What Does "Never Hinged" Really Mean?

"mint never hinged " is a old term used by collectors many years ago .

It has been a phrase that companies like Scott,Crystal and Lighthouse made millions from .

A lot of collectors got sucked into this old time philatelic interest .

Today it is still used by Auction houses for expensive stamps and stuff stamp investors buy . It doesn't apply to the regular stamp collector. But used by manufactoring companies to pull money from collectors .


I know a few clowns will come on here and swear by the Term .....but the fact remains that 99% of the stamps issued in the last 50 years will not get you a penny more if MNH . We see it all the time in public stamp auctions a collection of Belgium or Mexico from 1940 to 2020 MNH and mint mounted will only get about the same results . Matter in fact many firms don't check to see what is mint mounted and what percentage is MNH ,they just say Mint .

I can not believe how many 2 cents stamps are put in mounts and added to a collectors album ,like MNH adds value ,all it does is take money out of a collectors pocket .


There are mountains of stamps kept in glassines and dealer cards which the collector believes he needs to keep as MNH , when in fact they have a less value to a buyer at stamp auctions then having them hinged on a album page which sells for more .

The my rule is real simple if it doesn't catalog over $10.00 ,just hinge it .

The problem compounding this is reguming stamps has gotten so advance even the experts are no longer are sure what is REGUMED . You can have MNH stamps that have been placed in plastic mounts or against plastic envelopes and the MNH gum will actually glaze over on the gum side and the inexperience expert will call it regumed when in fact it is still MNH . Other want-to-be experts also don't understand gum skips which happen in the printing process when the gum machine runs while the liquid isn't heated to the right temperture , also some of the brushes are not cleaned from the previous day ,will also distaught the gum appliacion .

Over the years I have hinged tens of thousands of stamps into albums that were taken out of stockbooks ,glassines and dealer cards with no lost of value when I sold the set of albums .

John

I agree that there is little 'settled philatelic nomenclature' but in my opinion this has little to do with companies making millions. Hobbyists have always supported these companies and never insisted on standardization of the terminology. And in fact as can easily be seen in this community, there are stubborn hobbyists who insist that their definitions are the 'right' ones.

I think the lack of 'settled philatelic nomenclature' is a much bigger issue than it was 40+ years ago mostly due to inexperienced online sellers. The member who started this thread opened a stamp store on ebay and has a few listings titles which say 'plate block of four' when the stamps are typically collected only in plate blocks of 6. It is not fraud, I think that serf_tide is just a newer collector who is trying to learn the confusing philatelic nomenclature and is working his way to a better understanding of the terminology.

And to be honest, most folks in this hobby do not have much interest in changing their own definitions. No matter how many times you try to explain that basic color theory differences between hue, tint, and shade many insist on using the wrong term. Just because those who never learn basic color theory mis-use 'shade' they feel that they do not need to change. <shrugs> I do not see how we can be critical of the mis-use of the term 'mint' if we cannot be critical of the mis-use of the term 'shade'. To a non-collector, the term 'mint' simply means something in very good condition; 'Oh that car is in mint condition'. And as is seen in this thread, even experienced folks have varying definitions of 'mint'. To some it is an unused stamp with some gum while others take it to mean something more like 'post office fresh'.

So for me the issue is not about capitalist companies, it is more that people prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.
Don

MNH still matters in bulk US postage lots, hinged postage still brings a smaller percentage. And some collectors still feel that hinging is a destructive act to a stamp, even a penny stamp. It's a respect thing, not a financial one.

Oh. Are we talking about sub-face value stamps from the last 75 years? Well then, who cares?

Obviously the people who buy and sell them care.

OMG, there you go again, Don...I've tried to use "hue", but I keep saying I collect the "shades" of the 1861....oh well, my wife always says I'm wrong too!

The topic was started to ask about what does MNH mean, yet it has morphed into some discussion about the merits of MNH vs H stamps from the 'face' era. Last I heard, MNH (vs H) covered all eras/values of stamps. Why are we talking about a small subset of collector stamps? The merits of H vs MNH has been discussed ad nauseum in many other threads.

To me NH means fresh unblemished gum. If someone is going to claim 'NH' on a stamp, it better not be hinged in the past, have a gum disturbance, or be otherwise blemished. If I am going to pay a premium for a stamp (because it is described as NH), it better not have skips, disturbances, or hinges on the back. If there is a skip or a toning spot, it ought to be described as such. Even for stamps that often come with gum skips, if I am paying extra for NH, it better be free of skips unless the NH description is modified with 'NH, but with tiny gum skip'. The seller that describes a gum-skipped stamp as NH (without modifier) does NOT get my repeat business.

As tot he term 'mint', there is a lot of variation on what that means. There is a big difference between what it means to the average American collector versus what it means to the average British collector. I see it as a term specific to philately that just happens to be a word from society-in-general. To me, 'mint' means unused with gum. I see the term 'unused' as uncancelled and without gum or a small part gum. The term 'uncirculated' in coin collecting has 11 different grades (60 to 70, from the coin grading services, and each valued accordingly by the market), but the word 'uncirculated' on the surface is fairly simple and unambiguous. Similarly, in the world of philately, 'mint' probably means something different than it does to the general public. Should it?? THAT'S certainly up for debate, but I think so.

"MNH with natural gum skips"

This is exactly the dealer I would want to continue to do business with. While one might differ on the MNH part, I appreciate the detailed description clearly differentiating between production variations like gum skips versus later collector-made gum disturbances.

What we need in philately is a universally accepted authority to publish a philatelic equivalent of the OED. DEFINE 'mint', 'unused', 'never hinged', etc, as the terms apply to philately. Of course, that universally accepted authority doesn't exist. Perhaps some large-but-not-so-universally-accepted authority could take the bull by the horns and publish such a work anyway, and hope that it 'takes'. At some point, there would be a tipping point - enough people accept the work so that those that disagree can't help but begrudgingly accept it.

A guy can dream, can't he????

They exist. Perhaps they are not as detailed as you would like them. And there are others.

https://www.linns.com/news/postal-u...isabled.html

https://findyourstampsvalue.com/glossary

https://www.postalmuseum.org/wp-con...Glossary.pdf

There is also a glossary here (above left https://www.stampcommunity.org/dictionary/ ) and I have one of the only illustrated glossaries on Stamp Smarter https://stampsmarter.org/Learning/G...aryHome.html But few folks care about these (based upon website traffic stats) and few organizations care about trying to standardize on anything.
Don

***Links Fixed***

Speaking for Russian material from the 1930's I can tell you that MNH has a strong market, is vastly more difficult to find, competition for it will be fierce and you will pay up to get it. When sets like the Spartacist Games, Mendeleev, Anti-war, Moscow Subway's, Furnaces, Rescue etc. were issued in relatively small quantities collectors hinged them into their albums and MNH are extremely hard to find as are genuine postally used examples. These stamps were also notorious for gum problems and it does little to detract from their market value. CTO's are a dime a dozen. I imagine this applies to other countries as well.

Well, I know there are all sorts of reference items out there that define various philatelic terms. I might add the Scott Catalogue to the list. Probably Gibbons, Michel, and Yvert, too, but I haven't looked into those. The problem is that these sources are either not universally accepted enough with their definitions, or the definitions are not specific enough to cover all the contingencies brought up in this thread.

I just don't think ANY authority is universally known/accepted/understood enough throughout all facets of philately. That statement is kind of amazing to me, but I still think it is true. Either that or many many collectors don't know the details of the various authorities' definitions and have their own definition(s) that are the ones that stick with them. Ignorance, if you will. I am sure that I am as guilty of that as anyone.

ETA: I suspect the definitions morph over time, as well. I am 60-ish, formed many of my philatelic basic thoughts 40 or 50 years ago, and I will have a different 'take' than someone younger or older. In that sense, this topic is similar to the evolution of languages, in general. Many words have subtle differences in meaning today compared to a few decades ago. Languages, in general, morph and evolve along with practically any facet of society.

About 10 years ago I spent significant effort trying to develop an 'open source' philatelic standards document for metadata and database data types (some of whom use metadata and database fields every day). I got zero traction from any organization and/or those who had influence. I have an opinion on why there was no interest but opining on other's intentions is a place I try to avoid. But I would say that the apathy is contiguous, there is no point in trying to be consistent when virtually no one cares and is willing to support those who are offering their time to make improvements. It is far easier to sit in the peanut gallery and throw out obstacles and criticisms then to invest in making things better. The result is that many just go 'into their own corner of the world and do their own thing' and forget about trying to standardize anything. Is that a good approach for the hobby in general? In my opinion it is not.

And truthfully getting everyone on the same page for something as simple as philatelic definitions is very hard. I have been a part of many, many philatelic projects and a number of them came off the rails over volunteers being emotionally invested in their ideas and that caused missed milestones and much extra time added to the project. This also can cause bad feelings among the team members. So while it is fun to think that we could get something like this done it remains out-of-reach and am a dubious that the situation will ever be resolved.
Don