| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 3,435 |
|
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
|
I'm curious what others think about the recent change to adhesive backed stamps. Since my own experience has been that the older stamps have become stained,yellowed and discolored, are the newer stamps safe as collectables or will the same issues occur and the stamps become worthless. Are collectors (investors) staying away from them. I've been an avid collector for 50 years and have completed my personal collection from 1920's to date. I wonder if I should cut off collecting the newer stamps and stick to the older ones. What are other collectors doing???
|
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
8956 Posts |
|
|
Lifeforcollecting, welcome to this forum! Interesting question, and it has come up several times before on this forum. And there are probably as many answers as here are collectors! Personally I have stopped collecting mint stamps quite along time ago. Switzerland used is one of my areas. The other is US Transportation Coils, and since they are not being issued any longer........... Does this give you an idea?
Peter |
Send note to Staff 
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
Thanks! Would seem the Postal Service is on the path to self destruction...and helping to destroy this hobby I've loved. I had also requested info from the APS Library and they found this information for me:
A National Archives conservator who specializes in adhesives wrote in response that "the newer stamps [issued after the 1974 Christmas stamp that had rubber-based adhesive] employ the acrylic based adhesives. These do not yellow, they don't lose their adhesive strength appreciably over time, and they don't dry out and become brittle. They do suffer cold flow which makes for the dreaded 'edge ooze' and also may affect the appearance of the stamp by sinking into the paper. I believe that the difference between these two types of adhesives should be made clear to collectors. The newer stamps definitely do not await the same fate as their 1974 predecessor."
Although seemingly not as bad as the 1974 issues, it does appear there are not good prospects for continuing collecting the newer issues.
Thanks again for your response. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
238 Posts |
|
|
You used the word "investors". I don't believe that any U.S. stamp from modern times will prove a good investment. That is not based on the type of gum used on them but simply the fact that so many different stamps are produced and that they are produced in such large quantity. You might make money on them, but I would expect other investments to do better. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
Thanks for responding. I was referring more to "investing" by maintaining collecting the new issues to keep my collection up to date. Since my collection is complete from the 20s, I would like to maintain it as such, but have become hesitant believing the newer issues will deteriorate because of the adhesive. Most true "collectors" in my opinion don't collect for the investment, but for the pleasure the hobby provides in other respects...but realistically, with all the new issues produced and the pure cost even at face value, it seems a bad "investment" if they become worthless over time because they would not be considered "mint" with "discoloration" and "oozing". |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
987 Posts |
|
|
liveforcollecting
They would still be mint. They just wouldn't be as good of a grade. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
I collect U.S. Singles, Se-Tenants, Souvenir sheets and Canadian Singles. |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
87 Posts |
|
|
Is there a reason why the USPS went to these self-adhesives? Also in the same vein, why use a glue base known to cause issues over time while also marketing to collectors? it makes sense to me that if you're going to market an item that, in theory, is intended to be collected for decades (and in some cases, centuries) the people marketing it would intentionally aim to design it to be durable and resilient to a degree.
I'm not expecting bullet-proof stamps, but it'd be nice if modern stamps had as much forethought placed into the longevity of them as they do the crazy color schemes like the waves of color designs. I'd love to see the self-adhesives either be phased out or the glue switched to a better, less-flawed variety. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
Thanks for responding Celticveil. You bring another thought here. Perhaps it was an intentional concept. A move to "forever" stamps which can be used...forever, and each raise means a loss of revenue. Then the method to adhere them has a design flaw. Maybe in theory, there was a thought to produce a stamp which would not last forever?
I too would like to see self adhesive phased out and a return to good old lick the back stick um. Unfortunately, there aren't enough complaining about it and the USPS sees it as cheaper to produce. Lots of ??? and time will tell. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts |
|
|
Here's an article worth re-reading on this very subject. In particular, this excerpt is included: Quote:
There are basically two different types of pressure sensitive adhesives, and neither is archivally safe. The first is rubber based. Its use can be traced to a patent issued in 1845. This is the type used on the original Scotch brand cellophane tape. It is also the type that was used on the 1974 U.S. Christmas stamps.
The second type is based on a synthetic polymer acrylic plastic that has been in use in Europe since the 1930s. This is the adhesive used on Scotch brand Magic tape and on U.S. self-adhesive stamps since 1989.
Rubber-based adhesives penetrate paper and become brittle and dark. They also lose their adhesive properties over time. Archivists recommend that rubber-based adhesives be removed with an organic solvent such as naphtha (lighter fluid) for long-term storage.
Acrylic-based adhesives do not leech through paper, but they do experience a process known as "cold flow." This is when the gum oozes through openings and around the edges of the adhered surface, adhering then to adjacent surfaces.
As this relates to stamps, the adhesive on mint stamps mounted in albums can ooze around the stamp into the mount or even the album page. And rather than losing its adhesive quality over time as the rubber-based adhesive does, synthetic adhesives adhere more firmly to a surface the longer they are in contact with it.
For collectors of used U.S. stamps, most self-adhesives issued since 1989 have a water-soluble layer between the adhesive and the stamp paper, so that the stamps can be soaked off paper. However, the longer a self-adhesive stamp is left on an envelope, the harder it is to soak off. http://www.linns.com/howto/refreshe...rcourse.aspx |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
4031 Posts |
|
|
Good to have you on board liveforcollecting. I am very sad for the modern stamp collectors of USA stamps, especially used. From what I have read here I know that the US self adhesive gum stamps are now oil based and have been for some time. I did some experimenting on removing the oil based gum with lighter fluid but found that talcum powder was also needed to stop a stickiness that I just could not remove. So US mint no gum is problematic as well. My experiments were on Fiji stamp from the 70's & there oil based gum is like Tarzan's grip and some stamps are not made of paper but rubber. The oozing of the self adhesive gum is a problem with Australia water based self adhesive gum as well. The answer to this is to take the gum off which is very easy and if one likes the stamps can be made CTO. As for the true stamp collector does not sell stamp in any volume! Two years ago I would for disagreed with you but now I do not disagree at all. As in my situation I totally enjoy selling stamps with a passion on ebay with an Anchor store. And love the hunt for quality used stamps in bulk. Basically we only sell used stamps but some mint gets listed. Australia used stamps from 2000 to now are truly a great investment. Especially high denomination and even more so our international post stamps. Most high denomination from 2000 to 2012 that are used self adhesive are worth a premium. I have noticed that 2013 this trend has changed. Always Happy Stamping.KGV |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
Thank you for responding to my post Wt1 and KGV Collector.
I've a bit more research and located an article posted on the APS site called "removing self adhesives" which relates to used stamps. If that is what you collect, it solves the problem. If someone would like it, I believe its available to members and non members alike. If you can't locate it, let me know. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
440 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts |
|
|
Thanks! Looking over that article, there is no mention of "cold Flow" the substance which will ooze out over time and ruin the album and other stamps. I wouldn't recommend what the writer suggests.
If you go to the APS site, look under "Stamp Collecting" on the left side and go to "Tips & Links"...see the "Soaking Self Adhesives" link and it has solutions to the "used" stamp issue. Still no proven facts what time will do to "Unused Mint" stamps, but from what I've been reading, it does seem the adhesive today is far better than the first Christmas stamp issued which has proven to be a nightmare. Only time will tell. I just have to decide if I want to purchase sheets or just singles at this point.
Thanks again to all those who have responded and posted some solid information. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
440 Posts |
|
|
I know one thing I do to newer us stamps is use a naphtha based fluid to lift stamps off of the paper. Then I re-soak the stamp back and scrape off what ever gum I can with a sharp edge. Similar to a credit card. Then I take a naphtha moistened cotton square to wipe off the remainder of the adhesive.
To soak the stamp use a cotton swab with naphtha on it before pulling it off of the paper. And another swipe with the cotton swab before scraping off the gum.
Use common sense and have a well ventilated area and don't use a lot of the liquid at a time. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Replies: 17 / Views: 3,435 |
|
Posted 01/09/2014 09:17 am
