Pencil marks on back of stamps
Other than the obvious pencil marks indicating a Scott# that are placed on the back of stamps, are there any other reasons why this is done? Also, should one erase the pencil markings on a MNH stamp?
Comments
There are comments in this group that I agree with, and those that I don't, but I do respect all of them. So what I'm about to say (which may be contrary to other views), is offered knowing such.
First, pencil marks on the back of MANY stamps should be a red flag. A common phycological ply is to create something known as "anchor bias". If I write 500 on the back of a stamp, this creates a perception that the stamp is a 500. If you start looking at it, you look at it from the perspective that it is a 500, and that leads to something worse known as "confirmation bias". You try to confirm that it IS a 500, rather than being objective, and looking at it for what it really is... a 499. (I'm using this example specifically, there is another thread in this forum that addresses a case of this, and then another thread that I wrote that helps to differentiate them accurately). So I'm mentioning this as one example, it occurs not only in FW's, but many other issues in US, and as I'm not a "world-wide" expert, I can certainly extrapolate that it happens with stamps in every country.
It's a really insidious practice. When I see a Scott # written on the back of a stamp, I have come to hold this as highly suspicious particularly amount certain issues. Another examples, 622 written on the back of a 694. 622 is a $19 MNH and 694 is $3.50 MNH. Which do you think a less-than-ethical dealer want's you to believe, especially when you're not standing on the floor with a perf gauge an hand, and he/she will never see you again? This kind of trickery has happened extensively in the past. So my first word of caution about Scott #'s written on a stamp is that it is a RED FLAG to verify that the number IS the real number, and do it by eliminating the low value items first, not confirming it is a high value item. That will lead you to skipping checks that can prove that the stamp is not as represented. FW's are a major area that this occurs in especially in coil stamps, but there are many areas in US and I'm sure world wide, where this is an issue.
One area that I do see majority of material being reasonably accurate with the Scott # written on it however, is in Private Die. This is because there may be as many as 6 (a, b, c, d, e, u) variations of the same design, and it gets tedious to ID them over and over, especially on low value (under $100) stamps. Here, I do tend to leave it alone. Otherwise, I will erase from used stamps to the extent reasonable, and with an OG stamp, i will as well. MNH is different, because this may create a bigger disturbance than the pencil.
INK stamps (back stamps pressed in with a rubber stamp in ink) are to be AVOIDED. I know others have said "no biggie" but here is the problem. In almost ever case, with a wet ink back stamp, given enough time, the ink WILL bleed through to the other side. Even if it doesn't it may still be bold enough to be seen from the front. These are both bad. In my experience as a seller, I HATE getting stamps in collections with ink back stamps. Expertizers (at least the credible ones) don't use these, they are long term damaging. There are expertizers marks in pencil in many occasions. But here's another question... why would the expertizer write on the back of the stamp? Generally, this was to acknowledge that they'd examined it, BUT this was done as a courtesy because there were issues with the stamp that don't warrant the cost of certificate issuance. (So rather than charging $30 for the stamp, the expertizer looks at it, gives it an ID (that is contrary to what the submitter provided) and charges nothing, or a small fee for the ID, and skips the certificate issuance process which triggers larger fees.
This is of little value to anyone other than the original submitter...
Quick: Name a "famous" expertizer... Yeah, there aren't any. If Einstein or Picasso signed the back of your stamp, it's worth $5k. If Carol Chase signed the back of your stamp... it's worth $5. Ok, maybe an extra $15.
But as a seller, where there are collectors marks in stamped ink on the back, I have a much harder time selling them and when I do they go for a much lower margin. We can all say we are "indifferent" to pencil marks, but it really doesn't matter much what we think. The proof is in the market.
Second to address "other marks" things that are not Scott #'s and the MNH element.
Like it or not...."the market" is very much like water always finding it own level. We have all seen the many examples of the RARE and SCARCE common stamps listed for outrageous asking prices. Very few sellers will agree that this practice is appropriate and, as I have observed, most of these scammers are called out on it and turn into vapor. Some don't but...ultimately..."the market" corrects itself.
Now, I'm done with my take. Take it for what it's worth gents...and ladies.
P.T. Barnum
But it's a useful discussion. The point about pencil marks on MNH stamps is that it's a bad idea. It does in many cases impact value, and it can also be used as a tool to trick people. The real intention of MNH (Mint, Never Hinged) is to state that condition. The moment you write on it, you're breaking the definition of "MINT". This is why there is a term "Mint" and "Unused".
If we accept Linn's definition of mint:
Mint: A stamp in the same state as issued by a post office: unused, undamaged and with full original gum (if issued with gum).
It fails immediately. The post office did not issue the item with the pencil marks added to the back. They are added by the hands of others. And while many choose to be "loose" with the philatelic terminology, it is well defined by the broader philatelic community, and this is universal, not limited to just US or Brazil or Chad.
If someone choses to buy the item regardless, that's fair. But it doesn't specifically define the market. It indicates an isolated outlier. Some may call it "luck" others may call it "ignorant". Pencil markings on the back of used stamps, I will tend to erase. There are better ways to ID a stamp, and if some expertizer from 70 years ago touched it, but no one knows what their "mark" is any longer, then the relevance is low. It also further perpetuates the use of misdirection and misleading information (I've seen forged "expert marks" as well). It's a bad practice. In general, it should be avoided for all but the lowest of value material (under $5). For common items where ID takes a lot of effort (more than just looking up a design in a Scott book), it's understandable. But I don't condone it.
It was, at one time, an acceptable practice to use graphite to enhance the visibility of grill stamps. Now that too is frowned upon (and with good reason, there are just as effective methods of enhancing the visibility of grills without the need to "alter" the stamp, and make no mistake about it... application of a pencil marking is an alteration. Maybe a low impact one, but definition, it too is an alteration.
Does that mean you can't sell it? No. Does that mean it will sell for less? Maybe. Does one sale of an item at CV with a pencil mark on it define a market? Not really.
In the meantime, please mail me all your 1-cent magenta British Guyana's, but don't erase nuthin !'
I watched a copy of a C3a recently sell for $195,000 that had been sucked through a vacuum cleaner. (Position 78, now called "The vacuum cleaner copy". Now, what's also relevant here is, all 100 of the C3a's were marked on the back in pencil before the sheet was split up number 1 to 100. Another example of where the existence of the pencil is not detrimental, and in fact helps in tracking the entire sheet, and establishing easily fakes from authentic. (Though at least one is now no gum, so the pencil mark vanished with the gum soak). But these are all examples of stamps with extraordinary provenance. They are the "exceptions that prove the rule".
Another thing about faults... if I use enough magnification I can always find a fault in a stamp.
There is a reason that 10x to 15x magnification is standard for examination (at the expertizing level). You use higher magnifications to study alterations, like cut edges on FW's. But generally speaking, fault has a limit.
I have had this challenge before... both in the discussion about submerging a stamp in a liquid soap solution to remove dirt versus water only versus no alteration. I then displayed them in random order, and there was no detectible different in the ability to identify the items. Erased pencil marks are still detectible with the right forensic analysis, but the paper being thinned isn't one of them.
Some pencil can't be erased, it's just too dark, and too imbedded, so you reduce the visual impact of it, but it will never be gone.
If I have the option between erasing a bogus number from the back of an material that is typically significantly lower value, versus having someone else tricked by it, I'd rather erase it, and sell it for what it is, including that condition.
It's the same reason we will not sell faked material. (Don't mistake that with forged and counterfeit material, which we do sell, but described as such). I've written an entire other thread on that topic.
Of course, as Andrew pointed out, you run the risk of creasing the stamp if you don't apply proper technique in their removal. But once again... is a pencil mark a fault? Is an erase mark a fault? Is a crease a fault?
Yes, they all are. And yes there are degrees of fault too, but any one of those can range from tiny/minor to large/major.
Altered is altered. Why not remove something that has potential for long-term damage (continued staining) versus a scuff mark... Which isn't going to be considered a thin by any expertizing committee.
Expert committee's would hopefully mention the scuff. For me, the word 'scuff' would be a greater turn-off than pob.
Bottom line (since we've beaten this to death): what Brother Doll said...
What did you guys think about Stuart Weitzman signing this stamp?
https://www.filatelia.fi/experts/areasa.html
The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.