Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Both sheets were originally tied to the covers with sharp, clear CDS cancellations. My question is this: What would be the safest, most secure way to re-affix the souvenir sheets to the covers? (The souvenir sheets, like most earlier North Vietnam stamps, were issued without gum.)
Bob
Login to Like
this post
When covers are sent in for expertisation and in cases where stamps must be removed from the cover to determine watermark, gum type or grill type, the stamp is carefully re-affixed to the cover with a single high-quality hinge.
To my mind this makes the most sense, because any other method will be messy at best.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
As they were issued without gum initially, why not apply more gum? I suggest an acid-free glue stick. No rules get broken, nothing gets damaged
Login to Like
this post
Another data point. See the glue squeezed out around the edges of the stamp?
I'd be tempted to re-affix the stamp with 'mucilage', that brown thick glue that came in a bottle with a rubber dispensing top that you just dragged across the surface to be glued. The original poster probably used exactly the same stuff.
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
Remember when?
It's from this charming webpage:
http://www.drmetablog.com/2017/12/mucilage.html
Hey, it's "all-natural"!
-Paul
The presumption that the product is somehow, French leads me to presume that it was available in French Indochina! (That's a lot of presuming!)
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Lepage's! Hated that stuff in grade school. It got all crusty and blocked the spreader half the time.
Login to Like
this post
Elmers White Glue? I don't know how it reacts over time but it seems pretty stable.
Note that I had a stack of odd size covers recently sent to me from eBay dealers, all with arrays of old stamps on them. Upon soaking the stamps I discovered a disproportionate number of them were affixed with Elmers! 
Login to Like
this post
Mucilage! Gakkkk! I remember that stuff. My dad used it to "mucilage" his newspaper clippings into his scrapbook (he was a newspaper editor). It would dry and crack, often cracking the paper it was adhered to. No, I won't use mucilage, assuming it's available.
Elmers White Glue?! No way! I used Elmers to mount some Viet Cong propaganda leaflets into my scrapbook after I got home from the war. They are now permanently part of the scrapbook pages, which are quite rapidly crumbling into paper fibres.
I think that an "archival" glue stick is the way to go. Or, I could just not worry about it. A few days ago I scanned the same cover shown above to illustrate a point in another thread. Here it is:
Here's another cover in my collection, franked (messily) with a gumless Chinese stamp:
Bob
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Bob
I would have been inclined to leave well alone, and accompany the cover ( and stamp) with an explanatory note. The sequence of events is obvious once it has been pointed out. as is the relationship between the cover and the stamp.
By "tampering" with it you are introducing possible suspicion that something is "not quite right" where no such suspicion is justified. Once that suspicion appears it is very difficult to make it go away.
I am a big believer in a "warts and all" approach to collecting. I do keep slightly damaged stamps where I don't have an undamaged, but make no attempt to make them look other than what they are, and if and when I receive an undamaged one am quite ruthless in destroying it or putting into an obviously uncollectable state ( use for craftwork perhaps ).
In any "old stuff" field, while perfect is better than damaged repaired is often worse than damaged - particular if an attempt has been made to "cover up", and even restored can be a dirty word. Outside exhibiting all items have historical if not necessarily intrinsic value. The fact that the stamp has "fallen off" due to poor fixing originally is part of the history of the piece, and provide it is properly documented should not devalue the piece any further than it falling off in the first place.
With (particularly) covers and other postal history items, the probability ( or otherwise)of the existence of perfect examples should be taken into account. After all the British Guiana 1c is severely damaged !
Just my twopennorth
Malcolm
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
My one nod to improving a stamp is a good bath. 100+ years of grime will disappear in minutes and bring stamps back to life.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
OMG Bob!
Please comment on the MiG-15 on that cover!!!
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
Malcolm is the voice of reason here! I'd do as he says. And as said earlier if you want to affix it to the cover for display purposes, use a proper hinge.
Login to Like
this post
If you do not want to use a hinge, I might be tempted to use "UHU STIC" they say it is non toxic, washable, acid free. Conforms to ASTM D4236.
If it was me I would use a couple of hinges.
Doug
Login to Like
this post
clear. soft removable ...
Login to Like
this post
Rubber cement? Don't think so! In my experience, it completely dries out over time and loses its adhesive properties, not to mention that it's incredibly messy to use. But thanks for the suggestion.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
01:14:13am
I think that any attempt to re-glue the stamp
will result in a slight misalignment that will
make the viewer wonder about the reason,
and a suspicious person will be, well..... suspicious.
Better stick to a hinge or two, with an
explanatory note.
Login to Like
this post
Hinge is accepted practice, using other adhesives should required disclosure if the item was ever sold, traded, or passed on.
It is interesting how many folks recommend the use of experimental conservation practices in forums yet we see no disclosure of the same in the marketplaces.
When making a purchase would you guys like to be told up-front that the item you are buying has been stuck back down with a glue stick?
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
If it was a Penny Black or early Mauritius, I'd agree with you. Hinges, however, will fail at some point, either through handling, filing or shipment.
In a case such as this, a glue stick is just fine IMHO
Login to Like
this post
Hi Dave,
A glue stick with or without disclosure?
There are a lot of practices (in any hobby) which I think are fine for someone if the things they are doing will never leave their possession. But a lot of folks read this forum and then go into the marketplace with these recommendations.
Would your customers be ok if you used glue sticks on what you sell below a certain value without disclosure?
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I would suggest that many, many, stamps have been reaffixed to classic covers over the years, with no disclosure. It wouldn't stop me buying them. It would pay to check a Penny Black on cover, when an inverted watermark is up to ten times the value of a normal example on cover.
Personally, I don't think disclosure is critical, however I've never sold anything that has been reaffixed (at least that I'm aware of!!)
Login to Like
this post
While personal opinions can certainly vary the hobby has certain accepted standards which include those organizations which issue certifications. And those organizations, such as the Philatelic Foundation, will call out a cover which “When an adhesive originally on a cover has been removed and replaced…” or the addition of an adhesive which “…not originally on a cover…”.
I think it is fine to discuss experimental stuff in public forums like this one; it is how our experience and knowledgebase grows. But I do not agree with doing this without presenting the entire picture.
I think it is like taking an original old car and then cutting it up into a hot rod. Folks are certainly allowed to do what they desire with the stuff they own, and sometimes this is indeed a reasonable direction. But we should always make sure we communicate that they are doing something that cannot be reversed, that this kind of modification should be disclosed at time of resale, and that the modification may greatly impact the value of their item.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Let's be clear, I don't advocate non-disclosure on "good" covers, but reattaching a gumless modern sheet to a cover isn't the same issue. The rules that apply to a £1,000 cover can't, and shouldn't, be applied to a £1 cover.
The accepted standards you mention are by no means universal, although they do apply to exhibiting.
We overthink this hobby sometimes.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Sorry Dave I don't agree.
It is as much about mind set as about individual cases.
Having 2 standards means making a subjective decision about which standard to apply, and this can and will eventually lead to a conflict. Certainly you are entitled to apply your own standards, but you owe it to your stamps and to yourself to be consistent, and full disclosure is not optional. You cannot comment on what you are unaware of, but if you are aware it is ethical to say so.
In the UK when you sell your house if you do not declare that you have bad neighbours, or any other drawbacks you are committing an offence. This is not a criminal offence, but you WILL be required to compensate the buyer. The same principle applies. We all know about Caveat Emptor as a buyer - but you should never apply it as a seller.
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
I agree about the mindset, and as a member of the IPDA and APS, I obviously support and maintain serious ethical standards.
However, I can't agree that a the buyer of a £1 cover needs to be told, or even know, that a shoddily applied stamp has fallen off and been reattached in the same manner as it was initially affixed.
That said, I have a number of covers in this condition, and I haven't reattached the stamps, but have placed them in a glassine inside the cover. If the buyer wants to reattach them, it's their call
Login to Like
this post
Hi Dave,
I do not mean to be argumentative, but what is the ‘cut off’ bar for a ‘good’ cover? Is it based upon catalog value or market value? Is it a ‘personal’ bar; a wealth collector has a higher bar but a less wealthy person has a lower bar? And if the bar is based upon value, we are incorrectly assuming that value reflects rarity. If the bar is based upon rarity, how does a person determine rarity? How do we explain to a new hobbyist which cover are acceptable to alter and which ones are not?
And what about people who do not know that the cover is extraordinary? Perhaps an earliest known usage, unique rate usage, or some less-than-obvious detail and after reading this thread they unknowingly ruin an important cover? Should we really trust that everyone who reads this forum has the experience and eye for detail that they can make the right decision on this 100% of the time? Or should we err on the side of safety in a public forum that is read by folks who are at all kinds of different experience levels?
I do not consider this over-thinking, I consider it communication of good stewardship, accepted practices, and community messaging.
Don
Edit: Stamporama rules for selling stamps states
"C3. Intentionally listing bogus, fake, forged, counterfeit, repaired or altered stamps as genuine is prohibited."
But I can find nothing about covers. Do the same rules apply to covers? If so, then repairing or altering a cover and listing it here is prohibited (even if it is disclosed)?
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
We'll never agree on this one Don.
You're assuming that reaffixing a stamp will lead to it, or the cover, being ruined. I disagree with that. I'd suggest that even an experienced collector or seller who viewed 1000 covers, of which 1% had been reaffixed, couldn't pick them at first glance.
Per my earlier post, reaffixing with hinges is more likely to lead to damage to, or loss of, the stamp than reaffixing with glue.
Login to Like
this post
Here's a reaffixed stamp! Easy Peasy! Nobody will notice!
Back story: I actually bought that one sight unseen. Upon its arrival I notified seller, someone I buy from regularly, and she was apologetic, credited the amount and told me to keep or destroy it. I kept it just for moments like this!
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
PigDoc said,
"Please comment on the MiG-15 on that cover!!!"
I'll let my web page, Russian MiG-15 fighters redefined aerial combat, comment for me.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
I have a couple of postally used North Vietnam covers franked with souvenir sheets which have come free. Here's one of the covers.
Both sheets were originally tied to the covers with sharp, clear CDS cancellations. My question is this: What would be the safest, most secure way to re-affix the souvenir sheets to the covers? (The souvenir sheets, like most earlier North Vietnam stamps, were issued without gum.)
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
When covers are sent in for expertisation and in cases where stamps must be removed from the cover to determine watermark, gum type or grill type, the stamp is carefully re-affixed to the cover with a single high-quality hinge.
To my mind this makes the most sense, because any other method will be messy at best.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
As they were issued without gum initially, why not apply more gum? I suggest an acid-free glue stick. No rules get broken, nothing gets damaged
Login to Like
this post
07:35:37am
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Another data point. See the glue squeezed out around the edges of the stamp?
I'd be tempted to re-affix the stamp with 'mucilage', that brown thick glue that came in a bottle with a rubber dispensing top that you just dragged across the surface to be glued. The original poster probably used exactly the same stuff.
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
08:05:57am
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Remember when?
It's from this charming webpage:
http://www.drmetablog.com/2017/12/mucilage.html
Hey, it's "all-natural"!
-Paul
The presumption that the product is somehow, French leads me to presume that it was available in French Indochina! (That's a lot of presuming!)
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Lepage's! Hated that stuff in grade school. It got all crusty and blocked the spreader half the time.
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Elmers White Glue? I don't know how it reacts over time but it seems pretty stable.
Note that I had a stack of odd size covers recently sent to me from eBay dealers, all with arrays of old stamps on them. Upon soaking the stamps I discovered a disproportionate number of them were affixed with Elmers!
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Mucilage! Gakkkk! I remember that stuff. My dad used it to "mucilage" his newspaper clippings into his scrapbook (he was a newspaper editor). It would dry and crack, often cracking the paper it was adhered to. No, I won't use mucilage, assuming it's available.
Elmers White Glue?! No way! I used Elmers to mount some Viet Cong propaganda leaflets into my scrapbook after I got home from the war. They are now permanently part of the scrapbook pages, which are quite rapidly crumbling into paper fibres.
I think that an "archival" glue stick is the way to go. Or, I could just not worry about it. A few days ago I scanned the same cover shown above to illustrate a point in another thread. Here it is:
Here's another cover in my collection, franked (messily) with a gumless Chinese stamp:
Bob
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
07:29:59am
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Bob
I would have been inclined to leave well alone, and accompany the cover ( and stamp) with an explanatory note. The sequence of events is obvious once it has been pointed out. as is the relationship between the cover and the stamp.
By "tampering" with it you are introducing possible suspicion that something is "not quite right" where no such suspicion is justified. Once that suspicion appears it is very difficult to make it go away.
I am a big believer in a "warts and all" approach to collecting. I do keep slightly damaged stamps where I don't have an undamaged, but make no attempt to make them look other than what they are, and if and when I receive an undamaged one am quite ruthless in destroying it or putting into an obviously uncollectable state ( use for craftwork perhaps ).
In any "old stuff" field, while perfect is better than damaged repaired is often worse than damaged - particular if an attempt has been made to "cover up", and even restored can be a dirty word. Outside exhibiting all items have historical if not necessarily intrinsic value. The fact that the stamp has "fallen off" due to poor fixing originally is part of the history of the piece, and provide it is properly documented should not devalue the piece any further than it falling off in the first place.
With (particularly) covers and other postal history items, the probability ( or otherwise)of the existence of perfect examples should be taken into account. After all the British Guiana 1c is severely damaged !
Just my twopennorth
Malcolm
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
My one nod to improving a stamp is a good bath. 100+ years of grime will disappear in minutes and bring stamps back to life.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:07:07am
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
OMG Bob!
Please comment on the MiG-15 on that cover!!!
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Malcolm is the voice of reason here! I'd do as he says. And as said earlier if you want to affix it to the cover for display purposes, use a proper hinge.
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
If you do not want to use a hinge, I might be tempted to use "UHU STIC" they say it is non toxic, washable, acid free. Conforms to ASTM D4236.
If it was me I would use a couple of hinges.
Doug
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
clear. soft removable ...
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Rubber cement? Don't think so! In my experience, it completely dries out over time and loses its adhesive properties, not to mention that it's incredibly messy to use. But thanks for the suggestion.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
26 Aug 2018
01:14:13am
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
I think that any attempt to re-glue the stamp
will result in a slight misalignment that will
make the viewer wonder about the reason,
and a suspicious person will be, well..... suspicious.
Better stick to a hinge or two, with an
explanatory note.
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Hinge is accepted practice, using other adhesives should required disclosure if the item was ever sold, traded, or passed on.
It is interesting how many folks recommend the use of experimental conservation practices in forums yet we see no disclosure of the same in the marketplaces.
When making a purchase would you guys like to be told up-front that the item you are buying has been stuck back down with a glue stick?
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
If it was a Penny Black or early Mauritius, I'd agree with you. Hinges, however, will fail at some point, either through handling, filing or shipment.
In a case such as this, a glue stick is just fine IMHO
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Hi Dave,
A glue stick with or without disclosure?
There are a lot of practices (in any hobby) which I think are fine for someone if the things they are doing will never leave their possession. But a lot of folks read this forum and then go into the marketplace with these recommendations.
Would your customers be ok if you used glue sticks on what you sell below a certain value without disclosure?
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
I would suggest that many, many, stamps have been reaffixed to classic covers over the years, with no disclosure. It wouldn't stop me buying them. It would pay to check a Penny Black on cover, when an inverted watermark is up to ten times the value of a normal example on cover.
Personally, I don't think disclosure is critical, however I've never sold anything that has been reaffixed (at least that I'm aware of!!)
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
While personal opinions can certainly vary the hobby has certain accepted standards which include those organizations which issue certifications. And those organizations, such as the Philatelic Foundation, will call out a cover which “When an adhesive originally on a cover has been removed and replaced…” or the addition of an adhesive which “…not originally on a cover…”.
I think it is fine to discuss experimental stuff in public forums like this one; it is how our experience and knowledgebase grows. But I do not agree with doing this without presenting the entire picture.
I think it is like taking an original old car and then cutting it up into a hot rod. Folks are certainly allowed to do what they desire with the stuff they own, and sometimes this is indeed a reasonable direction. But we should always make sure we communicate that they are doing something that cannot be reversed, that this kind of modification should be disclosed at time of resale, and that the modification may greatly impact the value of their item.
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Let's be clear, I don't advocate non-disclosure on "good" covers, but reattaching a gumless modern sheet to a cover isn't the same issue. The rules that apply to a £1,000 cover can't, and shouldn't, be applied to a £1 cover.
The accepted standards you mention are by no means universal, although they do apply to exhibiting.
We overthink this hobby sometimes.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
06:36:28am
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Sorry Dave I don't agree.
It is as much about mind set as about individual cases.
Having 2 standards means making a subjective decision about which standard to apply, and this can and will eventually lead to a conflict. Certainly you are entitled to apply your own standards, but you owe it to your stamps and to yourself to be consistent, and full disclosure is not optional. You cannot comment on what you are unaware of, but if you are aware it is ethical to say so.
In the UK when you sell your house if you do not declare that you have bad neighbours, or any other drawbacks you are committing an offence. This is not a criminal offence, but you WILL be required to compensate the buyer. The same principle applies. We all know about Caveat Emptor as a buyer - but you should never apply it as a seller.
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
I agree about the mindset, and as a member of the IPDA and APS, I obviously support and maintain serious ethical standards.
However, I can't agree that a the buyer of a £1 cover needs to be told, or even know, that a shoddily applied stamp has fallen off and been reattached in the same manner as it was initially affixed.
That said, I have a number of covers in this condition, and I haven't reattached the stamps, but have placed them in a glassine inside the cover. If the buyer wants to reattach them, it's their call
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Hi Dave,
I do not mean to be argumentative, but what is the ‘cut off’ bar for a ‘good’ cover? Is it based upon catalog value or market value? Is it a ‘personal’ bar; a wealth collector has a higher bar but a less wealthy person has a lower bar? And if the bar is based upon value, we are incorrectly assuming that value reflects rarity. If the bar is based upon rarity, how does a person determine rarity? How do we explain to a new hobbyist which cover are acceptable to alter and which ones are not?
And what about people who do not know that the cover is extraordinary? Perhaps an earliest known usage, unique rate usage, or some less-than-obvious detail and after reading this thread they unknowingly ruin an important cover? Should we really trust that everyone who reads this forum has the experience and eye for detail that they can make the right decision on this 100% of the time? Or should we err on the side of safety in a public forum that is read by folks who are at all kinds of different experience levels?
I do not consider this over-thinking, I consider it communication of good stewardship, accepted practices, and community messaging.
Don
Edit: Stamporama rules for selling stamps states
"C3. Intentionally listing bogus, fake, forged, counterfeit, repaired or altered stamps as genuine is prohibited."
But I can find nothing about covers. Do the same rules apply to covers? If so, then repairing or altering a cover and listing it here is prohibited (even if it is disclosed)?
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
We'll never agree on this one Don.
You're assuming that reaffixing a stamp will lead to it, or the cover, being ruined. I disagree with that. I'd suggest that even an experienced collector or seller who viewed 1000 covers, of which 1% had been reaffixed, couldn't pick them at first glance.
Per my earlier post, reaffixing with hinges is more likely to lead to damage to, or loss of, the stamp than reaffixing with glue.
Login to Like
this post
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
Here's a reaffixed stamp! Easy Peasy! Nobody will notice!
Back story: I actually bought that one sight unseen. Upon its arrival I notified seller, someone I buy from regularly, and she was apologetic, credited the amount and told me to keep or destroy it. I kept it just for moments like this!
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Advice needed — re-affixing stamps to covers
PigDoc said,
"Please comment on the MiG-15 on that cover!!!"
I'll let my web page, Russian MiG-15 fighters redefined aerial combat, comment for me.
Bob
Login to Like
this post