Original Gum Question

Hi all,

I'm sure this is a silly question even for a newbee like me...But I'd rather ask to be sure and avoid painful mistakes.

I've mentioned that I been soaking a couple of old collections from the 20's and the 40's; in the case of hinged stamps with original gum...do I do my best to remove the stamp with the hinge in tact or do I soak the stamp to remove the hinge.

My impression these months has been that original gum adds to the value but in this situation which would be the proper action? Soaking obviously destroys the gum,yes?...no hinge but no gum.

Newbie here, so don't run off with this...

I've always believed that you should peel off the hinge if possible, but leave as is. Specially if Mint. Once a hinge has been on, and lightly used as you are supposed to... then the stamp becomes Mint Original Gum (OG) Light Hinged (MLH). If you fully remove the gum then the value drops to used status.

AT least that's my understanding!

I personally would say leave it. Try to remove hing as much
you can remove but do not forcefully remove hing. You may
damage stamp. partial or remnant of Hinges tolerable.

Soaking is for used stamps to remove from papers, that also
if cancel are not of importance.

lorrlis,

This example of valuation for a Very Fine 1893 $1 Columbian, taken from the 2011 US Scott Specialized catalog, may help illustrate the effect of hinge/gum removal:

Used $675
Unused NG $525
Unused OG $1,100
Mint NH $3,850

Careless removal of a hinge also risks damge to the stamp (i.e., thins) that will further degrade value.

In my own case, if the stamp is used and has either gum residue or hinge remnants I will soak them off. For unused stamps I will carefully remove the portion of the hinge that attaches to the album page but leave the remnant in place.

Steve

As much of the original gum should remain on the stamp as possible. The more the gum is disturbed, the greater the negative effect on the value. If the hinge cannot be peeled off without damaging the stamp, as much of the hinge as possible should be removed. (However, any hinge remnants on stamps make the stamp "heavily hinged.")

You might be able to remove hinges with minimal disturbance of the gum by using a sweat box such as a "Stamplifter". The problem is that when the stamps are removed, they will tend to curl, and attempting to flatten them, especially if the stamps have not completely dried, could damage the stamps.

I suppose you could use chemicals too, but I've never tried this, and it would take careful work to do that without damaging either the stamp or the remaining gum. I would imagine watermark fluids might be able to loosen a hinge with minimal disturbance to the gum, but I'd rather hear from somebody who has actually done this. If you want to experiment, do it with expendable stamps first.

My advice would be to leave unused stamps in as close to original condition as possible.

The only stamp I know of that requires the gum to be removed is a German souvenir sheet issued for the "Ostropa" exhibition in the 1930s. The gum on this stamp contained sulfuric acid, which over time destroyed the sheet. However, I would think that any examples of this stamp that still have full original gum are probably in an advanced state of composition by now.

Thanks all, I appreciate the knowledgeable input...This is why I'm a part of this forum; there's such a wealth of wisdom and expertise as well as a love for all things philatelic!...even patience for the novice!

So, from the example provided, a stamp could lose 70% of it's value by placing a hinge on the back and perhaps even more when the hinge is removed. Why would anyone place a hinge on the back of a postage stamp? It never has made any sense to me and I believe most would agree that more stamps are damaged with hinges than anything else.

Because we want to.
I ask myself why would anyone want to collect
a ghastly gum /sugar mucilage on the back of a stamp?

So you keep gum because it makes the stamp more valuable,
which means you are thinking of selling sometime,
which means you are a part time stamp collector.

Gum is just a fad that will eventually destroy the paper.

Certainly keep gum on your duplicates to
maintain the investment when you sell, but for your collection
it will always be a personal choice.

Part time stamp collect vs. full time stamp collector? Is there anything else that defines the difference between the two? Actually, I don't sell, trade or barter my stamps. I hoard all I can but get depressed by having to dispose of many that have been mutilated with the addition of a hinge.

Please,
dispose my way, they will be going to an excellent home.

I collect used - I'm biased.

That said, a couple of months ago my copy of Brazil #97 self-destructed due to cracks in the precious original gum. That issue is more rare used than it is in mint - the only reason mine was mint. I think if I got another copy - also mint, I'd soak it to get the gum off.

Perverse logic there...would soaking the gum off a mint copy make it closer to the more valuable used state...thus slightly more valuable? hahaha

I have no issue with mint original gum collectors,
to each their own, but fixed views get my dander up.
I always keep my duplicate with gum, it's financially beneficial,
I think most conservators would agree, whispering behind their palms,that gum is detrimental to long term husbandry of paper products.

The gum obsession I have noted, now extends
to Russian Cinderellas, where the stamp has the postmark printed
prior to the second colour, these have gum as well,
which is a real curiosity.

I would add, that gum has been more damaging to stamps
than hinges by a vast margin.
I'suggest the consideration that every "thin" one comes across, is not the fault of the hinge, but rather, the gum, married with laziness, or ignorance.

I assume this absurdity will soon affect Dunes as well.

Just to make myself clear,
I assume this would have been marketed as a "genuine"
Russian stamp, the mutiny on the Potemkin.

SG5563 (1985) T2215 05k mutiny potemkin

However, I think I am correct in suggesting the postmark
was "printed" prior to the Gold pass at the printer.

This reduces its classification to "Cinderella"

I think there is a natural tendency to want to preserve stamps in as close to original, "post office fresh" condition as possible, and one manifestation of this is concern for the condition of the gum on unused stamps issued with gum.

I know in the more distant past, before the development of modern stamp mounts, it was not unusual for collectors to remove the gum from unused stamps. But again, the desire to preserve the stamps in as close to original condition as possible works against this. And there is a certain wisdom to not making permanent, irreversible changes to stamps that might prove undesirable in the future.

And of course, the presence or non-presence of gum on an unused stamp is often the only sure indication that the stamp was never postally used.

I fully agree with Rod's views. I'm a stamp collector not a gum collector. Gum is a cancer that can eventually destroy a stamp.
Anyway, I swapped many years ago to used stamps and postal history, I tend to trade my MNH off. As for the monetary value, I won't give a dime for it.
The money I spend on stamps or cinderellas, is like the one that goes on a beer: just for the pleasure of it! Off course it's just my personal view...