Deception Of Regummed And Reperforated Stamps

I agree with rogdcam. If I send in my mint #612 because I think it is well-centered and deserves a high grade, I would consider RG to be a 'fault', just as I would consider NG to be a 'fault' since either one (I DO equate RG and NG, since I can simply soak off the RG to make it a NG, without anything further to 'hide') GREATLY affects the value, compared to an OG. The 'great' thing about graded stamps, and the associated SMQ, is that it allows stamps to be bought/sold/traded using SMQ as a price guide. Since SMQ doesn't price NG/RG stamps that are normally gummed, the whole thing falls apart there. What should that stamp be worth? Well, no one knows.

They should have issued a cert, stating that the stamp was genuine and RG, and either deducted greatly from the grade for that, or refused to issue a graded cert. If I were the submitter, I'd be a bit ticked off.

Personally, I wouldn't consider it worth more than $1.50, but everyone will have their own ideas of value. Someone greedy seller would ask the moon, and some collector of certificates would probably pay it eventually.

The image below is a capture from the PSE website. If you look at the top and bottom row leftmost stamps you will see the points difference for og vs. ng (which to me and by most definitions equals regummed)

one of my favorites with selvage. I don't collect "mint" stamps generally but sent this stamp in 15 years ago
Rather have this one, than a OG grade 80!

Everyone has their own opinion

Just like unused OG NH, unused OG PH, I think NG is just another category of gum state (agree with general valuation of regummed/NG same, as long as no faults). Clearly valuation/demand would be ranked: NH > PH > NG, but I would prefer an XF-S NG over a VF PH. Much better appearance, and IMHO much scarcer population (no, I don't have real data to mine for this).

So essentially, they will grade anything even if it contradicts their own standards and there is no valuation category. Yuck. I have been a strong advocate of grading but am turning in the other direction as I see these things pop up. It is not as if the stamps in this thread are rare or even scarce and so regum/no gum examples are necessary for the supply side.

I am really glad that neither grading nor gum figure into my collecting interests.........

I agree with you 100%! I have bought beautiful NG stamps and saved a wad of $$$. I don't know that I would buy a graded NG stamp that looked equally as nice, because I expect I would pay more for it than it's worth - unless I KNEW what I would pay for the same stamp without the cert (which I wouldn't when we are talking about 95/98/100 centered stamps). If I saw one, I would expect the seller would inflate the price by saying "See what an OG of the same grade sells for? Well, this will save a bit of money." But I would expect to pay less than that, typically, because his pricing would likely be based on some $ of SMQ for an OG stamp and I can almost guarantee that I would value at a smaller %.

It's these 'in between' stamps that get priced/valued in different ways. One dealer might price a NG stamp at 60% of the OG SMQ value/price, while another may price it at 30%. IF YOU CAN FIND IT. They are 'in between' because they aren't directly represented in SMQ. They aren't directly represented in SMQ likely because they have a much smaller population than their OG counterparts. The guy selling says "High grade". The guy buying says "NG". And neither really KNOWS the true value because it isn't really listed anywhere. This is a circumstance where the buyer may have never seen a similar quality NG stamp before, and could get taken for a ride by a big-talking salesman. Now.... go back to the dealer in a year and try to sell the same high-grade NG stamp back and he'll be saying "NG. Don't want it." Or perhaps offer 10% of what you paid him for it.

A savvy buyer would know that this type of stamp is ripe for a low offer, since the dealer probably bought it as 'faulty' and has a huge profit margin built into it because it could conceivably sell to that naive collector. But, he'd probably be happy to sell at 1/2 of that - THAT'S what the savvy collector knows. And since it is certed, it is likely NOT a $20 stamp - it is likely a, say, $100 stamp (or more), so we are talking about real $$$.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a high-grade NG stamp at public auction - assuming bids - since the room sets the price.

I think it is pretty common to view no gum and regummed as equivalent. You can argue that reguming is a form of damage, but when faced with a "no gum" stamp you don't know it's history. It just seems intrinsically hard to call regum or previously hinged a fault if "no gum" is not considered a fault. It's a mess, but I'm ok in a world where the grade is based only on centering, with deductions for thins, tears, repairs, creases etc - or refusal to grade with any of those. As long as you understand what the grade means, I think it is ok. I mean no one is paying the same for a 98 regum as for a 98 OG (as several have pointed out).

The point that is being missed is that the intent of grading is to establish a numerical value that ties directly to a value culled from the sale of other stamps
of the same issue. To give a buyer and seller a solid reference point. That is why Siegel publishes the POP's and Values for each stamp they sell. The entire premise of assigning a grade to something that does not fit a category in SMQ is antithetical to the system. We can opine all day about what we like about something and that is fine. This is a process question, however. Would we all like to see a category for MNH straight edge stamps?

Fair enough. I guess I'm just accepting the status quo. Of course a better system, and one agreed on by all expertizers would be ideal.

What? A grading standard for philately? Hmmm, I seem to recall this being suggested multiple times over the years including at least 3-4 threads in this community.

Yet it has never gotten any traction, anyone have any ideas why there is no motivation to generate a grading standard? Perhaps this might be something a organization like APS or... wait for it..... the ASDA could be doing for the hobby?
Don

Spot checking later 19th century US Scott values for no gum stamps, they are generally priced about 35-40% of the value of an OG-hinged stamp. So, if we assume that carries over into early 20th century values (my guess is the percentage would decrease moving up into 20th century), then in the case of the 612 grade 98 re-gum stamp, SMQ is $115 for OG-ph, so maybe a $40 value for Unused re-gummed? What's interesting is a used example of 612, grade 98 has an SMQ of $325.

All the collectors that say they don't have to worry about gum because they collect used stamps... what's to say a contemporaneous cancel wasn't added to a well centered unused stamp that was either no gum or had issues with the gum and had it soaked off?

Ego, to start with. And there is no point in even pretending that all expertizers are considered equal, either by each other or the collecting public itself. Individual ethical standards is another part of both. As this thread shows, not everyone agrees on the value or ethics of even grading no gum stamps, or which no gum stamps are OK and which are not. People can talk about a "grading standard for all" as much as they want to, but no one should be holding their breath waiting for it to happen.

I agree with revcollector. It is the old Beta vs VHS debate. By almost anyone's evaluation Beta was the better format for a number of reasons, but VHS won out probably due to deeper pockets. Everybody wants THEIR system to be the 'standard'. Nobody wants to be the 'Betas' of history.

Having said that, I think the status quo in grading RG/NG stamps needs to be scrapped and some other system put in place. But, who's gonna say that the way they used to do things was wrong?

I would be hard-pressed to buy a high-grade certified NG/RG stamp, unless it were a true rarity. Generally, true rarities have provenance and sales histories that we could look to for valuation.

Also, if one is looking for a 'top pop', why would they even remotely consider something that is NG/RG where there is a population of OG and/or NH available?