When Is Mint No Gum Actually Just Used?

These stamps should be called "used, no cancel."

Different international usage conventions and the number of different ways an off-cover stamp can take to wind up in collector hands make existing terminology confusing or ambiguous, as this thread shows. I think spain_1850 is close to the mark. I would like to see:

1) Mint (not postally used, full undisturbed NH OG if issued as such by the PO)
2) Uncancelled (if off-cover without gum cannot be determined if ever placed in the postal stream; gum condition specified by further modifiers such as OG hinged, disturbed OG, NG etc.)
3) Postally used (evidence of cancellation or postmark if off-cover)

Trying to determine if an uncancelled single stamp without gum has ever been actually used on a piece of mail seems pointless to me. The terms "used" and "unused" by themselves are too vague.

Dudley,

Keep in mind revenues are not "postally used".

Perhaps a slightly different term - but I agree with your intent.

To further confuse the situation;

Point taken, StateRevs, thank you. Perhaps simply "Cancelled" with additional modifiers as appropriate (fiscally used, postally used, CTO).

"Uncancelled" and "Cancelled" are visually verifiable descriptors, whereas as we've seen in this discussion "Used" and "Unused" in some circumstances entail unverifiable assumptions.

I always use "uncancelled" to describe 1st-3rd issue U.S. revenues without visible cancel and without gum. In order for those revenues to be considered unused/mint, they must have original gum and no trace of document offset on said gum.

Now that goes for revenues that were issued with gum. For those issued without gum (wine, beer, certain modern reds & greens) you really cannot tell uncanceled from unused. Most stamps issued without gum are later issues that almost always were canceled upon use, unlike the 1st issue revenues which frequently were (nominally illegal) not canceled due to hurry.

For seemingly unised revenues issued without gum,I usually opt for "unused, NGAI" (no gum as issued).

Hi,

I beg to differ on that, when it comes to wine stamps especially.

I asked Eric about it some time ago and he described how to tell the difference. It's basically the "feel" of the stamp.

More info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizing

Jim

When I was a lad, an old collector told me I should soak the gum off my MNH stamps because the gum was sucrose based and would curl and deform my stamps. I didn't listen to him but it was a common practice back then. Having said all that, I collect MNH Canada and I have collected the small queen color shade varieties MNG just because they are cheaper. I bought Brigham's 10 cent small queen MNG for $180.00 CDN just for the centering.

No gum, no cancel.

Unless we have some additional way of knowing, we can not say for certain whether such a stamp is either unused or used.