To degum or not to degum
 

I recently purchased a very scarce mint Italian
stamp that completes a difficult mint set - at long last!
(the Victor Emmanuel II set of 1863).

The stamp has clearly been regummed, and was purchased
below the Sassone 'without gum' price.

With a glass the gum is clearly visible on the front of a few of
the perforation teeth, and there is some on the front
of the stamp, but none of this is visible to the naked
eye when in the Hawid mount on my album page.

The question is, should I soak off the 'added' gum,
or leave it there?

--
Tony Clayton
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
.... Last yur I kudnt spel modjerater now I are won.

To degum or not to degum
 

Tony Clayton wrote:
I recently purchased a very scarce mint Italian
stamp that completes a difficult mint set - at long last!
(the Victor Emmanuel II set of 1863).

The stamp has clearly been regummed, and was purchased
below the Sassone 'without gum' price.

With a glass the gum is clearly visible on the front of a few of
the perforation teeth, and there is some on the front
of the stamp, but none of this is visible to the naked
eye when in the Hawid mount on my album page.

The question is, should I soak off the 'added' gum,
or leave it there?

Original gum is very rare on the oldest Canadian stamps, and the
Unitrade catalogue prices these stamps in an ungummed state, with a 100%
surplus added to the value of these stamps if they have original gum.
Regummed stamps are worth no more than stamps without gum, so I always
soak any regummed issues. There's always a fear that this mystery gum
might affect the stamps, similar to those German issues that contained
an acid in the gum.

Ryan

To degum or not to degum
 

In a recent message Ryan Davenport wrote:

Tony Clayton wrote:
I recently purchased a very scarce mint Italian
stamp that completes a difficult mint set - at long last!
(the Victor Emmanuel II set of 1863).

The stamp has clearly been regummed, and was purchased
below the Sassone 'without gum' price.

With a glass the gum is clearly visible on the front of a few of
the perforation teeth, and there is some on the front
of the stamp, but none of this is visible to the naked
eye when in the Hawid mount on my album page.

The question is, should I soak off the 'added' gum,
or leave it there?

Original gum is very rare on the oldest Canadian stamps, and the
Unitrade catalogue prices these stamps in an ungummed state, with a 100%
surplus added to the value of these stamps if they have original gum.
Regummed stamps are worth no more than stamps without gum, so I always
soak any regummed issues. There's always a fear that this mystery gum
might affect the stamps, similar to those German issues that contained
an acid in the gum.

Interesting on prices. The following gives the 2008 Sassone prices
in euros for this set (cheapest printer):

** * no gum **/* */ng
1c 25.00 10.00 2.50 2.50 4.00
2c 100.00 40.00 7.00 2.50 5.71
5c 4500.00 2250.00 350.00 2.00 6.43
10c 7500.00 3750.00 525.00 2.00 7.14
15c 6500.00 3250.00 425.00 2.00 7.65
30c 37.50 15.00 3.00 2.50 5.00
40c 14000.00 7000.00 1000.00 2.00 7.00
60c 37.50 15.00 3.00 2.50 5.00
2l 100.00 40.00 22.50 2.50 1.78
Avg: 2.28 5.52

Thus it can be seen that unmounted is valued about 2 to 2.5 times
more than mounted, and no gum is a fifth or less of mounted

--
Tony Clayton
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
.... Beware of Geeks bearing GIFS

To degum or not to degum
 

"Tony Clayton" wrote in message
...

I recently purchased a very scarce mint Italian
stamp that completes a difficult mint set - at long last!
(the Victor Emmanuel II set of 1863).

The stamp has clearly been regummed,

[snip]

The question is, should I soak off the 'added' gum,
or leave it there?


Contributed by Ryan Davenport
Regummed stamps are worth no more than stamps without gum, so I always
soak any regummed issues. There's always a fear that this mystery gum
might affect the stamps. . .


Tony Clayton's response included:
Thus it can be seen that unmounted is valued about 2 to 2.5 times
more than mounted, and no gum is a fifth or less of mounted


For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan. The stamp really is not "unmounted"
because it doesn't have original gum. Sassone's drastic price cut on "no
gum" doesn't change the fact that the stamp is actually worse than "no gum"
because the gum may damage the stamp. Soaking off the gum increases the
odds that the stamp will retain at least the "fifth or less of mounted"
value.

Stan

To degum or not to degum
 

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:10:00 -0400, Stan Fairchild wrote:

For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan. The stamp really is not
"unmounted" ... doesn't change the fact that the stamp is actually
worse than "no gum" because the gum may damage the stamp. Soaking off
the gum increases the odds that the stamp will retain at least the
"fifth or less of mounted" value.

I agree also, for what it's worth, but I believe Tony agrees that
regummed stamps are not nh.

--
Joshua H. McGee
Sierra Madre, Los Angeles, California, USA
Member: APS, ATA, ISWSC, MBPC
Trade?: http://www.mcgees.org/stamp-
offers/