Used stamps without cancel or gum

Rol: Unless I personally removed them from an envelope that I knew went through the postal system, I call them Mint No Gum. And, sometimes when I know they went through the system and can find absolutely no trace of a cancel (even under UV), I still call them MNG - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... that's the uncertain nature of MNG, yes?

But forged cancels are forgeries. If you aren't happy with a cancel, go find another stamp with a cancel you ARE happy with. Forgery - for any reason - is unforgiveable. 

I do understand the semantics, and that my calling them mint is certainly against the purist grain, but at the same time I also understand why everyone else does it, from a linguistic sense. UNcancelled and UNused are terms that define the object by what it is not instead of what it is, and the only option I've ever heard that refers to a stamp before it's been cancelled (without negation) is "mint," sooo... I'm running with how the word is used, as opposed to the use it was intended for. It happens to the best of us.  

The only truth about language is that it changes over time. Oy?

For the past 3 years, with new software I use the term Mint NG - Unused does not agree with me since we will never know if the stamp was not cancelled (!!) - Mint sounds "minty" to me - With great respect to the linguists, I remain

Yours truly,

When you deal with very early/rare stamps - often you see a note in the catalog about NG


René

[Posted by formember @kent]

Hi folks,
I'm relatively new in here and did not see any thing about my query, so I'll start by adding something to this thread.
My question, (about unused no gum) is where do you factor values on unused stamps with no gum.

I a talking about stamps issued with gum not NGAI (sometimes unclear on BOB issues)
In the Scott Catalog you have values for Mint ( and Never Hinged MINT), and Used.
A stamp that has no obvious (or even subtle) sign of having ever had a cancelation, but has no gum. Is really used.
Often these stamps have less vibrant color and surface loss due to a good soaking.
Lacking a nice cancellation, these unused no gum stamps are perhaps actually worth less than a used stamp.

I collect a lot of swords, and prefer a sword that was meant to be used in battle and not just a commemorative that is intended to decorate an officer at a ball or a wall.
Similarly, my used stamp collection should have been used for postage. That is why I stopped collecting in the 21st century as too many stamps were being printed for collectors and not for actual use. (Hope I don't ruffle any feathers here).

As for the previous comments about removing damaged gum by soaking a mint stamp for preservation is like cleaning a brilliant (yeah I collect too many coins as well) uncirculated coin harshly causing loss of luster, fine scratches and sometimes leaving chemicals that eventually spot or unevenly tone the coin. To do so is to dramatically decrease the value of a coin - and in parallel the value of a mint stamp is destroyed by removing gum...

Anyone have any practical guidance as a professional on where you value "mint no gum"/'unused' stamps?

Cheers,

MNG - They have neither the romance of legitimately used examples nor the grace and luxury of mint issues. I would (and do) only use MNG as fillers in my mint collection but never as fillers in my used collection. But they are just fillers.

With respect to my own area of collection, when you see an early Chilean issue promoted, sold or presented as Mint No Gum, it's about 90% certain that it was used fiscally and cleaned up. And I would never pay more for a MNG than for a used example with an average cancel.

From my experience the answer is not a universal broad brush percentage. It depends on the country, the issue and the time period. And, of course the retail value of a collectible example.

If one finds a classic stamp, nicely centered but without gum, and it pleases you aesthetically and value-wise, then collect it.

Which dilemma would one prefer - a fresh vlh or nh example that is possibly regummed or a fresh NG example which often has a fiscal cancel removed?

Choose carefully, grasshopper.


EDIT:  Perhaps this link will lead to useful information:


www.theswedishtiger.com/remove.html#:~:text=Removed%20cancels%20can%20still%20often,out%20traces%20of%20the%20ink.

So would these be the lowest on the food-chain? This pair of Estancos was evidently used postally and cancelled by pen in the PO but they don't have the clarity of MNG or the philatelic significance of a decent cancel. Shame.