Is "Tiny Gum Inclusion" Normal For Older Stamps?

Hi.

I have this 122b (wet print; 1923) that has been certified of being genuine in all respect. There are those tiny black bits that are embedded into the gum as shown into this picture:



I was wondering if it is normal to sometime have this kind of inclusion in the gum of older stamps. In fact, I just wanted to know if "pristine gum" means that there is no such bits into the gum. My guess is YES, but I have to ask for confirmation.

As I said, it is certified genuine so it is not due to regumming. I guess that it might have been caused by miss-handling in a humid environment... or it also might have been caused at original gumming. The gum itself is not disturbed otherwise.

Usually, if there is no "pristine gum", we should not calculate the NH percentage (+300% in this case). So am I in this situation here?

All comments are welcome.

Thanks.

I would check that stamp out, under a 10x lense. The back on the right side of the photo, the 2nd-4th perfs, from the top, I would question it. As for it being inclusions, it could also be missing gum that has dried out and fallen out, or bits of foreign matter that have attached itself to the gum. As for paying a premium for pristine gum, it is far from it. The stamp even has a straight edge, which detracts from the Cat Value. Who issued the Cert for this stamp?

Vincent Graves Greene certificate:





Is that mentioned in Unitrade catalog? If so, could you tell me where?


Edit for additional question: And when you say:


Can you explain?

Thanks.

I always thought the straight edge on the Admiral stamps( Unless there was a booklet for that stamp) would give the stamp a premium. Don't know what the layout was for the 122b but imagine there were only 20 to 40 stamps per sheet with a straight bottom or top. Just my opinion though and would like more thoughts on that subject. But all and all nice stamp pepere_jack.

Thanks. I bought it a few years back for $50 thinking it was a 122. I was glad to find that it was in fact a 122b! This is why I had it certified.

I think that many collectors will prefer by far stamps without strait edge when all around perforated stamps are available. It is as if the stamps was damage to them, or at least much less visually attractive. To me, it should be as valid a stamp, as long as the strait edge is "genuine" (because it can be faked). Let's hear what others have to say about it...

Hi pepere_jack,

I would say you are correct with your assessment of the straight edge. While these are more rare than regular stamps, they are not usually as collectible since they do not look as nice and can be faked. I do not think that straight edges officially lower the catalogue value but they are not as prized by most Canadian collectors as a regular perforated stamp.

I would guess that the "inclusions" you show are more likely to be marks/stains in the gum that are rather common on the Admirals and even more so on older stamps. While some of these marks may actually have existed on the fresh stamp, I believe that many of them are marks from mildew and other discolouration associated with 100 year old gum. My experience is that most would consider your stamp gum to be valued as OG NH but it would not likely warrant a description of "pristine" which is quite subjective and did not exist on many stamps from this period even when they were in use.

While still officially OG NH, I would suggest that the upper left dot would certainly lower the NH premium somewhat but not as badly as the warnings in the Unitrade catalogue suggest. As a mint collector myself, I would be more concerned with the straight edge on this stamp than the tiny marks on the gum.

I would be interested to see what other collectors of mint stamp of this period have to say. Your stamp gum has the mottled or cracked appearance that I see on many Admirals. While this would not be as pristine as when "it left the printer", it is still common on NH stamps from this period.