Interleaving- Glassine Vs Clear

I've been away from my collection for a while due to work keeping my mind too occupied for the past year.

I have a question for those who use interleaving for albums with pages printed on both sides: do you prefer glassine interleaving or the clear variety, and why?

I have always used glassine because it costs a little less, but have recently been thinking about possibly going with either a Scott International or a Minkus Supreme and for a collection of earlier issues was thinking the clear interleaving might look a bit nicer.

Thanks in advance for your input/ideas.

Dale

Its all subjective, but I prefer the clear interleaving. When turning pages, its easier to see what's on the page that the interleaving is resting upon, and the presentation is just better to my eye than with the translucent glassine paper. The only downside I've experienced is that the clear seems more prone to folds and creases, but I've learned to keep an eye out for this potential occurrence.

Dale: I have a few clear sheets sprinkled among my Scott International albums. But, almost all of my interleaves are glassine. They are cheaper, as you say. Also, as docgfd mentions, the clear interleaving is prone to folds.

Ultimately not a big concern, one way or another, for me since I'm the only person who sees my albums.

doctor and Climber Steve,

Thank you for your input. I think I may pick up a pack of the clear interleaving at some point just to try it out, but will most likely stick with glassine for now.

Dale

I didn't know you could get clear interleaving. However I'd still go for glassine. For me, you can see through it and so you know what's underneath. But when you peel it back, the stamps are suddenly revealed in all their colored glory, which adds a little excitement - like switching on the lights, or something.

I know, I'm weird!

Dale - If you're thinking of investing in Scott Internationals for early issues, you could circumvent the need for interleaving by springing for the Scott Brown Reproductions available from Subway. These are printed single side and are drilled for use either in 3-ring binders or the two-post version.

In my younger days, I bought a set of Scott Internationals in their blue binders, Parts 1 - 7, which back then was to date. Once the stamps started finding their homes on the pages, and with the addition of interleaving, I quickly found the binders getting over-filled. And I never cared for the pages being printed on both sides (but that's just me) but these were the 'only show in town' so I stuck with them.


About 10-years ago, I heard about the Brown Reproductions and immediately invested in pages and 3-ring binders with slipcases up to 1940. I admit it was no small investment, but I gotta tell ya, since I bought them, I barely look at my Blue Internationals any more. The presentation, especially with the pages laying flat, makes me smile every time I crack one open, and the coverage is much more complete than that found in the Blue's. I would recommend these without reservation. I use these strictly for MNH stamps (meaning there will be plenty of spaces that will NEVER get filled) but again, thats just me.


Along similar lines, the original Brown Scotts can be found on ebay or dealer web sites. I bought a Part 1 (start to 1900) from a dealer for $100 that was barely used with the few stamps it had in it removed. I use this one for used with SON or fancy cancels. Again, more comprehensive than the Blue, but the downside is its bound like a book so interleaving is out (I use mounts instead of hinges so there's less cross-page lock-ups) and of course, bulkiness will eventually become an issue ...just throwing it out here to....well, confuse the issue LOL

More confusion.......;-) ;-) ;-) There can be a downside to the Reproduction pages that are printed on just one side, depending on what one collects.

Two of my specialty areas are full of varieties in the pre-World War II issues. Portugal and its colonies have shades, perf differences, and misprints. Early Mexico has its District overprints and also shades. I want to keep things together, roughly by year(s), and have two ways to deal with the problem. One is use International quadrille pages. The other is to go on both sides of the one side pre-printed pages, and then use interleaves.

I also have collections of Poland and British East Africa; through the mid-1960s; that I'm slowly working up. Same deal, but now factoring in mint and postally used copies of the same stamps.

And even more. I somewhat circumvent Climber Steve's problems by buying individual country albums for those I specialize in, like Stanley Gibbons' GB Windsor Album, Schaubeck Hungary, Lighthouse Germany...


It suddenly occurs to me that I collect albums almost as much as stamps...LOL

Either one works just fine, but for looks, the clear interleaving is much nicer, in my opinion. For just plain cheapness and simplicity of use, though, the glassine is fine, as well. I prefer the clear, myself. I do have clear interleaving in a couple of volumes of Scott Specialty albums which I bought (even though the pages are single-sided), and I like its look very much. Glassine interleaving in a few other albums that I own is more annoying because I can't see though it well. I find it less pleasant to have in my albums, and I've even thought of removing it since the pages in those albums are also single-sided.

I put my main collections in Scott Specialty albums of which I own a few dozen. The duplicates for those countries go into my Scott International album along with stamps from countries I "don't" collect. Obviously, I actually do collect them, just not as seriously as my favorite countries. Since the stamps in my International albums are my "back-up" collection, and are nearly all used stamps, I don't worry much about stamps being on both sides of the page. The main reason for interleaving is to keep stamps from snagging stamps on the opposite page and dislodging them, but I don't find that happens much. There also may be a concern about stamp color rubbing off on stamps on the other page, but I also rarely see that, as well. To add hundreds of pages of interleaving to prevent problems I rarely see seems like a lot of unnecessary work (and expense) for me. It may be worth it for you, though.

Interleaving is not cheap especially if you have a lot of albums. About 100 pages for $12 is 12¢ per sheet. Each volume of a Scott International is going to need what? Maybe 400 sheets of interleaving? Not sure. If that's accurate, that's $48 worth of interleaving per volume. If you have many volumes and thousands of pages, you're spending a lot of money. For a Volume I (actually four volumes now) Scott International that wouldn't be too bad. But I have 30 (smaller) volumes, and you can imagine the cost of interleaving all those pages. Well over a thousand dollars. So I don't use interleaving, and you can see why.

I concur with the comments above. Glassine is cheaper by a small amount and works just fine. But I dislike its opaque quality and having to turn the page to even see the stamps underneath. It also looks cheap compared to clear interleaving. The clear interleaving solves the opaqueness problem nicely, and it looks good. But it's a bit more expensive. And it does seem to fold more easily if you're not careful when turning pages. Maybe the glassine is thinner and adheres to the page better? The clear pages are heavier which may make them slide downward as the page is turned, causing the creasing. Not sure, but with clear interleaving it would be a good idea to be on the lookout to keep pages from creasing.

IMO, 12c/sheet is a cheap price to pay for interleaving, especially if you are hinging stamps on pages.

A cold press heavyweight paper stock can be very abrasive on printed stamp surfaces.

Well, yes, but you aren't buying one sheet for 12¢. You're buying hundreds, maybe thousands. For a Scott International album that covered 1840-1975 (like mine), it would take about 300 interleaving sheets per volume times 30 volumes. Probably more. That's about 9,000 sheets of interleaving. Times 12¢ each, it's about $1000. Not cheap.

For a one volume album, though, interleaving would cost only about $20-30. But if you have dozens of albums . . . well, you get the picture.

I am moving a lot of my stamps into Minkus Global reprint albums; I ordered the clear interleaves from Subway last month; I was told yesterday that it is no longer available from the manufacturer. I don't know of any other source. So, I guess glassine it is.

I also prefer the clear -- greatly so. The glassine pages seem "pre-creased" to my eye, and over time will yellow. It is almost impossible to accidentally tear a clear sheet from an album, and I've never seen a loss of clarity. The creasing is a potential, but as with anything, just a little practice goes a long way. When turning pages, I simply grab both the page and sheet, and go slowly and deliberately when turning pages -- but not nearly as carefully as I used to have to be without interleaves, for haste then can cause permanent damage to the hanging stamps.

I realize this question has already been answered, but in looking over interleaving more than I had before, to me the clear interleaving is far better. Glassine interleaving is opaque which prevents seeing the stamps on one page. I don't much like the "crinkly" sound it makes as the pages are turned (maybe sounds silly, but it's still true!), and it appears to me that the clear interleaving is sturdier material than may last longer. I've seen older albums where the glassine interleaving has yellowed or even browned with age. So I'm planning to use only clear interleaving in my Scott International albums with their two-sided pages. My Scott Specialty albums have one-side pages, so I don't plan to use interleaving in them. Also it's not cheap in either version, something worth considering but the price difference of a couple of dollars per packet of 100 between glassine and clear interleaving is not significant enough to sway my decision.

DrewM: I too have seen the issue of yellowing or browning of glassine interleaves in collections that I've purchased. On the other hand, I have glassine interleaves that I bought 30 years ago that look the same as the day purchased.

I wonder if it's how the albums were stored, as in attic or basement in humid environments? What I do know is that all those discolored glassines went into my paper recycling stack. I've noticed the same issue with glassine envelopes.

For me, the cost of interleaving is more about the number of new binders I have to buy due to the increased volume in each binder. What once fit in 15 binders would expand to 22-24 binders with interleaving.

Climber Steve,
Yes, it is the environment. Environmental conditions are a huge, often uncounted for, variable.

If a person maintains a great environment, they can get away with a lot of album and mounting things. Folks often then start recommending to others what they are doing (like a sample size of 1 is not a problem). Truthful, our recommendations should always carry a disclaimer that it only has worked for us; we should never assume that other collectors have the same environmental conditions. In fact, we should not always count on our own environmental conditions to be the same (after we are no longer here, who knows how you material might be stored).
Don
Don