What Does The Description "Sound" Mean?

All my opinions, but...

Things that DO cause a stamp to be considered not sound:

Tears
Thins
Scrapes/scuffs
Creases
Short perfs
Pulled perfs
Trimming
Stains
Soiling
Color change due to chemical/environmental exposure
Repairs
Altering the design (e.g., drawing in parts of the design)
Adding margins
Adding backing
Reperforating
Regumming
Removal of a cancel or lightening a cancel

Things that do NOT (IMO) cause a stamp to be considered not sound:

Heavy cancels
Natural straight edges
Removal of gum from a mint stamp (the stamp is now considered to be MNG or "unused" but that does not make the stamp unsound)
Paper inclusions
Printing anomalies (over- or -underinked, doubling, etc.)
Paper anomalies (foldovers, preprint paper folds, doubled papers)
Misplaced overprints
Misperfs

Some of these may negatively impact value or marketability, but they do not make a stamp unsound.

Parcelpost guy - regarding your comment " You wasted your time asking the question here when the responses do not matter. You need to direct that question to the person or firm using it".

I thank you for your admonition, but I fear that you are mistaken or are making an unfounded assumption - the question was not asked to clarify how some hypothetical "person or firm" might be using the term. I asked this question to better understand how I, myself, might best apply the term to material I wish to sell and how that usage would be interpreted by the majority of the philatelic community if they were to read my lot description. The responses from these knowledgeable folks has really helped me to better understand the subtle nuances this term conveys. Gotta learn the lingo, eh?

In the auction description world their are two polar terms used for material in larger lots, sound and mixed condition. Mixed condition is always the safer of the two because it is difficult to get in trouble using it.

I fear that "mixed" has rather become a synonym for "largely poor".

Agreed. Here is some truth in advertising from the next Sparks auction (sale 48 lot 944). 100 Worldwide Covers "Online photos show an overview of this eclectic lot. We note a few of the covers have faults including corner bends and tears, along with a faint musty odor. Overall fine to very fine."

Rasdale also uses descriptive terms such as musty and odor liberally as applicable. Since smell can be as subjective as taste I wonder just how bad the smell is sometimes.

"This adventurous lot appears to have been stored in close proximity with livestock and thus exhibits fecally-tinged charactersistics to its aroma."

tl;dr: Smells like sh*t.

A few musty smelling 1990s first day covers were in a box lot I recently purchased. After an hour in the intense high noon Florida sun the smell was almost completely gone. That wouldn't be easy to do with stamps but worked great on those nasty covers.

Cigarette smoke and musty smells are bad, but I swear a recent purchase was worse. Smelled like it was stored in the litter box - whew - reeked of cat. Ewwwww. My two schnauzers kept giving the box dirty looks.

Another way to approach this and thereby avoiding a somewhat nebulous term, might be the use of 'pertinent negatives' in your descriptions, such as 'no tears,' 'no creases,' or 'no obvious faults.'

Sound is a "term of art" (this you can look up in any dictionary or the OED). The fact you referenced a general dictionary definition for sound shows you are clueless about terms of art as such are not used in the manner of the normal definition. You want legal terms of art, you need a dictionary of legal terms.

Again, it matters not what others mean when they say "sound" it only matters what you mean when you use "sound" and then you are responsible for how it is defined. Likewise it is important to determine if your "sound" matches another's "sound" when considering a stamp purchase.

Me, for now, how about if I define a "sound" stamp as all stamps issued for which music or other noises can be played from the stamp. That said, I will not clutter this thread with images of my "sound" topical (think but do not limit yourself to Bhutan). Yet no one, none at all, gave that reasonable definition of a "sound stamp." So I ask you, do you have any of my sound stamps?

So, in summary, go with the "crowd." Now what does that mean? It means I picked a word for which the definitions do not allow for a clear inference of meaning. But since the subject is "sound" I may likely mean the instrument but, it also comes with a nautical based term of art which resembles an idiom.

Can a sound stamp be altered? Well, no one said yes above, but if that is the accepted definition for a sound stamp, as in meaning "unaltered from manner of intended issue," what do you call a Farley issue stamp issued without gum (NGAI) which has had gum added? Is that still sound?

Edited for spelling and punctuation.

I disagree with that definition. If that is the agreed upon definition, then all vending machine coils, sewing machine perfs, and bisects, amongst other items, by definition can never be sound.

Where's my horse whip.....

I agree with recenuecollector's last 2 posts (if he made another one earlier, I am not saying I don't agree with that)

Ditto

I agree with everything Revenuecollector identified as attributes of sound and "unsound" stamps, with one exception. Occasionally, a paper inclusion can either be large enough or dark enough to make the stamp unappealing and less valuable. Does this mean that the stamp isn't "sound?" Probably not, but it definitely reduces the value if the paper inclusion is ugly enough.