrasion, etc.) as a greater negative than the lack of gum on an unused stamp.

Gum was often deliberately removed by collectors to avoid deterioration of the whole stamp, particualrly where the collector lived in a humid climate. Similarly, if you acquire an old album where the stamps were stuck down, soaking will be the only way of making them usable. If your interest is in stamps and their design, rather than the history of adhesives, I'm not sure it makes that much difference, although it will obviously affect the value. I see "unused" as more of an issue with modern stamps, where failure to apply cancellations often means that the stamp has, in fact, been used.

I switched to collecting used stamps, because it seemed that people were more focused on the gum side of the stamp than the printed side.I did not want to spend much time or money on the gum side of the stamp.

While I recognize that soaking gum off the stamps used to be a standard practice, I also am wary of uncanceled stamps being sold as unused stamps. I find it interesting that the market seems to value used stamps with a nice cancel more than uncanceled stamps with no gum (unless unused stamps are much more expensive).

To me appearance of the front of the stamp is most important. Centering, perfs, impression, color, fresh paper all contribute to the quality of the appearance. I put that above everything. The gum condition is only an issue if it affects the appearance of the front. Thins hurt the appearance though a tiny thin that doesn't show through is tolerable. Any kind of alteration is a big negative for me. Reperfing is sacrilege, regumming almost as bad.

I'm not a cancel person. I understand the appeal of unique, fancy, and historic cancels but not my thing. I pick up a used stamp when unused is unaffordable of course.. NH is not important to me though I will go there for later issues just to add to the "pristine" quality dimension.

I'm amazed that someone considers NG to be a major fault because it is "damage that is user inflicted." In addition to Geoff's comment about collectors removing gum due to living in a humid climate, humidity is the very reason that many early Portuguese colonial stamps were issued without gum. A lack of gum does not make these mint/unused stamps faulty in any way. The user added the gum or glue to adhere the stamps to envelopes, cards, etc.

Regards, Steve (ISPP member since 1991 (International Society for Portuguese Philately))

Stamps issued without gum are not an issue. They are what they were designed to be, ie ungummed. But I consider that if the gum was removed from a gummed stamp, it was to hide some undesirable issue. Or was stuck down on something or printing was transferred from another stamp that it was stuck to.

Thank you for your clarification. However, after re-reading your original post, it would have been useful to put your clarification there when you raised the issue. You also wrote that you were not aware of any catalogs that list values for NG stamps that were issued gummed. Suggest you check out the Scott catalog for Germany B68, the Ostropa souvenir sheet issued in 1935. The gum contained sulphuric acid that tends to damage the sheet. Most collectors removed it. Scott says: "Catalogue unused values are for sheet and singles without gum."

I thought I had stated the exception for stamps issued with no gum. I had to reread to to see that I did not. It was in my mind but somehow the hands did not transfer the thought to the page. I really thought It was there.

That B68 would be a special issue. I am talking about listing a value for MNH, MH, MNG, and used. for the same period they actually listed both mint values. Not the newer stuff, but the older stuff. Any new mint stamps that the gum was removed is basically postage.

I have an aversion for no gum stamps. I am not sure why. I have a hard time buying them even for harder issues. When I do get one, I consider it faulty in my mind. I am mainly a MNH collector. If it is listed as MNH, I do not need to see the back to know what it looks like. That is why I am trying to get the feel of what others think about it. Maybe trying to change my mind or how I look at the no gum stamps. How do you determine value of it compared to a hinged price? It cannot be the same because of the damage (gum removal) done to it. I know it may have been an old policy to protect the stamps, but so was putting hinges on mint stamps. And we all know the damage that has done to the stamps we currently collect.

Don't forget that lots of us aren't gum fetishists. Do you display your stamps gum side up? Presumably not, so why worry?

My personal approach is to pay attention to the front of the stamp, as long as thins, hinges etc. have no effect on the front of the stamp I don't consider those as huge faults. Sure, the stamps aren't in pristine condition anymore, but I'm not bothered with that. Whether the gum is there or not is for me of no concern, as it doesn't really affect the front of the stamp, and I don't care if a stamp is MNH or not.

Jaxom, If you are a MNH collector then that's what you look for--anything less (hinged or NG) is not up to your standard. This is your business, regardless of how you choose to display your collection. I think, though, that there is a sense in this thread that NG stamps are not "faulty" in the sense that this term is normally used. They are simply not "post-office fresh," if you will. Like a collectible toy that is undamaged yet no longer in its original container.

"But I consider that if the gum was removed from a gummed stamp, it was to hide some undesirable issue."

There is no philatelic logic to this. Original gum is always more desirable then no gum, even if it has a heavy hinge or is largely disturbed. Some gum is acidic and should be removed for preservation, and the early collectors did remove gum, but most other NG stamps were either removed uncancelled or got wet accidentally. They are not "damaged" in the traditional sense.

I have and have had different types of collections. For plating, in a plate reconstruction, I was pretty tolerant of flaws - I was more interested in getting a position with less regard to what it looked like. In my main non-plating collection I wanted sound 4 margin stamps as much as possible. For something really rare I'd take a fault if need be.

I am not a fan of gum, but I collect early US. Gum there is almost a liability. As stated early US stamps uncancelled and without gum are perfectly nice items and highly collectible. Now, if I were collecting British Comonwealth KGV for example - I'd want unused with gum or used with a nice cancel - not CTO.

The Michel Deutschland-Spezial Katalog lists prices for ungummed/unused stamps for some of the early Germany and German States stamps. This is a reasonable approach.

The earliest collectors glued stamps directly onto album pages. Or, they used stamp selvage to mount their collections. Peelable stamp hinges were used for a very short time in the history of stamp collecting. The early hinges were horrible and were soaked off because they distorted the stamps.

The expectation of collecting pristine 19th century/classic issues in never hinged, or lightly hinged condition will lead the buyer to collecting a lot of regummed and/or reperforated stamps.