Old Subject new life The Future of philately

[Grampstamps]

I have a strip of the .37 cent snowman stamp of 2002 and since they weren't on my save list. I went to use them for postage. These stamps would not seperate from the backing. I started a couple with a sharp edge and started to pull them off and they thinned to the point of self destruction. I saved it to put in a Frame for an upcoming stamp show to be called postal Blunders and PO employee hate of the philatelist. Now does anybody besides me think that in a few years used stamps are going to be more valuable than Mint Especially if they are properly handled and saved in decent stockbooks. That brings to mind something else I tried on stubborn stamps that would not release the gum from soaking in water. One is Ronsonal lighter fluid and the other is citrus glue and gum removers, many different brands on the market. It works but what about the long term effect on the new modern postage. Any Replys out there??????? Any new

[michael78651]

In a recent issue of the American Philatelist (the monthly publication from the American Philatelic Society), there was an article from the curator of the Royal Stamp Collection. In it he stated, and I see evidence of this in many many stamps, that there is going to be a time, and he believes it has to be soon, when ther matter of gum needs to be decided. The gum on most stamps is acidic, and for stamp preservation purposes, it is going to be necessary to soak the gum off of all stamps, or there won't be any stamps left.

The APS, other philatelic organizations and the catalog companies need to take a serious look at this. At the high price of buying never hinged, we're actually destroying the future of all stamps. Read the intro to Iran in the Scott catalogs. Gum condition does not detract from the catalog value. The first self-stick stamp from the US, the Chirstmas weather vane stamp is deteriorating, and the catalog value is for discolored stamps. (Don't soak that stamp off of paper, by the way. It was printed in a manner that the paper separates and falls apart when soaked.)

In every collection that I see, unused stamps from the 60s and earlier are turning brown, It doesn't matter iof the stamps were stored properly or not. The gum is reacting with the paper. Also, much of the paper that the stamps are printed on is acidic, and I have seen many stamps just crumble into pieces.

The hobby has a crisis that needs to be addressed.

[noernberg]

For a while there, I was keeping a copy of Mint on backing paper, mint with gum removed, and postally used copy of each commemorative. But it got too tedious and I gave up on that quick. I damaged more mint stamps trying to soak off this darn *%$&!@ glue they call gum. I think you're right. Why waste yout time making a stamp collection archival quality when the stamps themselves aren't archival quality and just self-destruct?? We need some recognized and agreed upon guidelines to face the reality of the situation. The world loves stickers, and not lick and sticks, and we as philatelists will be taking the back seat to "progress". Therefore, we must adapt if we want to have moderns in our collection.

[michael78651]

Well, we also have a rule in the hobby where it is unacceptable 99% of the time to repair or alter any stamp. If a painting gets ripped, it is repaired, and the value does not get diminished. If a styamp is ripped and then repaired, it is heavily discounted (I'm talking about scarce material and not the common stuff.)

For common material that is damaged, I usually throw the stamps away. There's so much of the common stamps that they'll always be plenty for collectors. Sort of like Carl Sagan with "billions and billions"......

[parian]

speaking of the old C1 oxidation problem, would the peroxide trick be considered a repair or a restoration? I guess maybe it's more along the lines of preservation....

[irish123stamps]

The lighter fluid issue is also being discused in the proper stamp storage forum.On the gum issue back in the 1900-1920 era of stamp collecting they were already concerned about the acidity of the gum.They soaked a lot of mint stamps at that time to try to preserve them.As far as this new gum,the post office is issueing,I have boiled stamps to get them to seperate from the envelope.In general just poreing boiling water over them does the trick.In some cases the gum disolves and then there's a film on the face of the stamp that needs to be cleaned off.With the new printing proccesses I have even tried rubbing alcohol with mixed results on the print.As time goes by the power of the gum seems to get stronger and stronger so if you leave a stamp on backing paper maybe in 50 years the backing will be a permanent part of the stamp.When they first started this I had concerns that the stamps would sepperrate from the backing paper after a time,and stick to my stock books.Now it seems the reverse is the proplem.I think in england they had this problem with the #33 some of that gum won't come off and being a red stamp the color comes off with hot water and just about any chem. I have to try lemon juice still but other than that these are issues that may not be around in 50 years.

[Grampstamps]

Has any one out there tried this (Goo Gone is one example)

[michael78651]

Many Dutch stamps, Netherlands Indies in particular, were printed in water soluable inks. If you soak them, the ink will dissolve and you'll have a white piece of paper of what used to be a stamp.

[SEStamps]

Grampstamps-

I personally collect more used than I do mint, for this very reason. One- I think that a used postal stamp has a story to tell. It has served the purpose of it's creation, and who knows what it carried and how many hands it went through? Two-I have a TON of MNH U.S. Stamps. As Michael stated, they are starting to turn brown. I keep them in high quality stock books, or in Showguard mounts in my album. The results are the same.

[Grampstamps]

Michael
Never thought of that. But I have used it a couple of times on stuborn US Self adhesive. It worked and it has been 2 or 3 years with still no ill effects. I guess you could maybe just wipe the gum side for a short time and see what happens rinse well and experiment on on a few stamps. Thanks for the reply I am doing some experimenting for myself, and wondering what might happen. Ronsonal works on some stamps. Thanks Gramps

[Grampstamps]

Se stamps
I agree especialy on older stamps. Some of the old stamps have very interesting cancels. I would like to see the caves in Missouri where the post office store many stamps and see what effect they have on stamps. In my personal stamp collection I have many no gum unused stamps. And they are holding up much better. With original Quality. Thanks for the reply Gramps

[novascotia]

Why,if it is true that gum on the back of stamps causes the paper to brown, are there MNH Columbians that look post office fresh? They are nearly 120 years old.

[Sockeye89]

If this help's-I experimented and sacrificed 3 used self adhesives last night with pretty good result's. Starting with "Goo Gone" then a final washing with Isoprophy Rubbing Alcohol (70%). This morning they are dry and the backs very white. And only show a slight turn or bend from the soak's. It took a little bit for the glue to soften enough for an easy release ??? 10>15 minutes. And after the Isoprophy wash I padded them with a paper towel but the glue was still there, except pretty soft. A bit of soft tissue paper wiped that off. This morning the back's look nice and bright white.

I don't focus on self adhesive-but I do keep every stamp I find. The earlier discussion about these having some self-distructive characteristic in the glue is-well, let's say a shame-maybe a travisty. If these will in-fact, pre-maturely, degrade as people try hard to sustain them in collection's, I'd like to see Scott's valuing NO Gum self adhesive allot more. There's just more care and respect envolved. Pretty much a flip-flop from OG being of more value to collector's but in this case the idea preserves them.

[noernberg]

Regarding unused stamps: I believe that an unused self adhesive stamp with the gum skillfully removed should be marketable (and hence valued) in the interest of longevity (plus the die cut "perfs" look better with a black mount background than the straight edge of the backing paper, in my personal opinion). I guess we can't really "prove" that these actions are necessary by empirical evidence because enough time has not passed, but by the time we get said empirical evidence, it will be too late, won't it?

I'm going to set up a poll to see what others think...

[michael78651]

With self-adhesive stamps, there's no need for perforations. They should all be imperf.