Perf Punch On Back Of Stamp

I was looking at this stamp which is #298 of the Pan-American Issue and noticed that the back had what appears to have light perforation punches. I know it's not considered a freak or error and doesn't put the price any higher and hoping it doesn't lower the price for what is it but was wondering if any of you here in the family have seen this before. Is it possible that it is from other sheets that was on top of this stamp and they were missed perforated but didn't punch any hole because there were numerous sheets on top?

Thanks for your replies.
Newby

Your stamp has been stacked under pressure against another sheet which was shifted in its stacking and thus your stamp has been damaged. It is not an error of manufacture, but in subsequent poor storage.

Thank you John Becker

Traces of perforation that occurred during stacking of the sheets while waiting for the gum to cure is quite common on the Pan American Exhibition issues and Second Bureau issues of 1902. A few late First Bureau issue stamps may also have this feature. The perforation traces are not considered to be damaged and are a good indication that the gum is genuine. (Some attempts at regumming stamps of the period have included unconvincing fake perforation traces.)

Nice to read that.

I recently took possession of a sheet of stamps individually mounted in mounts, that must have become damp during transit.

The gum had obviously changed viscosity during the trip, and reset in the mount,
the gum had the perfect mirror sheen from the mount. they looked terrible,
at first I wondered what I, in fact, was dealing with.

The gum had a perfect mirror finish, and had migrated into the perforation teeth.

I have a slightly different explanation that may or may not apply to this stamp or all issues. One of the final steps in the stamp printing process was to actually put the sheets in a press to flatten them. Any misalignment of the sheets created the potential of these perf-hole indentations to occur. I have seen similar oddities on the 1857's. What is the stamp?

Thanks cfrphoto and sinclair for the information. I was thinking alone those lines myself somewhat. How many sheets were able to fit inside of the press to be flattened at one time?

Sinclair it's the #298 of The Pan-American Issue.

OMG, I guess I didn't read your first post very well.

I

Cfrphoto,

When I first looked at this stamp, I instantly thought it was regummed!

I read your post, but still think it is regum job.

Think away, assuming that the perforation tips are soft to the touch, the gum would be genuine. The stamp doesn't look to be regummed, but a close examination of the perforation tips for extraneous gum or lack of a dendritic cracking pattern around the perforation holes would be an indication that the stamp is regummed. Generally, regummed stamps look bad. Often the gum is the wrong consistency and the stamp will curl in the wrong direction. With experience good gum is easy to spot. Start with less expensive flat plate stamps from the 1920 to 1930 period to get a feel for how the gum would look. One mistake frequently seen on 19th century stamps is gum that is better looking than the original. Originally, gum was brushed on, often with diagonal brush strokes. Even when gum was applied to flat plate stamps with more automated methods, many irregularities, gum skips and imperfections occurred. Perfect gum did not routinely appear until pregummed paper could be used in combination with dry printing starting in the mid 1950s.

All good points, I just assume all of these stamps from this period are regum unless owner proves otherwise.

I am still amazed internet auctions including high end auction houses don't show high resolution scans of the backside with perf tips on older classic stamps. You can believe PF or PSE etc as much as you want regarding gum originality but if I'm going to pay 5x premium for gum condition, the least spink or Siegel could do is show me the back.

Thus, I collect used/cancelled stamps!!

Rod, I think the sheen/shine you are referring to is the angle of the stamp under bright lights to be able to see the perf indentions I was referring to.

Ah, no,no,no.
I have been collecting for some time, and this is something I have never seen before.
It is truly unique.

Imagine a boiling hot Peanut Brittle mixture poured into a flat dish,
when it is cooled and snapped, the lower surface is like a mirror.
These are how the stamps are.

It stems from a change in viscosity of the gum, melted then reset inside a mount.

By the way, a great scan of yours, held in tongs.....Bravo!

Thanks rgstamp and cfrphoto for your views on the stamp. Always nice to hear different opinions on things asked as this is a great place for that. How else does one learn?
I'm not an expert on stamps and still not close on gum but I don't think the stamp has been regummed. Again no expert. If indeed it is regummed wouldn't it show up in and around the perfs? Seems there would be more glue in the fibers around the perfs and the gum would show different thickness around this area with the glue being somewhat different color? Touching on what cfrphoto implied seems the perfs would be brittle as well. Like I said I'm learning.
Thanks

rgstamp thanks again for your view. I'm a little lost on the post. You say the gum on the sheets somehow had gotten moisture on them and reset inside the mount. You also said that you have never seen this before and it was unique then go on to say the gum of the posted stamp was heated and reset in the mount. If the stamp had been contacted with moisture wouldn't the gum be highly disturbed and get stuck to the mount. Same with the heating and reset in the mount? Like I said I'm no expert and trying to learn. I've never read anything on melting the gum on a stamp before. Sounds interesting. Can you explain more?
Thanks again.

The gum on a stamp is constantly in flux, depending on the temperature and humidity.
Easily shown by having a "mint" stamp, on your desk that begins to curl.
The humidity is affecting the properties of the gum.

Add heat and the gum again changes.
Easily proven by collectors removing hinges by rubbing the back of a pair of spade tongs on the hinge.
The heat affects the adhesion of the hinge.

In my case, the contents of a number of pages became damp in transit,
the gum lost some viscosity and was able settle inside the mount.

If the stamps were not in mounts, they would have become stuck to the page,
"stuck downs"

After the envelope had dried, the resettled gum took the condition of the plastic of the mount, a mirror like finish.

No doubt the same thing could be replicated under home conditions
with a stamp in a mount, and placed in a humid box for time.
Gum will not adhere to a plastic mount.

Whew! Hope that helps.