How To Use The Stamp Condition System I Invented

Hello everyone ! I invented a stamp condition system because I think that the system that philatelists use is not enough accurate. I will explain you how to use my system. But before, here are the different condition grades I modified to be more accurate. That's just a proposition. I don't want to change the classic system, I just want to try another way to value the stamp condition. I wanted to share this to you, that's it !

Poor condition : Rear part. Thinned, damaged, yellowed. Perforation. 5 or more missing, or cut sides. Margins. Non-existent, cut in the image. Cancellation. Completely hides image, blurry, gives the impression of a big black streak without design. Centering. Non-existent, very overflowing image. Color. Tarnished, altered.

Very good condition : Rear part. A little bit yellowed, includes several defects. Cancellation. Too present, blurry, but leaves some bits of image in places. Perforation. 3 or 4 missing, and/ or 3 or 4 folded. Margins. Almost non-existent, uneven almost all around. Centering. Average, image a little bit overflowing. Color. A little tarnished, but generally correct.

Fine condition : Rear part. Not yellowed, but includes some defects. Cancellation. Rather present, but still a little clear, placed a little bit poorly. Perforation. 2 or 3 missing, and/or 2 or 3 folded. Margins. Very thin, 2 or 3 uneven sides. Centering. Bad, but not overflowing image. Color. Not tarnished, but without more.

Fine, very fine condition : Rear part. Not yellowed, rather clear, but includes a few defects. Cancellation. Present, but not too much, but still, a little poorly placed, rather clear, but not entirely. Perforation : 1 or 2 missing, and/or 1 or 2 folded. Margins : 1 uneven side, a little thin. Centering : Not overflowing image, not really well centered but correct. Color. Not tarnished, a little good.

Very fine condition : Rear part. Not yellowed, clear, 1 defect present. Cancellation. Rather well placed, almost completely clear. Perforation. 1 a little folded, none missing. Margins. 1 side a little uneven, sides a little large. Centering. Not overflowing image, well centered, almost perfect. Color. Not tarnished, rather good.

Extra fine condition : Rear part. Really clear, no defects. Cancellation. Well placed, completely clear. Perforation. None folded, none missing. Margins. Large, every sides equal. Centering. Not overflowing image, perfectly centered. Color. Not tarnished, dazzling, superb.


How to use the system : If the stamp is imperforated and cancelled, there's 4 conditions criteria, because there's 4 parts on the stamp which determines the condition. There's 6 different grades, the grade that determines the worst condition (poor) is the first one. Worst grade = 1 point. The other grade before the worst one= 2 points. ETC. ETC. Example : The cancellation is a fine, very fine one. So 4 points. The margins is a fine one. So 3 points. The rear part is a very fine one. So 5 points. The color is a fine one. So 3 points. Because there's 4 criteria Margins, rear part, color, and cancellation for an imperforated and cancelled stamp) and 6 grades of condition, you rate the stamp out of 24. 4 x 6 = 24. Let's come back to the points. 3+4+5+3 = 15, so 15/24.

With this logic, you rate the condition of an imperforated and new (not cancelled) stamp out of 18, an imperforated and cancelled stamp out of 24, a perforated and new stamp out of 24, a perforated and cancelled stamp out of 30.

That looks hard to use and to understand, but when you'll understand, you'll can use it easily ! What do you think about this system ? Any comments welcome, and questions too, of course !

CS

No point in reinventing the wheel.

The introductory pages of the Gibbons catalogue tell you all you need to know. I'm sure Scott has something similar, along with the other major non-English language catalogues.

I will say this though. Any stamp of which the gummed side is described as "A little bit yellowed, includes several defects" is NOT a very good condition stamp.

I'll look the Gibbons system and I'll learn about all that one. Thanks !

Another visionary, who has invented the wheel!

Yup the ordinary European system of stating the condition of a stamp reinvented.
As Bobby de la Rue mentioned, look at the introduction of the SG catalogues and you will find the system.

Also, some things are useless. There actually, are stamps issued over a period where the gum of some printings was yellowish. Post fresh!

Also, the very good condition you describe is very optimistic.




This describes a space filler.

I don't see this system gaining traction in the foreseeable future but stranger things have happened.

Random thoughts:

The most used words in the system are "little" "rather" and "almost". Just as you cannot be a "little" bit or "almost" pregnant nor can a stamp have "little" large margins and so on. Just my opinion of course.

This system should be studied to ascertain the man or people-hours involved per stamp to establish the condition. Is it practical?

For most of the condition categories up to and including fine/very fine, missing perforations are acceptable. This is either groundbreaking or delusional. Will have to wait and see which.

Here is my shot at describing a stamp using the system criteria:

Scott US 1: a few defects. Cancellation. Present, but not too much, but still, a little poorly placed, rather clear, but not entirely. Margins : 1 uneven side, a little thin. Centering : Not overflowing image, not really well centered but correct. Color. Not tarnished, a little good.

OR we could use currently accepted terminology and have:

Scott US 1: VF, large margins to barely touching at left, no faults, light face free cancel, 2021 PF cert.

Up to your "very fine," you are describing defective stamps below the range of what the common accepted language usually describes. It seems like the problem you are solving for is that at the lower-end, the numerical or letter grades just fall off. Another approach would be to use the common language/grades at fine/50 and above, and adapt your system for those lower-quality stamps?

If you ever get a chance to read the introduction to a Facit catalogue (Scandinavian stamps), they do something similar for classic-era stamps.


That is, they express condition based on several criteria, only one of which is centering. They use a 5 point scale per criterion I believe. So a stamp that is 'perfect' in all respects gets 5/5 for centering and 5/5 for the cancellation, etc.

Like many of the responses here (some kinder than others), all the catalogues have established ways of expressing stamp condition and have developed their methods over decades. So it begs the question, what's missing? What do you hope to communicate with your 'new' method that is missing from the discourse?

In your original post, you mention 'accuracy' as your goal. But when is better accuracy needed?

I don't see a need for common stamps (just pick your favourite out of this pile of 1000 'identical' stamps) or at the top of the market either (when do you have the option of buying two Canada 12d blacks at the same time but can't decide which one to buy?)

My two (very fine, 95.67% pure) cents.

Of course with any system, yours included Captain Stamp, there are always wiggle words and phrases, in other words personal opinion. There in lies the rub, sellers what to wiggle up to get more money and buyers want to wiggle down to save money. Both, at times are willing to ignore the printed "rules." Get a certificate you don't like? Lose the certificate and try again for a new cert or just call it as you see it.

Philately is far more than stamps. To a postal historian any stamp removed from its mailing container is damaged just a ghost of what it was.

Thanks for the replies/advices everyone ! Of course, my "system" is not really well developed, and you helped me about what's wrong in that. I was only curious to see what would you think about this. And, if there's a little bit of potential. And I really understand, rodgcam, when you say that the words are really not well choose. I personally think that haves a little of potential, and I'm surprised to know that Scandinavian catalogues do something that looks (a little) like the principal thing I thought I invented So thanks again, everyone !

CS

Captain Stamp - I admire you for your energy and enthusiasm! keep up the good work.

Thanks rodgcam !

My compliments to you for venturing a novel twist on a topic we all contemplate.

Your system begins to address an issue I have with numerical grading. Numerical grading, largely adopted in the US but scoffed at in the rest of the world, is heavily biased to centering. While centering doubtless appeals to collectors' aesthetics, it has led to the breakup of multiples to harvest well-centered singles and the widespread reperforation of classics to improve margin balance. Your system weights stamp attributes equally, and sums an overall score.

An overly complex grading system would never gain traction in the collecting world, but others are welcome to comment.

In the end I think the current system is workable and fine for most interested parties. Siegel boils it down to its essence in the front end of every sale catalog by including the following:







In addition, RASAG includes an illustrated guide to gum condition which anyone can understand.

Simple really, assign a designation for overall centering and presentation and describe the gum (if applicable) according to their chart.

Any faults such as thins, pulled perforations, surface abrasions, oxidizing, foxing, toning etc. are called out in the item description. Cancels can be described such as "Town" or "Blue" or "Face Free" etc. but don't have to be because you will be looking at an image of the item in question.

We need to recognize that the only item that is going to get a grade of any type or have time spent on it utilizing a "system" is one of a certain value. 99.99 % of stamps will never justify spending 5 minutes to assess. You could if you like but after a hundred or thousand or ten thousand times you will likely grow tired of it IMO.

Let's stick with the wheel we know.

That means that you want to help me improving my system ?