Looking For Opinions Of Flaws And Special Notes On Certs

Hello

My local stamp club has moved meeting to Zoom now, so my sidebar questions that I like to ask causally at the end of the meeting to the experts is no longer available to take place naturally, so I'm turning to the next best thing, the collective philatelic mind of this board.

I'm hoping to get feedback on some items that I have seen on cert but was not sure how best to intrepid. Here they are:

Is DOG = H, or is DOG a flaw? Is there a year cutoff similar to NG pricing found in Scotts maybe?

Is a natural paper inclusion a flaw?

Is a straight edge a flaw (assuming made in original production)?

Why does PSE rate some stamps with "h" and some with "ph"? Is this a distinction without a difference for SMQ values?


Thank you for your thoughts on any or all of these nuances of certificated philately.

Here is my take:

Disturbed Original Gum (DOG) is gum disturbance such as an area of gum that has been redistributed to try and hide a hinge mark. Gum might also be "sweated", be glazed, have signs of having been removed from a backing after being "stuck" or have similar issues.

An inclusion is not a flaw but is noted because it affects the aesthetics. Also, inclusions are sometimes "picked out" if small and attempts are made to hide it.

A straight edge is not a flaw. It is noted because if a cert was issued not noting it and somebody added perfs it could be a problem.

"H" indicates a hinge remaining or a heavy hinge mark and "PH" indicates that a hinge was removed with normal expected gum disturbance.

Others will chime in with their take.

I don't think any of the issues mentioned are flaws but nonetheless might affect pricing or realizations at auction. Of all of the things you listed, disturbed OG to me is the most problematic because it is increasingly being called and seems to be diagnosed without true standardization. A straight edge, inclusion, and natural gum crease would seem to objective findings with less variability among expertizers.

Rogdcam, that is a really great explanation of the distinction between OGh and OGph on certs. I have a few stamps with OGh certs in my collection at present but would prefer that all my OG non-NH stamps be OGph some day (probably not going to happen but a good goal I think). It is interesting to note that PSE and PSAG make the OGh/OGph distinction whereas the PF does not (they use "previously hinged" for both).

Stamps with pieces of hinges remaining should be described as having a "hinge remnant" or "hinge remnants". With practice hinge remnant removal can be accomplished with relative safety. Sometimes a small thin or other problem may lurk under a hinge remnant. In other cases, a large hinge remnant may curl or make the stamp brittle. Stamps with multiple hinge remnants removed may be considered to have disturbed gum or worst case, partial gum. Even worse, regummed stamps show up with hinge marks or enough hinge remnants to slide past experienced collectors.

I would prefer to see descriptions written out. As ebay has shown, it is possible toke conventional descriptive abbreviations and corrupt them in ways that do not match any dealer database. Written out descriptions are better and terms like "certification" are not used by anyone other than ebay.

For those with a Scott catalog, gum condition is described in detail.

I agree with Rogdcam that inclusions are not flaws but could affect what grade the stamp is given by say the PSE.

In old classic 19th century stamps having disturbed original gum from hinge removal is common so I would not consider
it a flaw that lowers the stamp value. I believe heavy hinging to hide a thin or crease occurs in older valuable
classic stamps. If in doubt always get the stamp certified and then you have the full knowledge of what you have.