Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Please tell me what MUH means.
Arthur

Arthur,

MUH (or UHM) means mint unhinged (unhinged mint) and refers to traditional gummed stamps and miniature sheets - not self adhesives - the likes of which would be sold to you over the post office counter. This is before anyone has the chance to change it to mint (i.e hinged) by affixing a hinge(s) to the gum.

Later the hinge can be removed but it will leave an indication that it has been previously hinged. The fact that there is no hinge present any longer does not mean that the status of the stamp reverts to UHM/MUH. Once or even more often the stamp has been hinged it can not be in the same state as purchased from the post office.

I hope that this helps?

David.

_________________
David Smitham
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Upper Hutt 2013 Stamp Show 13 - 15 September 2013 Upper Hutt, NZ.

Thanks for the info David, very technical!
Arthur

Think of a MUH stamp as being post office fresh, without anybody having done anything unmentionable to it's back side!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Clean and sticky, Londonbus, clean and sticky.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

here in the US the term used for that type of unused stamp is mint never hinged (abbreviated as Mint NH or MNH).

_________________
www.thestamppeople.com
www.bygonepostcards.com

One that I have often wondered about.

What are the various international terms for MUH (or it's equivalent) for "Post Office Fresh" stamps that were issued without gum in the first place?

After all, a hinge can always be cleanly removed from these, which makes them as pristine as the day they left the PO.

Additional Bonus Question: Is there any reason at all to sell these sorts of stamps "hinged" at a lower price than "unhinged"? (aside from the possibility that the hinge mark could be hiding a thin)

Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

Of course, in a perfect world, they should all be abbreviated to a simple M, for mint. Anything done to alter that state should add letters!

Unfortunately, Mint can mean Mint Hinged (MH) or Unused, also known as MNG - Mint No Gum

_________________
Always looking for KGV British Commonwealth, mint, used, covers, anything

Norm,

I always refer to stamps that were issued without gum (mainly early States that I collect) as 'unused' and couldn't give a rats about hinges.

Similarly, I will happily take a Mint Lightly Hinged pre-1930s without quibble.

The reason for the difference in price is, of course, supply and demand. Demand for MUH (somewhat ludicrous for States and Kangaroos etc) is greater than availability. MUH, generally, is often available only as a result of breaking down blocks. Anyone who breaks down blocks of Roos or Georges deserves a VERY slow and VERY painful punishment!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

A timely reminder for Commonwealth issues at least that, SG catalogue-wise, KGV and earlier are priced at MH!

MUH kicks in for KGVI

_________________
Always looking for KGV British Commonwealth, mint, used, covers, anything

Of course, there is hinged and there is HINGED

I don't mind an unobtrusive hinge, that doesn't impact the face of the stamp. It's the monsters that cover most of the back and have caused damage that I wouldn't accept.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

I'll take a MHH - Mint Heavy Hinged, also known as Part OG (original gum - what a stupid name) if it's all I can get.

I've got plenty of MLH that needed intense scrutiny to see if they had been hinged at all. A bit like train-spotting really. The front is far more interesting!

_________________
Always looking for KGV British Commonwealth, mint, used, covers, anything

Peter, sorry, perhaps I was not clear. My MUH/MH question only referred to stamps which were issued without gum in the first place. I am certainly familliar with the point of early MH/MUH price differentiations.

Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

Norm, sorry...misunderstood. I would not care either way, EXCEPT that hinging often hides a defect. I would be cautious and want to check a hinged imperf, no gum, stamp thoroughly before purchase.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

. DAERHT YGOLONIMRET PMATS DLROW ERRAZIB A OTNI NELLAF EV'I !EM PLEH

mroN

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

I think Londusbus posted in Hebrew, Norm!

Ewen

That better be polite Mr Bus!!

_________________
Always looking for KGV British Commonwealth, mint, used, covers, anything

I can read the bottom line; Londonbus1

Ewen

Wow, what a lot of info.
Thanks a lot Londonbus, its all as clear as mud now !
But I think I'm getting the drift.
Arthur

...and just to make it even clearer, don't forget those catalogues and dealers who use this notation:

* = Mounted Mint
** = Unmounted Mint
o = Used

......or this one...


(*) mint no gum

You mean near all of Europe?
.

Non licked stamps are Virgin Stamps.. Aren't they?

Richard

_________________
http://www.delcampe.net/seller_sales.ph ... r=00013042
http://www.stampoffers.com/storecatalog.asp?userid=12

Too much sun, I think!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

This is one I actually saw on ebay a while back, with the seller using this description on about 10 nondescript per-decimal Australian stamps. Needless to say the items never sold.

"Used, almost Mint"

Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

Norm, well they ARE mint, if you ignore the cancellations!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Q:

The above posts and terms refer to gummed stamps from sheets. Probably also they may apply to self adhesive stamps but in this case does the presence/absence of a hinge(s) make any difference if you are talking about the backing paper to the stamp - which will otherwise be as sold over the post office counter. Whilst the backing may be hinged the self adhesive stamp is not.

Now if one is daft enough to remove the self adhesive stamp from its backing paper and then apply a hinge to the rear of the stamp and then affix it to your album page the presence/absence of a hinge once again matters not, but the stamp will no longer be as issued.

Glen - any idea - for the term describing the state of the stamp between being hinged after removing from the backing paper but before being affixed to one's album page?

Almost stuffed comes to mind, but that may not be correct!!

David!

_________________
David Smitham
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Upper Hutt 2013 Stamp Show 13 - 15 September 2013 Upper Hutt, NZ.

Such a state is so transient and of so short a duration that it probably doesn't warrant its own definition. If it DID have to have a definition, maybe 'unglued' could be used?

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

How about calling it Peeled-Hinged?

The 'used, almost mint' noted above reminds me of a description in an auction I saw years ago 'almost mint unhinged'. A retailer once described a stamp as 'would suit MUH buyer' (meaning = mint, very lightly hinged). Such descriptions can be quite misleading.

These are sure cases of overdescribing a stamp that in reality you would expect to be mint very lightly hinged ...

It's a bit like being 'a little bit pregnant' - quite a nonsense really! In each case, the stamp was either hinged or it wasn't!

Then there are also the issues of (1) whether a hinge means the stamp is no longer mint ... as in the condition that it was 'minted' in. That is probably why some expertising bodies write 'unused' on their certificates for all stamps that are generally considered within the hobby as 'mint' and add a statement about it being either without gum, large part original gum or part original gum, etc. The Royal of London will call a mint unhinged Kangaroo 'unused' on their certificates, but often with no comment about the gum. There are two such examples coming up in the next Prestige Philately auction (17th October).

(2) If a stamp that has been sent through the mail and not cancelled, can it correctly be described as 'unused' when it has in fact actually been used? Once it has been soaked off the piece it can be difficult to prove either way; however, sometimes there are invisible to the eye markings applied ... for security measures. This is not widely known and information on it is scant for obvious reasons.

You often see large offerings of 'mint no gum' in auctions, etc. As far as I am aware, much of the time, this material apparently has come from charity mix and the like, that has been sorted through and all the uncancelled stamps are sorted and sold as 'mint no gum'.

In some cases, they are used stamps that have had the postmarks 'removed'; or a mix of both. I was once offered completely unsolicited many $10,000's face of this type of Australian decimal material from a seller in Asia. I was sent about $A100 face as samples and handed them straight over to AP security along with the letter of offer, etc. Sure enough, all of it had been used and had the postmarks removed ...

It is actually a criminal offence in Australia to knowingly re-use a stamp that has already been used through the mail even though it has not been cancelled. This is because it is actually defrauding the Post Office of revenue. Once again, can be difficult to prove ... but that is the law.

Simon Dunkerley

[off topic]

Sorry, I'll post this here while it stays in my mind. One of my favourite descriptions in an auction once was some Cape of Good Hope triangles in a small collection, described in the catalogue as "four margin" copies.

The mind really does boggle at times.

[/ off topic]

Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

UNP = Used No Postmark

Just to add a little to broaden this thread, but hopefully not derail it,
I still get bamboozled by U (used), FU (fine used),VFU (very fine used)
EFU? (extra / excellent fine used?).

Is there a rule of thumb?.
Are these just dealer marketing terms?
How do you tell the difference between FU and VFU?
Just where does CTO (canceled to order) sit on this scale?

It can be just seller puffery. However, if a catalogue value is given, the term should (but often doesn't) relate to the grading system adopted by that catalogue. Each catalogue sets its own standards for grading, and are usually illustrated in the introductory pages.

CTO is, to my mind, outside the scale (has one of it's own). The stamp has not gone through the postal system and cannot really be said to be 'used' in that context.

Having said that, I certainly collect officially released CTO Australian stamps (i.e. those issued as part of Speciment sets, in the main), as well as FU (postally used).

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Unused.....Mint no Gum, Issued without Gum
and
MNG....Mint no Gum

From my extensive research on this site I understand that these are Unused stamps - they have not gone through the post.

But what if you have a Mint stamp that was issued With gum, that no longer has it's gum? Do catalogues tell you if stamps were issued without gum? (not having any catalogues and relying on the feeble local library supply)

or for instance what if you have some Mint Unused, but stuck together stamps that will not come apart and soaking is the only solution (after trying numerous others), how do you classify them? They are not Used - they are no longer Mint (according to the classifications of how they came from the post office). Perhaps they are just Ruined?

Thanks, Evelyn

Evelyn, modern stamps that have no gum and no cancellation are (overwhelmingly) stamps that were stuck to letters but went through the postal system unmarked. These are used stamps of little value (in my opinion). they cannot, legally, be used for postage and used collectors don't want them.

Stamps that were issued without gum are identified as such in more specialised catalogues. They tend to be very early issues (1840s and 1850s) and can be stated to be mint or unused 9seems to be interchangeable).

Stamps that have stuck together and been soaked to separate them, they are unused stamps that you could glue to a letter legitimately, but otherwise are not much good for anything else (as a general rule).

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

In the era of the Spanish-Philippines (1854-1899), all stamps were issued with gum. Now having said this, it is quite frequent that, given the tropical climate of the Philippines and the age of the stamps, many of the older stamps of that era have lost their gum, and are thus sold as Mint No Gum.

Now the obvious question when buying one of these stamps:

Is it really Mint No Gum ... or is it Used with the cancel washed off?

so telling the ungummed ones apart can be a problem. If one comes across a nice looking postally used but uncancelled stamp should one chuck it? mark it as such? keep it on paper to prove usage? .....

Evelyn

Evelyn the answer to this can be...yes, no, maybe.

For example, keeping it on paper to "prove usage" would not add value - it would be far too easy to simply find a mint one and add it to a piece of paper, which provides evidence of nothing, unless you retain enough of the paper, and preferably the entire cover, that has some sort of a cancellation somewhere on the cover. Modern stamps on cover, uncancelled are extremely common. I got one today.

I will soak and keep the stamps, but I wll not use them for postage. What people do with them is purely a personal decision.



Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

"Post Office Fresh" doesn't necessarily mean it's any good, if the hastily torn, doughnut-icing-fingerprinted examples from my local post office are any guide...!

Quite right!

And the term also is no good, when you refer to stamps that belonged in a block or booklet! Since the only Post Office Fresh Thing is the block or booklet itself. The moment you tear stamps out of their environment they are no longer post office fresh

You may think this is a ridiculous statement, but I found out that for more than 40 years it was a serious argument in the Nethelrands to instruct collectors not to break up stamp booklets to get all possible combinations of different stamps out of those booklets. At least in the case of not yet used stamps, it would be much wiser to keep the booklet as such and think of it as a whole post office fresh item. Rather than all separate combinations. It would be a completely different thing when we talked about used stamps. Any combination might be found on the mail and then it would be fine to collect..

The same argument goes for blocks with a variation of stamps in it!

One description I haven't seen mentioned that applies to "Mint" stamps is MHR, which describes an unused stamp with gum and a hinge remnant....purists would probably consider the designation stands for MyHorRrors! I confess I have no qualms about acquiring unused stamps with a hinge remnant...I also have no illusions that I could sell stamps in this condition for anything close to one that was MNH/MUH. I'll let my estate worry about that though. On the other hand, my own pet peeve is getting CTO stamps that are "valued" like they were postally used in mixed, large lots. Certainly anything one wants to collect can be considered "collectable," but can an item which could never have pre-paid postage be considered a "postage stamp?"

_________________
Larry in Tucson
APS#122570

I'm surprised that no one has posted anything in this thread about REGUMMED stamps.
For the novices - some unethical operators will actually regum unused stamps and offer them as MUH.
Maybe some one with more knowledge on this could explain it in more detail for those that aren't aware of the practice.

_________________
Always looking for anything related to NSW tax marks on covers.
www.nswtaxmarks.com for research into this subject