Removing Gummed Address Labels?

Is there a "safe" way to remove gummed address labels (like the one shown in the image below) without otherwise damaging the cover?




Basil

Careful application of lighter fluid should do it.

What about other solvents? On hand, I have: acetone, VM&P naptha, methyl ethyl ketone, and "Oops"--which is a mixture of solvents.

I don't have any "lighter fluid" on hand, but if there is a reason to prefer it, it shouldn't be difficult to get. But what "kind" of "lighter fluid." Seems that there are three different kinds: "charcoal" lighter fluid, butane, and naptha.

I have some covers I can "experiment" with that I won't fret over if I damage them.

So how would you "carefully" do this? My inclination would be to use something like a q-tip to apply it to the edges of the label, and gradually try to saturate the label.

Obviously, I've never done this before.

Basil

I am aware of no method to do this without leaving obvious traces. You have the chemical reaction of the gum to the cover paper. In the case of older covers, you have all sorts of chemical reactions going on over a long period of time. Take a look at most FDCs 40 years or older, and you will see the reaction most often on the reverse of the envelope, along the gum seal of the envelope flaps. I think you will find when you do remove the label, there will be a chemical stain beneath it that cannot be gotten rid of... Please let us know how your experiment turns out! John

I'm not expecting to fool anyone. I would describe a cover to which this was done as "with address label (removed)."




Here are a couple of covers demonstrating that:



The staining is definitely noticeable ... in the image. But less so to the naked eye. In the top one, it is not noticeable "at a glance;" you have to look closely (and the naked eye will notice that a thin layer of a portion of the label still adheres to the cover--see postscript below).

It is what it is. I don't think there is any difference in "value" between a cover with an address label, and one in which the address label has been removed. Both lack the value attached to an unaddressed cover. Aesthetically, I find the labels distracting, and thus the cover is more appealing to me with the label removed.

Whenever I have an addressed cover in my collection, I'm always on the look out for an unaddressed version. But until then, the "address label (removed)" will do.

Basil

Postscript:

I'm not sure how much of what you see in the image is evidence of actual "chemical staining," and how much has to do with image characteristics. In the top cover, the "staining" appears darker at the right end of where the label was. But it is darker because there is a layer of label still stuck to the cover. So the "staining" may in part be related to traces of the label left behind, and where the traces are thicker, in the image it appears darker.

Hi Basil, I did not mean to imply any sinister intent on your part with your wanting to remove the labels...
I'm looking at it entirely from an eye appeal/chemistry point of view. It is purely a matter of personal choice. I would keep the label on, rather than have any kind of stain present after the removal of the label. Most labels which were older would probably already show staining around the edges before removal of the label. Which is more pleasing - an address label on the cover, or a stain left behind from a removed label? John

The lighter fluid being discussed is, I think, cigarette lighter fluid such as Ronsonol.

I would say it all depends...on the degree of staining. If you have to look twice to see it, then I'm okay with it. But then it is all "in the eye of the beholder," right? If the results are not eye pleasing to me, then I will not continue.

In any case, we're not talking about the effect upon articles that are rare or highly sought. The few covers where I would have a gummed label that I want to remove are modern. Older covers, where value is more significant, predate the use of gummed address labels. And in the case of older covers, the handwritten address is often part of what makes the cover interesting. (I collect airmail FDC's, and I have early covers with addressed to Ioor and Roessler --in their handwriting, I believe-- that are obviously worth more because of the address on them.) The era of typewritten addresses is somewhere between the two, and whether the address is interesting or not, there is not much I can do about it (except look for an unaddressed copy).

But thanks for the replies. I do appreciate the dialog.

Basil