Describing Insulators

Reprinted from "INSULATORS - Crown Jewels of the Wire", January 1974, page 23

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL COLLECTORS

This is an open letter to all persons involved one way or another with the collecting of insulators. This letter has two primary reasons. First is to improve and prolong what I considered one of the greatest of leisure-time activities, and second is to prevent other collectors from being as disappointed as I have been with trading or buying insulators by mail.

At the very beginning of our hobby, it was obvious that in order for two persons, as widely separated as most of us are from one another, to be able to both refer to the exact same insulator, there would have to be some sort of system that would be universal and exact. This has been achieved with Mr. Woodward's system of C.D. numbers, Mr. Milholland's books with pictures in precise sizes, and Mr. Tod's U-numbers. My disagreement is not in this area. My dissatisfaction is with the method of describing the condition of insulators. All too many times I have received insulators that were not found to be as they were described on a list or in an advertisement. The problem I feel is in the misuse of the word "MINT". Many times I have seen and received insulators that had been described as "MINT" - "VERY NEAR MINT" and "NEAR MINT" that did not even come close to such classifications. I remember one list of insulators that were all damaged, but the person stated that some other people would call them "MINT". How can a damaged insulator be "MINT"? I have talked to many new collectors who were so disappointed with the condition of insulators that they received by mail, that they will never buy or trade by mail again. This could ruin our whole hobby. I know that much of my own collection has been built up by mail, and I have received many so-called M., V.N.M. and N.M. insulators that should have been sent back; but like so many others, I kept them and brooded to myself and never dealt with that person again. I might add this is great, but sooner or later you would run out of people to trade with. Don't get me wrong; I don't mean that everyone is out to deceive everyone else; I just say that our system needs updating. My solutions are as follows. First of all I would exchange the word "MINT" with the word "PERFECT". Try going over some lists of insulators and substitute "PERFECT" for "MINT", or "VERY NEAR PERFECT" for "VERY NEAR MINT", or "NEAR PERFECT" for "NEAR MINT". Find any changes? Everyone that I have had do this, suddenly finds out that I am right. The word "MINT" has been overdone and means very little today. "PERFECT" still means something - "MINT" does not.

Secondly, I do not generalize with terms such as: Good, Nice, Poor, Fair, Not Bad, Pretty Good, etc. There should be only three classifications: "PERFECT", "NEAR PERFECT" and "DAMAGED". I would think that a "PERFECT" and "NEAR PERFECT" insulator would both be valued about the same, especially in the more valuable insulators. With any other insulator, the damage should be described as close as possible, so that the buyer would have a good idea as to what he is getting for his money. This may seem tough or extreme at first, but if we do not do something, we will not survive. Ratings should be by condition, not price. The greater the damage, the less the value, and consequently the lower the price should be. 

This I feel is much better than saying that all "GOOD" insulators are worth 1/2 of what a "MINT" one is worth, or that a "POOR" one is worth about 1/2 of what a "GOOD" one is worth. If an insulator is "PERFECT" or "NEAR PERFECT", it should be rated at the going price for that particular insulator. If damaged, the damage should be described, and the price deduced to fit the damage. Just because you list damaged insulators, it won't necessarily cut down your sales, and you may find out you are selling more glass to repeat buyers by being more accurate and having happier customers and, in turn, enjoying more sales yourself. 

This may not be the answer to our problems in this area, but I feel that it is a start in the right direction, a start that we must make immediately. I would welcome replies either direct or through this magazine. 
Bob Wilson 
12612 Chilton Road 
Phila., PA 19154 
(215) NE-7-9435