Stamp Mount Preferences

So, I am at a point where I need to buy some mounts for the first time in well over 10 years. 10 years ago, I bought everything local, and my only choice was Showguard.

Of course, now it's 2011 and online shopping has changed a great deal, so I am curious if there is a preference between Showguard, Scott and Mystic Stamp mounts.

I prefer black split back mounts. An another forum that shall remain nameless, people put up quite the argument that I should buy Haywid mounts and NEVER used split back mounts, since there was a belief they could somehow damage stamps.

Personally, I am staying with split back mounts. Does brand really matter? Should I just go with whoever has the best price?

In today's generation of mount quality (i.e. use of archival safe plastics, etc.) I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between brands. However, some professional may intentionally want to keep with one brand or another so as to avoid any slight inconsistencies should more than one type of mount be used on a page.

Of course, these "arguments" typically comes around to the question on whether you want to buy the strips of mounts and cut them yourself (or buy a guillotine to do it) or would you rather spend a bit more and have them all pre-cut so so everything looks near perfect in terms of sizing of the mounts and how they appear on the page (especially important if you are using the black background mounts).

Right now Mystic is having a pretty good deal on 450 various size PRE-CUT split back mounts for $28.50, which comes out to about 6.3 cents per mount at this link:

http://www.mysticstamp.com/viewProd...sp?sku=MM500

Andy,

I purchase black split back Showgard strip "seconds" from this seller ( http://stampwants-stamps.bidstart.c...31818/a.html ) and cut them using a Showgard "Excal" guillotine. I haven't been able to find any defects in the mounts and can't complain about getting two for the price of one.

Steve

He also sells on ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/SHOWGARD-BL...em35b7e3f3f6

I have found that Scott and Prinz mounts are the same and the only difference with a Showgard mount is the sealed edges are a little narrower.
Seconds some people frown on but I have purchased many at half to a third of the price. Sometimes a second will have a small speck or a seam not completely sealed. This is easily cut out when cutting your own with a guillotine.
Some say split-backs will damage a stamp but this is caused by improper mounting technique not the mount itself.

From my experience looking at the results, I would say it's actually true -- although 1775mac makes the all important point that it's not the mount but improper mounting that's causing the problem. It's certainly nothing to get dogmatic about, or fuss about. But, I think it is a fair warning and also to be considered.

I've gone through hundreds of collections. I've only run into one collection with open-top mounts that had a problem -- and that was caused by the collector insisting on inserting stamps with selvage still attached, resulting in parts of the stamp "hanging" out. On the other hand, I would estimate as high as 10% of the split-back mount collections I've seen have moisture damage to the stamps. How do I know it's probably the collector improperly mounting? Because I never see the problem in hingeless split-back mount albums!

Regarding brand, as long as you use a name brand you will generally not run into problems. I agree with wt1, that you should use mounts from the same manufacturer for any given album. I've seen albums with mix and match manufacturers -- sometimes you can see the difference, and worse, sometimes it actually looks ugly.

Scott doesn't make their own mounts. They actually contract it out! In the past, Scott mounts have been Showgard, Prinz, Schaubek... I see no reason to buy Scott mounts unless you simply like their brand name or you like paying extra money to have packaging that says Scott on it (my opinion).

NEVER NEVER NEVER buy/use generic or no-name brand mounts (or stock pages, for that matter). You may discover in 10 years, the reason why.

Personally I prefer the Showgard splitbacks in strip form. I'm sort of weird when it comes to my mounting and like to cut my mounts to make the stamp pop. The precuts to me all ways seem to be a bit too small as far as a good border goes. I tend to cut my mounts larger to give a good border and frame each stamp well. The Scott mounts to me seem to have seems that are too wide and when I have them I'm always misjudging the size thinking it's larger than it is.

I have never used the mystic mounts but I know I will never touch another crystal mount again. Got some off ebay super cheap and now I know why :)...

The question I have had for some time now is why are the things so darn expensive???

Does anyone use clear mounts? I prefer black mounts, but my local store carries clear mounts, so someone has to be using them.

As for improper mounting. I use a glue stick to affix the mount to the album page, thereby avoiding any issues with moisture getting into the mount and damaging the stamp. It also prevents the actual album page warping from moisture. This was recommended to me years ago buy the owner of a great store called Trenton Stamp and Coin, and has been repeated to me by the current store I shop at.

Pre-cut mounts are not an option for me any more, as I am now collecting US and Ukrainian stamps. The pre-cut mounts are great for all my US stamps, but nothing is the right size for Ukrainian issues.

To cut the mounts, I have been using an older version of this:

http://www.amazon.com/Fiskars-12989...7544&sr=8-17

Works wonderfully. Just don't try and cut your mounts with the stamp in them! Learned that one the hard way.

Vis-a-vis clear mounts: While I understand the visual appeal of black mounts, let me throw out some possible reasons to consider clear:
1) IMO clear mounts blend in better when you are mixing hinged and mounted stamps on a page;
2) you don't have to be as exact when trimming mounts as slightly miscut clear mounts are more forgiving to the eye;
3) if you sell an album and remove some stamps, the empty clear mounts are not as unattractive as the empty black mounts.

I agree that clear mounts are the least "intrusive" choice.

Take a look...



I actually like the look of hinged stamps in an album, but because of the nasty concrete-gum hinges these days , I now avoid them as the risk of damage to the stamp is not low.

So the clear mounts are fairly unobtrusive, and have the advantages quoted above.

apastuszak: Wrote


That's funny as I also don't really use the glue on the mounts as well. I use "gluedots" that come out of a roller they are super super tiny and adhesive enough for adhesion to the paper but allow removal without damage to the mount paper or stamp. They are archival safe and non toxic. Before I started using them I tested "accidentally" getting the dots on various stamps and the dots easily wiped off a gummed surface with no damage to the gum and wiped off a used stamp as well with the same results. My with scrap books and swears by the stuff I now am in that same boat. The name of the product is (Ad tech Dot Glue Runner). It has saved me a few times with making mounting mistakes and not realizing till I was done with a page. If I had wet the mounts I would have damaged something trying to get it fixed.

Chief... just curious. If you did make a mistake while mounting using a hinge, couldn't you just soak it off??

I use clear mounts as well; very unobtrusive as mentioned before, but only for stamps before 1940's of most countries.
Ram

Wow, more love than I thought for clear mounts. I know hingeless albums all have clear mounts. Personally, if I take a stamp out of an album to move it, I take it mount and all and reuse the mount.

If you use glue to affix mounts, I will restate what has been mentioned above -- don't use too much glue (it's the same problem as using too much water to moisten the mount), and make sure the glue is archival and acid-free.

The later is the greatest problem I've run into. In some collections, I can see where the collector used glue because the paper is noticeably wrinkled along a thin line (especially when view from the back) or has turned an ugly brown (acid in glue).

Even Scott made this colossal boo-boo during one production run of the Platinum Album (not sure which production run). There is one long section of pages where every single mount stained the paper brown at the spots where the mounts were affixed.

There is (at least) one other benefit to clear mounts. Humans have an amazing capacity for spotting small variations from the symmetrical, and black mounts accentuate off-center placement of the mount within any surrounding border (or nonuniform margins between the mount and the border), and then off-center positioning of the stamp within the mount. Black mounts offer two chances to lose symmetry.

When done to perfection, the effect of displaying nicely-centered stamps in black mounts is stunning. When done to something less than perfection, it can be a distraction (at least to me...maybe that effect isn't universal).

My 2d.

If you use a glue stick as opposed to glue, there is no water in the formula, so the page won't warp, and the glue won't damage the stamp if it gets on it and is wiped off before it dries. If you use white glue, it's water based and can lead to issues.

My first thought was to use rubber cement, since it peels off easily, but rubber cement also has water in it. According to 2 different stamp dealers, glue sticks are supposed to be completely water free, stick immediately, and have a pot life long enough to allow to remove any excess glue you might get on a stamp without damaging it.

And if you buy the stuff that is purple and dries clear (which I do), you can see if it has gotten anywhere it's not supposed to, like inside the mount.

http://www.avery.com/avery/en_us/Pr...2118140aRCRD

I also just use glue along the very top of the mount, and not the whole back. I would assume others do the same thing, since this is what the good old stamp store taught me, but you never know what others do, so I thought I would mention it.