When Unused Means Uncancelled - Scott #5A Example

I intend this thread for education with regard to the fact that for Classic US stamps, the term 'Unused' does not necessarily mean that the stamp never went through the mail. It often means 'Uncancelled'. There is a significant distinction which all collectors should be aware of.

This is an issue I have with terminology, whereby the literal interpretation of the word 'Unused' implies that a stamp was not postally used. I would stipulate that for stamps with no gum, that are described today, as Unused, a better term would be 'Uncancelled'.

I was reminded of this after seeing a US Scott #5A lot in today's Siegel sale which I thought would be very useful to make this point really clear in people's minds. To be perfectly clear and fair - the Siegel description was up-front and provided full disclosure here, although it really didn't need to.

The Scott US specialized catalog makes a statement that prior to a certain date/issue, that prices for Unused stamps assume no-gum is present. This is because, going back to the mid 19th century, many if not most stamps that were truly unused have had their gum soaked off, often to help preserve the stamp. Gum can accelerate deterioration of a stamp in some cases. Stamps that still have original gum from this time period carry a significant value premium. I'm avoiding the obvious topic of fraudulent regumming here, as I want to focus on Unused no-gum stamps, and use this 1c 1851-issue stamp as an example.

The following stamp was Lot 23 in Siegel sale 1187 today.
It was described as: "1c Blue, Ty. Ib (5A). Position 5R1E, unused (no gum), large margins to in, rich color, small toned spot at bottom".


Image courtesy of Siegel Auction Galleries

The Ty Ib 1c 1851 stamp, Scott #5A is a really rare item in Unused state. This Type only occurred on 6 positions from Plate 1-Early. That plate was in use for about 1 year, from July 1, 1851 until mid 1852. So this is a pretty nice stamp, even if it is slightly cut in at left and bottom.

For those people who collect more modern stamps, the condition of 'Unused' typically carries with it the connotation that the stamp really was never used on a letter. Such is not the case for early US stamps such as this. Since the gum is missing from many early US stamps that were indeed once Mint, and never used on a letter, the term 'Unused', for these earlier stamps, was relaxed to mean 'Uncancelled'. This creates a scenario where one cannot usually tell if a stamp went through the mail on a letter, but was not cancelled, from a stamp that never went through the mail, but has no gum. The convention is that they are treated equally in terms of value and are both called Unused.

Getting back to the #5A above, the description from Siegel, is that it is Unused with no-gum. Remember, Unused means Uncancelled. In their description of this lot, Siegel points out (to their credit) that this stamp was once part of a strip of three: 5-6-7R1E - Ty Ib-Ib-I. They note that 6R1E and 7R1E were both cancelled, but the 5R1E (this stamp) was uncancelled. The strip has been broken up into three single stamps.

The following is a photo, courtesy of the Philatelic Foundation, of the original strip from its PFC:



You can clearly see the cancel on the right two stamps, while the left stamp, our #5A appears Uncancelled.


Here is what the 6R1E looks like now:


Image courtesy of Siegel Auction Galleries

Here is what the 7R1E looks like now:


Image courtesy of Siegel Auction Galleries

The original strip of three stamps was clearly postally used, and went through the mail at some point. The single letter rate in this time frame was 3c, so it probably paid a single letter rate. The strip was soaked off of its cover and broken into three singles. Now is where it gets interesting. The left stamp, 5R1E, is and can be classified as Unused, while the other two stamps (6, 7R1E) are classified as Used. We know, of course, that the 5R1E went through the mail. That has been factually demonstrated. Our system of classifying early US stamps, however, just states that if a stamp is Uncancelled, then it qualifies as Unused. If it has Original Gum on top of that, then it carries, often, a large premium.

I thought that this was an interesting way to illustrate what Unused means, while looking at some pretty cool stamps in the process.

Good illustration of the point, txstamp. Now if only that strip hadn't been broken...

Why would one care if a stamp had been on a letter or not if it was uncancelled? Is the end state for collecting and valuation purposes the same? What direct impact does it have on the desirability of the stamp?

Given our method of classification, there is no difference.

One word, however: "Un-used".

If taken literally, it means never used. Not postally used. Clearly that is a misnomer here.

As to whether it really matters, I think that is up to the individual collector.

edit: I guess I should add, that some collectors are quite preoccupied with getting original gum on their Unused stamps. Assuming the gum is legit (not a topic for this thread), then that is a way for them to buy a stamp that they know is truly not postally used. It is a personal decision for each of us, what to collect and why.

There are a few classic covers in the Siegel database where the stamp is listed as unused even though it's still on a mailed cover.

If it is not cancelled than it is not postally used. The stamp could have been on a cover that was never mailed but rather left in the underwear drawer. Or, as in this case, it actually traveled. No cancel = not postally used. I always thought that term unused simply meant that there as no gum.

If 'unused' is the same as 'uncancelled' then we should see push back against these definitions just as we see with the push back against grading. (Since both encourage the splitting up of multiples.)
Don

If my writeup did not clearly illustrate the fallacy of this statement, then I have no idea what will. Possibly a better writer.




For the Scott Catalog, at least, I believe that it is context dependent. For newer stamps, 'Unused' implies gum present. Prior to a certain year, I forget which, gum is not assumed to be present. Now this is in a catalog for pricing purposes, but it does seem to re-define the word 'Unused', and, I believe, almost always has for convenience.

The point of my write-up is to try and clarify that the minute one takes away gum from the definition of Unused, then the meaning of the word changes drastically. An unused stamp with gum pretty likely was never mailed. Now take gum away, and the story of that stamp changes drastically. I agree, that from a simple stamp-collector-mounting-stamps myopic point of view, it probably doesn't matter. Many of us are chronically obsessed with the minutia here, however,.. I mean we're stamp collectors after all, so I think its worth a clarification.

Don - your point about this causing multiples to be broken up of course applies here, and is quite pertinent.

Aside from the multiples issue it just seems like the "if a tree falls in the woods" thing.

If the stamp were my child, I would be very interested to know if he may have gone into the woods or not.

Since we're just talking stamps, I am intellectually interested in knowing that a particular stamp may have been postally used or not.

And FWIW, the USPS makes a distinction between "used" and "canceled" in the regulations concerning reuse of stamps:

I think this is largely a nomenclature issue.

I wonder why philately has not been able to standardize on basic nomenclature in the past 150 years. As I worked on the Stamp Smarter Glossary the number of ambivalent and often confusing terms was striking.

A written specification and standardization of the commonly used philatelic terms seems to be something that the major hobby organizations (APS, ASDA, etc.) would want to work on to demonstrate real value to the hobby. The APS has style guides for the AP, but basic terms such as 'unused' and un-cancelled' are still open for interpretation?

If a nomenclature specification were developed and published, it then could be promoted to other philatelic entities such as Amos, SG, etc. It would represent a foundation for everyone to rally around.

Perhaps this would be a worthy objective for the next 150 years.
Don

Don - the European nomenclature differs somewhat from that in the US. "Unused", which was a synonym for mint fifty years ago, means without cancel, but also without gum (with the "unused, no gum as issued" variant for Chinese etc stamps, "mint" means with original gum, but hinged, previously hinged, gum disturbed etc, and "unmounted mint" is your "mint never hinged" (or mint for some of you). French collectors use a similar set of terms. The simplest methid would be to use the standard symbols.

Cherrystone, Harmer and Kelleher, to name a few, all define "unused" as having no gum. And frankly, other than having an image showing the stamp(s) on cover it is unprovable that there was postal usage involved.

You just made my argument. Thank you.

The literal term 'Unused, no-gum', is absolutely unprovable, and, therefore, non-sensical. We shouldn't even have this term.

About the only time it is correct would be with many Proofs, which were issued with no-gum, and some other items.

I would argue that 'Uncancelled' more properly conveys the meaning.