When Unused Means Uncancelled - Scott #5A Example

Interesting topic. I think many people assume that the stamp has no gum when they use the word "unused" (instead of "mint"). Some people think "unused" = "mint no gum".

As for the terms "unused" and "uncancelled", strictly speaking, they are not the same, because an uncancelled stamp on an cover that went through the mail system is not supposed to be used again because they are regarded as "used". I did a google search and found the following words:

If the "previously used envelope" has actually been through the mail, then reusing any uncancelled stamps is illegal. They have already served there purpose and reusing them is defrauding the Postal Service.

Therefore, the precise descriptions should be:
1. "Uncancelled" -- uncancelled stamps that went through the mail
2. "Unused" -- the gum was soaked off but the stamp has never gone through the mail

However, after am uncancelled stamp is soaked off the covers, we really do not know if the stamp is "uncancelled" or "unused".

I'll be the contrarian here but I will keep it brief. I don't think the PF would certify the stamp as unused. I think they chose their words carefully on the old certificate when they said the left stamp was "uncancelled".

tx, you are trying to apply a normal world definition to a philatelic term

for another example, the philatelic term average for condition does not mean its normal world definition, it means rather bad

I think part of the definition of "unused" and "uncancelled" is to determine whether the stamp has been soaked off of paper. Is there any way to physically or visually determine whether the stamp has been exposed to water during the soaking process? Are the fibers of the paper affected in any way? Is there any legitimate reason to simply remove the gum? An earlier post mentioned removing the gum to preserve the stamp, but I'm unaware of this being a problem with any stamp with one possible exception being Scott 1552, the 10¢ dove and weathervane.

At this point I'll acknowledge that I did a poor job of getting my point across in this thread, and I'll admit defeat.

Time to pivot -
I did intend this for some fun, however, as there are some very cool stamps in the first post. The right stamp in the strip of 3 is Scott #5, Position 7R1E. It is the only 1c 1851-issue position that shows the full design for its position. The printer, Toppan, Carpenter, Casilear & Co had some real issues with the size and ornateness of the 1c design it would appear. No other position showed the full design. Scott #5's are one of the Aristocrat's of US philately, so to speak.

Unfortunately, this copy is cut in, but it is easily plate-able from the double transfer which is visible in the top label (see "POST") and numerous other parts of the stamp.