Would You Remove Gum From A Stamp Certified As Sound, Regummed

The genesis for this question relates to Weiss certificates but based on the discordance that's has been demonstrated on this forum from the same stamp being certified by all the major US organizations and showing discrepancies about such basic factors as used vs unused, og vs regummed, reperfed vs not, and sound vs not that although I will describe my experience with Weiss certificates, the question I am asking I think refers more generally to all certified stamps.

As a rule I would always buy a classic stamp that was sold previously certified. Like all of us I suppose I also have a fair number of uncertified classic stamps, maybe with or without gum or whose centering might be fine or f/vf and although curious, not curious enough to send to PF or PSE, and maybe didn't want to wait 3-4 months to get something back from APEX, or maybe a foreign stamp with a catalog value that qualifies for a cert but no great confidence in PSE or PF outside of US issues. Examples for US might be a unused Scott 75, 70, 78, or 98 with centering that would probably qualify for 70-75 and for foreign items like unused, gummed, Austria 127 and 144 or Unused , gummed Mexico 255 and 256.

I note that Weiss very liberally uses the word "tiny" or "very tiny" to describe faults, not always enumerated, that you get the sense are not getting called to that frequency by the major organizations. I think that he also calls regumming more frequently than other organizations and I wonder if that is colored by a statement that I think I heard him make that in his opinion some large percentage (I don't remember the exact number) of classic US unused stamps are either regummed or cancellation removed.

Based on all of the above would you be confident to wash off the gum of a stamp like an unused Scott 75 certified as sound, regummed knowing at the end of the day the best you would have would be an unused NG specimen and at the worst, you may have washed off OG depending on your confidence in the expertizers.

I will give my vote to say that as of yet, I have never washed off gum from a stamp certified genuine.

I always leave stamps the way I received them, that is to say that I don't fuss or concern myself with what the back looks like. Some have hinge marks, some have small thins, some may be and probably are regummed. At one time, I was a serious mint never hinged collector and sought out only the best stamps, front and back, that I could find. Over time, I became less concerned with what the back looks like. I collect for the beauty on the front of a stamp and try to acquire those with their best face. The backs of stamps really are of little concern to me. Just my 2¢.

Scott

I would hesitate to do this since one does not know what one will find under the regumming, like a roughed up surface, light gouge or overall paper thinning. I wouldn't even try it unless the regumming has stained the paper or causes the paper to curl badly.

Personally no, for any number of reasons. It immediately makes the cert null and void, and as hy-brasil mentions, who knows what might be lurking beneath.

That said, if you're willing to accept the risk, recognizing that you will have to have the stamp re-expertized, ultimately it's your stamp, so do as you wish... although unless the regum is unstable and deteriorating the stamp, I'm not sure what this gains you other than risk and expense.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

Nope. Leave it alone.

Not that I would do it in every instance, but I have done it once - a 234 that PSE certified as regummed, Superb 98 centered. The gum was removed, and they were kind enough to give me a 98 no gum certificate, and it was later sold as such.

Don't poke the sleeping tiger nor the hornets nest.

I offer the opposite opinion. I ALWAYS soak fake gum off stamps. Fake gum is the one alteration you can fix. I hate the idea of having fakes in my collection and removing fake gum turns a sketchy regum into a respectable no gum stamp. If I find something bad lurking underneath, then, good, I found it and can sleep easy knowing I don't have a fraudulently hidden flaw somewhere. I also think it is a service to philately to fix the one thing I can.

Also, who knows what kind of discoloration or damage some homebrew gum is going to cause.

I also soak the gum off of OG stamps if there is a disaster area of hinges and garbage on the stamp.

I think philazilla makes a lot of sense both from a practical and philosophical standpoint- If I find something bad lurking underneath, then, good, I found it and can sleep easy knowing I don't have a fraudulently hidden flaw somewhere.

I don't buy regummed stamps, but if I discovered that I had one, I think I'd follow his advice.

So, the discussion on this thread has gone in a slightly different direction than I anticipated although I certainly appreciate the responses so far. Not withstanding all of the excellent points being made was the question, given the diversity of opinions given on the SAME stamp as exhibited on multiple other threads is how confident are you that a stamp certified by Weiss, APEX, PSAG, PSE, and PF that is certified as regummed is actually regummed. Such basic things as unused vs used cancellation removed, og vs RG, sound vs not sound, and reperfed vs no reperf have demonstrated discordance on this forum between any combo of the
expert committees aforementioned. So maybe detecting regum is not as simple as assumed.

That is the real reason that I do not remove gum unless as mentioned it is clearly destroying the stamp or the back is so messy it makes sense to wash off all the gum that will come off. I wonder if blackjack had washed off the gum adherence affecting his 70d recently submitted to the PF, he would have received a certificate saying "it is genuine unused XF 90"? I was surprised that the PF called it small part og redistributed. It looked to me from the image of the back that it had much more than small part gum. He may have felt that way too which could explain why he attempted to remove the adherence as opposed to giving the stamp a bath. Tough call!

I would leave the stamp as is. So I am no expert but I was always told to look at the perfs front and back side. Re-gumming is an art and there is definitely a technique at re-gumming. In the process of re-gumming, the new gum usually warps around the perfs and can be seen on the opposite side of the stamp. You can remove that re-gumming from that opposite side but you can not remove the re-gumming from the depth of the perfs.

So I been thinking about how I phased "depth of perfs" should have said paper thickness around the perforations.

I think that we need to appreciate and value classic stamps
for how they look and not let the gum side change our minds.
There are so few unused classic stamps that are sound that
expertizers remarks such as small part OG or tiny thin should
be recognized for what they truly are—inconsequential to the
beauty we see in each classic stamp.

My unused 70d PF stamp is a XF example of this 1861 issue.
Rare on its merit. The freshest color impression and very well centered
it has greater than 50% OG despite what the PF stated. I have shown
it to others who agree with me. I chose to remove the hideous thick
Paper adhesion on its back to remove doubt about what lay
underneath. The small thin was there prior to removal as it is in
an area not under the removed paper. This does not change the beauty
and desirability of this stamp in my mind or in the minds of collectors.

Funcity, at this point I would not believe anything I see on a Cert, especially for ones issued for US stamps. If you really like the stamp as it is, don't let the cert change your mind about what to do with the gum. If you don't like the cert, could you ignore it?