Writing on Stamps: It's selfish!

As a life long collector-- and a fairly active trader on eBay and other sites-- I have looked at a lot of stamps.

I am also well aware of the fact that there is no "right way" to collect stamps, but that doesn't mean I am exempt from having a few pet peeves, when it comes to philately. One of my pet peeves is "writing on the backs of stamps."

Among "serious" stamp collectors, there is some debate about whether or not something written in pencil on the back of a stamp reduces its value, or is "neutral." Personally, I don't mind if there is a small lightly penciled number on the back of a stamp, if someone feels compelled to add one.

There was also a day gone by when experts would sign the back of a stamp-- in pencil-- and it actually added to the value of the stamp.

That, however, is a far cry from the backs of some (surprisingly many!) stamps I have seen... where a collector (or series of collectors) have attempted to document the entire history of the stamp and its catalogue value on the back surface. To me, that is a complete no-no.

You might ponder why it's a bad idea to write on stamps, since we don't generally see the back, in the first place. I see a number of reasons-- based on experience-- why the practice should be avoided.

For one, pencils can be pretty sharp, and most people don't have a "light hand" when they write. I have seen some really good stamps rendered valueless because the pencil point actually damaged the paper.

Two, some collectors are "purists" and will be sufficiently annoyed by a pencil note that they will try to erase it. Unless you are extraordinarily careful and gentle (and skilled!) odds are you'll actually damage the stamp by trying to erase pencil marks-- causing a shallow thin, or at least unwanted bends/creases, which in turn will reduce the value of the stamp.

Three, most who write on the backs of stamps are doing so for identification purposes... and a large percentage of the numbers I see are just plain "wrong." Why? Sometimes because the collector really didn't know what he or she was doing and wrote a number down that never was right, to begin with. This then misleads the next owner of the stamp. Alternately, the writer might have lived in a different country, and the Michel number they wrote looks "wrong" compared to the Scott number we're trying to establish for the stamp.

Which leads me to the deeper "why" writing on the back of stamps really annoys me: It's selfish, in the sense that it disregards the next owner of the stamp. A simple number may only be useful to the original writer, while a more useful complete sentence like "Michel 83, 2007 value 300 Euros" is truthful and helpful, but simply too much writing to put on a stamp.

My advice? Don't write on the backs of stamps!

The strangeness of "Condition"

"Sound stamp?" That's a matter of opinion...

This morning, I have been spending some time on the Internet, looking at stamps for sale in the APS "Stampstore" online.

I find people's interpretation of a stamp's condition rather astonishing, sometimes.

How can a stamp be "fault free," when the scan clearly shows a corner is missing?

How can an 1872 stamp from Sweden have a "natural straight edge," when it is a global fact that all Swedish stamps issues prior to 1920 were perforated on all four sides-- without fail?

This confuses me, a bit. It also offends me a little, because there seems to be a hidden implication that I am "too ignorant to know any different."

Maybe what also bothers me about it is that it seems like a "hit and hope" approach-- sellers do not necessarily lie about something, but "describe" it, and then hope that the next sucker won't notice that something is wrong. I grant you, not everyone can be an expert on the stamps of every country... but if I were to offer material for sale from a country I am not all that familiar with, you can be sure I'm going to spend so time getting to know that country's stamps in the catalogue, before I put anything up for sale. And if I'm a buyer, I'm going to educate myself about what I am buying, as well.

The other thing that makes me scratch my head is sellers who think someone is going to pay 75% of catalogue value for a stamp that's little more than a space filler. What? WHAT?

I'm really not curmudgeonly, by nature!