Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Occasionally I will come across a stamp that is clearly MNH, but the gum will have some strange artifacts. Sometimes it is a natural (?) "crackling" appearance on older stamps or lines from the roller in certain types.
But occasionally there is a stamp where the gum is simply missing in a weird spot and with a strange shape (not a straight line, or a rectangular hinge-mark, but more like one of those moles you never want to find). I assume this occurs if something (a torn bit of paper?) gets caught in the gadget during the gumming process.
Unfortunately, no end of attempts has yielded a decent scan to post, and so wouldn't be able to do so if listing for sale.
Would it be reasonable to describe as (something along the lines of) "MNH/Unused with seemingly natural gum skip"? And similarly, to price as something less than true MNH - maybe with a presumed 50% discount to CV?
Thanks, Dave.
Login to Like
this post
If the gum is no longer post office fresh, or appears the way that a normal MNH example of the stamp looks, then the stamp is not MNH.
Login to Like
this post
'Disturbed gum' is generally accepted as the proper term. And there is significant value decrease for stamps with this kind of condition fault. How much depends greatly upon the rarity of the stamp.
Don
Login to Like
this post
The "crackling" you describe is more aging or gum that's been affected by storage in adverse conditions over the years. I recently had a late 1930s commemorative stamps that "shattered" in my hands like a dried out leaf. I've seen this as aging on old newspaper quality publications but never on a stamp before.
The paper literally broke into many small pieces. But other stamps of that same issue are post office fresh. Don't know why.
Login to Like
this post
UHU hinge remover will restore cracked gum ... saturate, then place in mount to dry
Login to Like
this post
07:44:31pm
"Natural gum skip" is in fact an acceptable philatelic term, commonly used in major auction catalogues. If is a commonplace occurrence on Canadian stamps of the 1920s-30s.
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Roy:
Thanks. Do these gum skips have a typical appearance? For example, a vertical/horizontal line or a discernable consistent shape (e.g. perhaps from a piece of the machinery that feeds or gums the stamp sheets)?
Again in some Canadian stamps of the era you mentioned I found a few more recently when preparing for Auction. Like weird little skin moles with irregular margins - in a couple cases the gum isn't entirely absent - the paper looks shiny, as if there is some gum there but looks like it is noticeably less than the surrounding area.
Login to Like
this post
I'm using the word "oddities" as a descriptor, because this is odd, not from a specific philatelic definition...
Occasionally I will come across a stamp that is clearly MNH, but the gum will have some strange artifacts. Sometimes it is a natural (?) "crackling" appearance on older stamps or lines from the roller in certain types.
But occasionally there is a stamp where the gum is simply missing in a weird spot and with a strange shape (not a straight line, or a rectangular hinge-mark, but more like one of those moles you never want to find). I assume this occurs if something (a torn bit of paper?) gets caught in the gadget during the gumming process.
Unfortunately, no end of attempts has yielded a decent scan to post, and so wouldn't be able to do so if listing for sale.
Would it be reasonable to describe as (something along the lines of) "MNH/Unused with seemingly natural gum skip"? And similarly, to price as something less than true MNH - maybe with a presumed 50% discount to CV?
Thanks, Dave.
Login to Like
this post
01:09:02am
re: Describing/valuing gum "oddities"
If the gum is no longer post office fresh, or appears the way that a normal MNH example of the stamp looks, then the stamp is not MNH.
Login to Like
this post
re: Describing/valuing gum "oddities"
'Disturbed gum' is generally accepted as the proper term. And there is significant value decrease for stamps with this kind of condition fault. How much depends greatly upon the rarity of the stamp.
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: Describing/valuing gum "oddities"
The "crackling" you describe is more aging or gum that's been affected by storage in adverse conditions over the years. I recently had a late 1930s commemorative stamps that "shattered" in my hands like a dried out leaf. I've seen this as aging on old newspaper quality publications but never on a stamp before.
The paper literally broke into many small pieces. But other stamps of that same issue are post office fresh. Don't know why.
Login to Like
this post
re: Describing/valuing gum "oddities"
UHU hinge remover will restore cracked gum ... saturate, then place in mount to dry
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
10 Mar 2017
07:44:31pm
re: Describing/valuing gum "oddities"
"Natural gum skip" is in fact an acceptable philatelic term, commonly used in major auction catalogues. If is a commonplace occurrence on Canadian stamps of the 1920s-30s.
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Describing/valuing gum "oddities"
Roy:
Thanks. Do these gum skips have a typical appearance? For example, a vertical/horizontal line or a discernable consistent shape (e.g. perhaps from a piece of the machinery that feeds or gums the stamp sheets)?
Again in some Canadian stamps of the era you mentioned I found a few more recently when preparing for Auction. Like weird little skin moles with irregular margins - in a couple cases the gum isn't entirely absent - the paper looks shiny, as if there is some gum there but looks like it is noticeably less than the surrounding area.
Login to Like
this post