Why Are Modern Stamp Hinges Bad?

We all know that current Prinz-manufactured hinges do not work particularly well for various reasons. Does anyone happen to know why this is? They're such a simple product that at one time, several companies had, if not perfected, did a pretty good job making.

My suspicion given that Dennison and (I believe) Fold-o-Hinge both stopped manufacturing in the mid-to-late 70s is that they may have been caught up in the first wave of the "carcinogen" craze and whatever now-banned substance they were using was what set them apart from contemporary hinges. I've seen some speculation in this vein involving the glue formula on the forums, but the hinge paper itself seems to have changed over time as well.

More info https://stampsmarter.org/learning/G...ennison.html
Don

I think there is probably merit to the idea that a key manufacturing ingredient is no longer available (due to being classified a carcinogenic or otherwise), but I think the main underlying reason is mostly economic. Back during Dennison's heyday, stamp hinges were a source of profits and you could invest in research & development to build better hinges, and it could actually lead to more sales. Fast forward to 2022, hinges are just another item on your Amazon shopping list. All brands are the same, not only because they are all actually manufactured in the same factory, but because branding for that type of product just isn't as important any more. No sense in investing huge research team in formulating the perfect adhesive gum for stamp collectors, just get it from the same adhesive from the factory in China which manufactures the same for all sorts of different products, and call it a day.

Since collectors are willing to pay $20-$30 for vintage hinges, interesting question is, would it be economically feasible in 2022 to manufacture a perfect clone of Dennison hinges? Maybe for $10/pack? I don't think the market is too big, maybe tens of thousands max? Not only is stamp collecting way down, but you are also competing against mounts, Vario pages, cheap hinges ($2/pack) and vintages hinges ($20-$30/pack). I think it would be a pretty tough sell. Therefore, nobody is investing in creating a better product.

BTW, the new hinges are actually good if you them properly. Absolutely minimal application of moisture, then blow on them and wave them around. I don't quite trust them for stamps which still have gum, but then I wonder if I should be using hinges at all on those stamps. But for used stamps they are basically as good as anything if you use them right.

User error. They are fine, when used properly.

Since modern hinges are often too aggressive, or so I've found, I wonder why they can't just have less glue on them? One way to do that is to cut them in half. Moisten them judiciously and a half-hinge with half the normal glue on it should be a little less aggressive. Or maybe there's a simple quick way to reduce the amount of glue, maybe lick them (sorry, "moisten") enough to remove some of the adhesive before using them. I avoid using hinges on mint stamps, but do use them on used stamps that are inexpensive which is a lot of stamps. I try to moisten hinges lightly, wait a bit for the adhesive to "tack up," as they say, or wave them a couple times to evaporate some moisture, and then apply them. There's a rhythm to it, and it works if you don't slobber and do wait a few seconds.

Not to be sacrilegious or idiotic, but there are also "removable" tapes now sold, and I've always wondered if they would damage paper or stamps over time. If they're perfectly safe, they might make good hinges -- but that would have to be tested over some time. I've done my own testing for months at a time, maybe a year by this point, and the Scotch removable tape I've used has not stained the paper or the stamps I've tried it on, and it still does remove easily while continuing to hold well. So far so good. In 50 more years I should have a more definitive answer.

My good friend Rodney is correct; but I would push back a bit on this perspective.

For example, let's say I invent a stamp tagging flatbed scanner. Place your stamps on the scanner glass, set the Longwave or Shortwave configuration, and it generates an image of the stamp tagging.

But if the collector does not set the Longwave/Shortwave configuration right, 10-20 years from now the stamps that were scanned turn brown and are trashed. But I say 'user error, it is fine when used properly'.

In my opinion, if we are going to have hinges that require 'just right' amounts of moisture then make the adhesive so that the hinges fall off rather than aggressively sticking the stamps and ruining them and the album pages.
Don

No argument there, Don.
Just about every day, I lift Dennison hinges from partly mutilated album pages.
I get from my dealer.
They are absolutely magic.

But that's not where we are at.
We are left to deal with what we can get, Prinz seems to be the only player.

Thinking aloud,
I find it curious that the Germans cannot do better, I always expect German products to be the exemplar.

Unless I'm dealing with large stamps, I always bisect hinges, and the stamps hold perfectly well. If you're using pricier, vintage hinges, this also carries a useful cost-saving.

After a lot of looking and researching, primarily on adhesive manufacturers sites, I have concluded that the reason for the hinge removal differences is that before the glue was horse collagen based and now it is pharmaceutical collagen based. Horse collagen based glue is renowned for its reversibility. Not so much for the other. The obvious reason is cost since pharmaceutical collagen is a byproduct of manufacturing everything from cosmetics to Jello.

Many great answers here, thank you!

Re: rodgcam...isn't almost all collagen horse or pig collagen? I assume there are different grades/qualities though?

The final product looked simple but manufacturing was far from simple. And after the details of how to manufacture where purposely destroyed, the old hinges have not been (successfully) reverse engineered.

With the new version, direct water contact is not how they best perform. A blotter or high humidity breath works best. Proper use is an art, but an art which is easy to cultivate.

No longer horses which is where the collagen used in the old hinges came from.

The secret ingredients for good peelable hinges were gum arabic and glassine paper according to having spoken to the manufacturer of old-time hinges many years ago who no longer makes them.

With regards to current stamp hinges, they have to order a very large minimum supply of gummed paper from a single source manufacturer to make their hinges so that they are stuck with a certain specific batch for many years that does not change as recently having asked their current supplier.

I find the gum Arabic story hard to swallow given that gum Arabic is what was used as postage stamp adhesive up until the sixties and seventies and we all know how well it adheres. No, a number of sources reference horsehide-based collagen as being the principal ingredient in vintage hinge adhesives which makes sense since now that horsehide has fallen out if favor there is a problem whereas gum Arabic is still inexpensive and available. Why not use it? The manufacturers are well aware of the complaint's collectors have.

As I remember, some years ago the late Hugh Goldberg (Subway Stamp Shop) bought the original formula and hinge making equipment from Dennison. He tried to duplicate the Dennison hinge, but was unable to obtain one or more of the ingredients because they had been banned as carcinogenic. He ended up producing a hinge that he sold under the name "Denny's", but it never performed to the standards of the original Dennison hinge. .

I have also heard this part of the story but was never able to confirm it.

If true, I wonder what it means for those of us who have been licking these things for the last 50 years? Or those (like myself) who continue to use the vintage Dennison hinges?
Don

Edit: And if true, why would not hobby organizations like APS or the philatelic press like Linn's communicated the potential risks to hobbyists?