Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.
Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Star Color Misprint, Do I Have A Valuable Stamp ? Scotts#832 1936 $1 Woodrow Wilson See Pic

Previous Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 18 / Views: 663Next Topic
Page: of 2
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
196 Posts
Posted 06/07/2023   1:15 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ZebraMan to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Regumming, based on this schema, would be neither "restoration" nor "conservation." What term would apply for regumming.
Deception. :-)
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
116 Posts
Posted 06/08/2023   11:53 pm  Show Profile Check Uknjay's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Uknjay to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I believe regumming a stamp is alterations of the stamp that damages it. I would like to have a no gum (pre 1900) stamp over one regummed. I also believe bushing the original gum to try and repair the gum of a very lightly hinged to appear full gum never hinged is at best deceptive. I have seem some on ebay that says disturbed gum. I would like to have a hinged or lightly hinged over a disturb gum.

I believe anything done to a stamp's face or its reverse to change it appearance is wrong. I would like a stamp in it orginal condition. Anything done once it leaves the post office is not acceptable. Leave it as it is found be it mint or used (except in case of stabilizing the stamp if required). If stabilised the seller should disclose it to the buyer.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
195 Posts
Posted 06/09/2023   12:46 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add essay_proof to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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 stampsólet alone having an actual postage stamp in my collectionóis kind of a novelty. And I'm not about to go lurking down dark philatelic alleys to find a clandestine regummer (LOL).

Opinions please!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by essay_proof - 06/09/2023 01:14 am
Page: of 2 Previous TopicReplies: 18 / Views: 663Next Topic  
Previous Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2023 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2023 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.08 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05