I have what might be a "legitimate" case for regumming. Here's the situation:
I purchased a classic stamp with a older cert noting that unused, OG, slight soiling on the face. And in the cert photo only the barest trace of that can be seen. However, the stamp has no perceptible soiling and no gum. When I asked the dealer about the discrepancy, he said he cleaned the stamp to remove the soiling, but in the process the gum was lost.
I cite this example not to instigate a discussion about whether the dealer did the right thing, his skill in doing so (etc.), but rather to get opinions on whether this represents a case of where regumming the stamp might be warranted. Could doing so be considered "restoration"? Or should we say "what's done is done"?
Please note that this is purely a hypothetical question. I'm not emotionally or financially invested in whether the stamp is gummed or not. I really don't care, to be honest. I'm predominantly an essay/proof and taxpaid collector so having gum on the back of stamps—let alone having an actual postage stamp in my collection—is kind of a novelty. And I'm not about to go lurking down dark philatelic alleys to find a clandestine regummer (LOL).
Opinions please!
