Mint never hinged - pencil annotation on back

clivel,

As per your description, MNH means as clean as Kleenex. So you're not being unreasonable.

clivel
Not unreasonable at all! The onus is on the seller to properly describe whats being sold. In the past several years, if I am interested in an offering, but there is no image of the back, I request one. I've also 'learned' to ask , if not stated, if the stamps in the image are the actual stamps being sold, or is a stock photo being used.

Let your refund be a lesson to the seller (In a perfect world!)

Thanks for your post, clivel

I am with you and all the rest on this, Clive. An item described as MNH should be pristine on the back: no markings, undisturbed gum, etc. In fact, I once worked with a dealer who told me that if a stamp was issued with a fault in the gum, such as a skip, that he would not sell it as MNH. It was his contention that even stamps with production faults would not qualify as MNH. I thought this made sense to me, so I have adopted the same philosophy.

Not long ago, I bought a pair of stamps described on eBay as MNH, and upon receiving them, I found that while it does indeed appear that they have never seen a hinge, the gum was "tropicalized" and not at all pristine. I consider these misdescribed as MNH. Anyone who tries to claim a stamp is MNH when the back is not in pristine condition is attempting to trade on a literal technicality, i.e., that the stamp has never been hinged despite other faults.

I think you are being reasonable in this case.  I also wish that online sellers would routinely supply scans of the backs of their material to save observant buyers from these sorts of problems. In your case, it would have been obvious that the stamps were not pristine on the backs.

Fair point, PostmasterGS!

I wasn't thinking about expertizing marks. I have had poor experiences with those (forged ones), and so in fact, I don't find them especially useful. That said, I understand that in your area of expertise, they may be considered a must in some cases.

Thank you for pointing this out. Exception noted!

Not unreasonable at all. If it wasn't disclosed in the description, then the stamps are not as described. Return them for a full refund.

Pencil marks should be disclosed

In my view they items were not properly described and a refund should be issued.  As other as indicated « mint » should me undisturbed gum including markings. I have a few purchases of this sort over the years. As were of low cost, I did not ask for a refund. I did have positive exchanges with the sellers about the pencil markings.  Since that experience, I tend to ask for photos of back of stamp.  

David

Definitely NOT unreasonable. I collect GB unmounted mint never hinged examples. Defacing the gum means it is not in mint condition in my opinion. That's why a lot of dealers are dealers & not collectors as well.

I would, like the vast majority of the people who have responded to your post, find such a lot totally unacceptable.  I assume the vendor will accept the return.