Creative Perforation Descriptions

"Part imperf."

Ok, not incorrect, but a little avant-garde maybe?

Jim

http://www.ebay.com/itm/KAPPYSSTAMP...AOSw2xRYUYtU

I thought we covered this a while back and called it a syncopated perforation?

Peter

It's not a fake perforation; it's just that the terminology has always been "part perf.," not "part imperf."

But, like I said, it's not incorrect to say so. Just unusual.

Jim

I was just kidding, but the seller is always very sloppy with descriptions. I have on occasion tried to point at some bad descriptions which they acknowledge but do not act on.

Peter

In theory it is not incorrect, but since no one ever uses that terminology it is really meaningless, and is therefore in reality incorrect. It only matters because proper terminology is such a large part of the hobby; that's what allows us to all understand one another and have all those fun arguments about what we might be looking at.

I don't disagree, but I usually try to look at like they're trying to "shake the status quo" so to speak, or just trying to be a little humorous.

Like saying "vertically challenged" instead of "short" for example.

Or "photon emitter" for a flashlight.

Or "scribble generator" for a pen.

Or, my favorite, as it reminds me of being a kid, "never ever hinged."



Jim

What irritates me is the description Mint No Gum

Dammit, it's UNUSED NOT Mint

Not necessarily. I would argue that the appropriate descriptor is UNCANCELLED, not unused or mint no gum. I have plenty of examples of revenues still on documents (obviously used) but have not been cancelled. A stamp like that could be soaked/sweated off the document, but it is still used.

Also, in my experience, not all dealers and collectors tie the use of the term "mint" to the existence of gum, especially for items that are NGAI (no gum as issued). Can a NGAI stamp not be "mint"?

No, the one that always cracks me up is "NH" when applied to a used/cancelled stamp... because a never hinged cancelled stamp is obviously worth more than a cancelled stamp that has been hinged... allrightythen!

I agree with Dan. If there is no gum on a revenue stamp that was issued with it, it is USED....period, whether it is cancelled or not.

So what do we do with the small Series of 1934 wine stamps (RE84-101) many of which were issued with gum initially and then subsequently all printings were delivered without gum? I think the traditional use of the term "mint" was reserved for gummed stamps and the term "unused" was reserved for uncancelled examples. There was no proof that they were ever used.

Yes, I agree that with the early revenues they sometimes did not get cancelled and were removed from a document. But unless there is some evidence of previous use I think we should call them unused or alternatively uncancelled. From a collecting point of view I see no difference in valuation.

Just to clarify, I was referring to mint stamps that normally would have gum. NGAI stamps obviously should be described differently.