Trivial Flaws Mentioned On A Certificate

One of the related threads on this forum questions the significance of a single word and its impact on a certificate for a cover. This brings to mind the certificates we have all seen over the years for an otherwise rare or expensive stamp where a truly trivial flaw is mentioned and you are left scratching your head wondering why the expertizers felt they needed to do that.

What is the most trivial condition flaw called on such a stamp you have seen or have in your collection?

I have a beautiful, gorgeous, near perfect US C15 Zepp with original gum. Sold at a major auction house as "vvlh" - there is a ex-hinge mark about a millimeter wide. Tiny. Barely visible. I sent it in for grading because it is well-centered and it came back as "slightly disturbed original gum" - huh? Because it said that instead of very light sign of a previous hinge it is considered flawed and thus they refused to grade it. I think "slightly disturbed original gum" has become a lot more common in recent years. Maybe it's ok, but we need take into consideration that "slightly" really means - hardly anything at all! I wasn't happy.

I have a used 78c with a cert reading "genuine used with a tiny corner crease." I understand your frustration.

Why not let the buyer decide what is important? Buyers can decide what is trivial, can't they?

If I only buy postfrisch then a VVVVLH is not postfrisch. I'd want to know. Information is power.

I'm on the buyers' side on this one, I'm afraid. (And I generally couldn't care less about backside issues that don't affect the front, or the general integrity of the stamp itself.)

My two cents.

The buyer will always decide what an item is worth to him or her. But aside from collectibles, and here I am referring to stamps, coins, currency, and maybe sports cards, I am having a difficult time thinking of another phase of collecting or tangible object where a single word (excepting"fake") or a particular number grade can spell the difference between an item of value or an item consigned to obscurity.

On my stamp there is no gum disturbance other than this hinge mark that I can see. I just pulled out the stamp to remind myself. The mark is the clear outline of a portion of a hinge. Shouldn't that really be "previously hinged" rather than "slightly disturbed"? I tried scanning it, but even at 1200 dpi the mark is too light to see. Anyway, I'm not complaining that they did something wrong, but more answering the OP question about a stamp with a trivial flaw that made me less than happy. I absolutely defer to the PF, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. (and I should mention, this is not for resale - it's part of my personal collection.)

I have PF Certs with the TINIEST flaws called, but they are doing the right thing IMO, as much as it can be frustrating.

How would you like to buy a $10,000 stamp and then find out when you sell it that it's got a small fault?

I truly do not understand the bizarre world of "gum collectors". The obsession with the gum on the back of stamps is truly unbelievable. Sure, if the gum is missing, the stamp is worth less since it's no longer "mint". If the gum is damaged, it's also worth somewhat less. But a trivial hinge mark should bother few collectors. I never pay attention to the back of my stamps except for thins or stains that might affect the front of the stamp. I know that reduces their value if and when I sell my collection. But I don't care since by then I'll be dead. In the meantime, it allows me to buy beautiful looking stamps at lower prices. I'm certainly not unhappy that many collectors are obsessed about gum condition since it allows me to purchase extremely fine looking "near mint" stamps (my own term) for less because many collectors won't buy a stamp if there is a gum disturbance.

Now that I've got that off my chest -- A certificate needs to mention what's there. In my opinion, a hinge mark does seem like "slightly disturbed original gum". To me, that would likely be completely trivial. But to some collectors, it seems to matter.

Stamp gum..., the most valuable item on the planet. A Scott #10 mint with gum SCV 2009 - $4,000.00. Without gum $1,500.00. How much gum is applied to a #10? One tenth of an ounce...?? Let's say it's one tenth of an ounce.

DrewM...Stamp gum is worth $25,000.00 per ounce!!

Sounds like the same old discussion, but in my opinion, words count.

Mint means mint - the way it came from the post office. If the stamp has been hinged, it isn't mint anymore. Regardless of how little you can see the remaining hinge mark...

I don't participate in this world of grading/certificates, but if a stamp has been previously hinged, the cert should state that. My problem is the lack of consistency - every expertizer uses their own standards & system. Which simply detracts from the overall value of having a certificate in the first place...

I agree with mdroth but would add....

I do not see the value in chastising fellow collectors for how or what they collect; and to say that others are 'gum collectors' or that stamp gum is worth X amount of dollars is to do just that. This is like calling a toy collector who prefers collecting toys in their original boxes a 'cardboard collector' or that 'cardboard is worth X amount of dollars'.

Point is that people value stamps which are in the condition they were at time of issue and this desire (demand) is the basis for driving value. The fact that very few classic era stamps have survived without being hinged or stored/handled poorly only adds to their rarity. Personally while I do not seek out only unhinge examples of stamps, I certainly value those which are in fine original condition. I assume that everyone in this thread would expect a premium for any classic era unhinged stamps when they go to sell them. And I cannot think of a single example of collectors of anything (books, comics, antiques, baseball cards, toys, coins, etc.) which do not highly value items which are in original condition.

But no matter how each of us collects, we should not belittle fellow hobbyists unless their practices are damaging the hobby. I see no good argument(s) that seeking mint unhinged stamps hurts the hobby; in fact it probably helps those who do not mind hinged stamps by offering a lower priced market entry point.

While we may not understand the attraction that some of our fellow collectors have for what they collect we should always be tolerant and support our differences.
Don

Except that "mint" does not relate to whether a stamp is hinged or not, only whether it is both unused and has gum. Hinged is hinged; usually stated as mint OG, and MNH is for never hinged. This is not a new idea, these terms go back a long way.
Certs also go back a long way, and to expect dozens of different people for different organizations to write in some standard fashion over the course of 7 or 8 decades is totally unrealistic. As is the expectation that non profit expertizers will write exactly the same way as for profit expertizers do. And the human element also plays a part.

I agree that we have to make room for everybody... except those GD certificate collectors. Off with there heads!