On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:21:48 -0500 (EST), wrote:

Tracy writes; " .... 10) Mint stamps have not done postal duty. ....
[Nuff said] .... "
.
True enough about the lack of postal duty, but " ...Nuff said ...." ???
I beg to differ.
.
The glut of stamp issues, pretty pictures with little relationship to a
nations culture, history or postal need bleed the collector dry and in
many cases cause the disconcerting realization that a collection
carefully gathered and organized is worth less than the cost of the
mounts used to "protect" them when it comes time to sell.
.
The reasons given will be found in the other posts in this thread and
are readily advanced to devalue the sellers collection when s/he or an
heir decides to sell.
.
The sheer number of stamps issued each year by most nations is
staggering to the collector.
.
Feeding this "dragon" by purchasing mint stamps that will only reside
between the pages of an album encourages the issuing agancies to become
bolder and more inventive.
.
To mix a metaphor this "dragon" lays golden eggs that enrich postal
agencies, in my opinion defrauds collectors and frustrates new entries
to the hobby.
.
Those who buy and collect mint stamps from these agencies are feeding
the dragon. All that is accomplished is that the dragon gets fatter,
bolder and insatiable.
.
I collect postally used stamps of the world and reject the idea that
mint stamps are worth more, at least to me.
.
Gummed stamps that come my way and cannot be used for their intended
purpose are soaked and dried, then hinged and placed in an album.
.
Rather than being polite and letting this issue lie dorment with the
thought "Nuff said" I feel it should be shouted from the tops of your
pile of albums and debated in any serious philatelic discussion group.

I thought I did so with my numerous answers to said question. :^P

Tracy Barber