Regummed? A Poll, Sort Of...

This is an early 1920s U.S. stamp. I do not own it. With no other information than this photo, do you think this stamp has been regummed? Please qualify your response on a scale from 1-10, where 1=definitely NOT regummed, and 10=absolutely regummed. Click on the image to "embiggen." Thanks in advance.

Me? I'd give it a 6. To my eye, there may be some gum pooling along the top edge perf holes.

3. The fibers on the perf tips usually mean the gum is original. Usually, but not always.

I'd give it a 3. I don't see any gum in the fibers at the tips of the perfs and I think I see slight depressions in the gum made by the perforation pins, especially along the two vertical edges.

But I'm an amateur; what do I know about such things.

10. The fibers are coated in gum, they stick straight out (particularly on the right side back) and the gum is too heavy and cracked. Regummed.

I would also say 6 based on the limited view; it would be easier to tell in person, I'm afraid. I can see what BFRomeos sees.

Also there is a difference between disturbed gum (it is at least that here) and regumming.

1 - I see no evidence of regumming. The fact that fibers are visible does not indicate regumming, but rather the absence of them. The orientation of the fibers, without evidence of gum on them does not necessarily mean the stamp is regummed.

I take it this is a trick question, however.

1. Don't see any gum pooling...no wet perfect tips...no bubbles...no buildup on the edges

For the fibers to be coated with gum, then at least some of the perf tips themselves would also have to be coated. And if the perf tips were coated then at least some of the holes would be coated and there would be threads of gum in at least a few of the holes.

The gum looks correct for a higher value fourth bureau, which is what I assume this to be based on the orientation.

9. I think our Canadian friends did an excellent regum job on this one. Pulling the perf tips afterward enhance the look.

Just my guess. (Not a regum expert at all, by the way.)

I will step in behind StampMan & Rev and see no evidence of regumming. Perf tips and perf holes look clean. Gum doesn't look brushed or "flat". Looks good to me.

and this is why you need to see the stamp in question in person and why you should use an expertizing service because using the crowd here will leave you clueless

While it is true that some regummed stamps have the perf tips filed to look more natural, once one has seen a few examples it becomes rather obvious. It's almost impossible to make regummed perf tips look like genuine separated tips.

Never forget - free advice and opinions are worth exactly what you paid for them.

If someone's modus operandi is to regum the stamp, then feather out the perf tips, they only did it on this one on the right side to any extent, very little on the left side, and hardly at all on the top and bottom. To me, that makes no sense. Someone who uses a technique, in this case making sure the perfs have noticeable feathering of the paper, is very unlikely to use that technique almost entirely on one side of the stamp only.

And if they did, then why? There's no evidence of anything different on the right side of the stamp like excess glue, "pooling" of glue, and so on.

The back looks consistently even with glue, the perf tips look completely real and normal, the right side of the back could have received a somewhat different separation of the paper to pull the stamps apart (such as not being folded while the other sides were folded) which would have produced that feathering -- and I think to believe strongly that you're looking at faked perf tips you would really have to see the stamp in person and hold it up to the light, anyway. So . . .

I vote 1. No regumming evident at all.