1 can safely remove hinge remnants using prinz UHU remover. it even repairs gum that is cracking. cover stamps can be removed for watermark inspection.
Thanks, Mack-
That's some neat stuff! I always wondered how to check a watermark on a stamp on cover without building a small lab, and now I know. I can envision a can of that magical fluid in my future, however, because it "retains gum" by design, I'm not sure that's the approach for me to take on stamps that have no gum -- just the gummy bits left there by the gluey stuff on the hinge itself. I want that stuff gone, and hopefully, any icky stains along with it.
But I'd suspect this product could prove useful when attempting to removed a hinge remnant from a MH/OG stamp. Am I right? Is this what the pros use?
Thanks again,
Doug
NB: An unused stamp is "mint" only if it has all of its original gum, and has not been hinged - basically, as it was sold in the post office, allowing for age. Hence the German expression "postfrisch". Anything else is just "unused". Re-gummed unused stamps must not be valued higher than stamps without gum, because re-gumming is actually considered cheating. Better have a clean specimen without gum, than a dirty one with gum, or one with dubious gum.
I'm also not sure whether lifting stamps off envelopes to check watermarks is a good idea. There must be other, less invasive methods.
What I'd do (after checking whether the printing ink is waterproof):
Used stamps: Soak.
No gum, and hinge remnants: Soak.
Heavily damaged gum with hinge remnants, or stains: Soak unless there are varieties where the gum makes a major difference (but even then, you'll only have a damaged stamp).
Multiple hinge remnants, but largely intact gum: Try the hinge remover. Note that the "repairs" made by the hinge remover liquid do not make the stamp "mint" again!
Mostly intact gum, and a single hinge remnant: Leave as it is, as long as the gum is not affecting the condition of the stamp paper.
But most importantly: Get well soon!
Well, Martin-
Thanks for writing. It appears we do not have a consensus regarding this whole mess of mint vs. unused and whether re-gumming has any merits. Let me explain.
Officially/technically, it seems that you're correct about the "mint" classification. However, throughout the world of philately, in practice, it seems to me that mint is more often than not extended to include any stamp that has the appearance of an unused stamp, which I assume means any stamp without visible cancellation. I mean, it wasn't me that made up the oft-seen term MNG! (I was, however, the first person to coin the term NGIA, which should have been NGAI. Oops.)
I'd asked about this re-gum in another thread...
"I get a warm feeling when I see stamp dealers listing stamps as repaired. But I don't really get "re-gummed." Isn't that a used stamp that avoided cancel with new gum on the back? Would anybody pay any more for a "re-gummed" or a MNG "missing gum" stamp than they would for a used stamp with a missing or ultra-light cancel? This confuses me greatly. Is there a consensus or protocol here?"
"Stamps are regummed for many reasons. 19th century stamps often have old glue, bad gum, multiple messy hinging, etc which makes them pretty unsightly and unsaleable. Soaking off the gum and perhaps a touch of your favorite liquid can eliminate foxing, enhance colors, even out stains, etc. This gives you a "no gum" stamp which if undamaged is very saleable - I sell a lot of them at 15% of catalog. If the soaking uncovers damage (old repairs, rebacking, hidden thins, etc the stamp will be repaired and regummed to cover up these defects to the naked eye. Regumming is also used as a means of helping to conceal "washed" or eradicated cancels.
Yes, MNG can be worth a lot more than used (even with a trace cancel). Scott prices classic US stamps as gummed, no gum and used. A Scott #114 (my avatar) with gum catalogs $250, no gum $80 and used $20 (2012 pricing)."
"... I'm with you regarding pulling a stamp off-cover to check for a watermark. It scares me ..."
" .... However, throughout the world of philately,
in practice, it seems to me that mint is more often
than not extended to include any stamp that has the
appearance of an unused stamp, which I assume means
any stamp without visible cancellation. ....
Not in any world of philately that I know of.
Maybe among scammers on eBay, but certainly
not among reputable auction houses or as far .
as I can recall anyone I have dealt with.
Maybe my head has been in the clouds for
the last ten or twenty years, but
that description is "verboten" and would
get you an ever so kind hint to correct
or remove any lot posted here or just
about anywhere I would be interested in
stamping..
rushing to soak ... may incur ink bleeds, or loss of chalk surface.
UHU solution applied sparingly with an artists brush is more secure method.
I no longer use hinges, as the whole process of soaking is messy and time-consuming.
rubber cement /thinner allows quick replacement of album items...
It is quite common to see the description "Mint Hinged" by sellers and do not consider them all ebay scammers. ebay is a diverse selling platform and there is no enforced code of descriptions. The usage does not concern me.
What irks me more is all those adjectives sellers use to describe stamps - rare, stunning, etc.
'
The use of MNH ("Mint Never Hinged") invites the use of MH ("Mint Hinged").
There is no ambiguity in "Mint (but) Hinged"; I know exactly what that means.
And, since "U" could be used in place of both "used" and "unused", they are no help.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Classifying stamp conditions has been a recurring unresolved debate on SOR for as long as I've been here (3-4 years) with endless tedious/pedantic discussions and arguments with no resolution.
There are different "authoritative" (or perhaps just "outside/independent") opinions, and many more "personal" classifications. But all just seem to get us bogged-down in arguing trivial details. (Didn't I read something recently about the classification of "lick marks" on gum?)
What if we just dismissed the rest of the world's opinion as unimportant, and did what we want for us? "MSORGA"!!! So everyone can describe as they want outside (e.g. in eBay), but "in here" (i.e. SOR), this is how we do it! And then we could codify it so all SOR members agree to use the same convention.
So, should we look to make some reasonable rules for "our gang" to follow, or just keep wanking this around for years to come?
(A Very Cranky Today) Lemaven.
'
Well, AMEN to the "cranky" part, anyway.
We've got enough rules/terms/etc for the newbies to read - and little enough luck getting them to read & comply with them - to add vocabulary lessons & glossaries.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
"We've got enough rules/terms/etc for the newbies to read - and little enough luck getting them to read & comply with them"
Glad I only mentioned it but didn’t exercise any futility! I realized trying to simplify things is too complex.
I’m just going to add MLL (Mint Lightly Licked) to my descriptions and leave it at that.
Slightly less cranky now...
Dave
" .... (Didn't I read something recently about
the classification of "lick marks" on gum?) ...."
Good lord, I hope not.
That would ruin an otherwise decent week.
" .... And there are also some sellers
who don't even read these discussions
OR the rules. ...."
Maybe we could invite a troop from the
sheriff's posse over for a weekend's
cultural exchange.
Maybe we could invite a troop from the
sheriff's posse over for a weekend's
cultural exchange.
No ???
That's what I thought.
What time is the posse comin'??
I wanna be sure and be elsewhere.....
ikeyPikey, because of possible ambiguities when abbreviations are used, some catalogs use signs for the conditions of stamps. You have surely seen them already, but I'm going to list them for the benefit of newcomers reading this thread: ** stands for mint, * for unused, (*) for unused without gum, the sun symbol for used (postmarked), a wiggly line for used with manuscript cancel, and three parallel lines for other cancellations. As the latter three symbols are not usually found on computer keyboards, the sun symbol is often substituted by an o. For the other two we might use a tilde and an equal sign if need be (my proposal).
Is there a list out there anywhere of stamps with water soluble gum. I know it is sometimes listed with the stamp but that means we have to look! Also how about the odd stamp that is printed on gum side? Soaking one of those would be a problem!
Mounted Mint anyone?
Martin, the catalogs use symbols like * ** (*) in a designated area in their tables, but characters like these do not lend themselves to use in sentences because, if written in a paragraph (like this one), they would send people off to find footnotes.
Therefor, in text - forum postings, press releases, journal articles - authors use character strings like MNHOG, MNH, MH ... and CTO, FDC, SOTN, etc.
This is especially important when describing newer & narrower categories, such as UXBOS. (*)
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
(*) Unexploded Booklet, Original Staple
@ikeyPikey:
Abbreviations aren't necessarily better than symbols, because in both cases you have to know what they mean. While you can look up the latter in the catalog, the former depend on the language used, may be subject to local variations, or may even have been created on the spur of the moment. Besides, some may be just as wrong as the expression they are derived from - see examples above ...
@Harvey:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no such list, although I would agree with those who find it useful. I mean, if catalogs print information about self-adhesive gum (Michel does, for instance), then surely they can also state whether the stamp can be soaked or not. Perhaps, if we write to the publishers, some day this will happen ...
-jmh
At least for US stamps, Scott indicates soakable self-adhesive stamps in their catalogs
Wikipedia has an entry on stamp condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_condition
The notes refer to Stephen Datz source.
"should we look to make some reasonable rules for "our gang" to follow"
"... Abbreviations aren't necessarily better than symbols ..."
Hey Team!
So my first question has specifically to do with my NGAI Farleys. I've saved a significant amount of money buying hinged examples of one souvenir sheet, a number of gutter pairs, etc. Is there any harm in soaking hinge remnants/dried gummy stuff off the backs of these MH Farleys, a couple of which are a bit valuable?
And second, what about 19th-century used stamps of intermediate value whose backsides are a bit of a mess? I'm not talking about sending anything out to be conserved. They're not *that* valuable. Would it depend on the type of paper or if there are any thins?
And lastly, what about the dubious hinged MNG's? I've got higher-denom Columbians and TransMisses, among a few others, that might benefit from a nice bath. And some of these, were I to ever sell them, might even benefit from a re-gluing. So, as long as the gum is already gone, is it safe?
Oh, and even more lastly, since I don't collect stamps beyond 1992, I have no experience with self-adhesives, but some of you sellers (you know who you are) have been putting them on the envelopes you've sent me. Are those gonna fall right off when I soak them?
And fifthly, just kidding. I'm done. But feel free to comment on anything relevant that I've missed.
Thanks team!!!
Doug
PS: If you're wondering why I haven't just taken a few inexpensive examples of each of the above and tested them myself, it's only because I'm presently at quite a disadvantage with my badly-broken leg raised in the air nearly 24 hours a day. My time at the "stamp table" is very, very precious, and I don't see me being able too do anymore than a single soak over the coming months. I need to make it count.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
1 can safely remove hinge remnants using prinz UHU remover. it even repairs gum that is cracking. cover stamps can be removed for watermark inspection.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Thanks, Mack-
That's some neat stuff! I always wondered how to check a watermark on a stamp on cover without building a small lab, and now I know. I can envision a can of that magical fluid in my future, however, because it "retains gum" by design, I'm not sure that's the approach for me to take on stamps that have no gum -- just the gummy bits left there by the gluey stuff on the hinge itself. I want that stuff gone, and hopefully, any icky stains along with it.
But I'd suspect this product could prove useful when attempting to removed a hinge remnant from a MH/OG stamp. Am I right? Is this what the pros use?
Thanks again,
Doug
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
NB: An unused stamp is "mint" only if it has all of its original gum, and has not been hinged - basically, as it was sold in the post office, allowing for age. Hence the German expression "postfrisch". Anything else is just "unused". Re-gummed unused stamps must not be valued higher than stamps without gum, because re-gumming is actually considered cheating. Better have a clean specimen without gum, than a dirty one with gum, or one with dubious gum.
I'm also not sure whether lifting stamps off envelopes to check watermarks is a good idea. There must be other, less invasive methods.
What I'd do (after checking whether the printing ink is waterproof):
Used stamps: Soak.
No gum, and hinge remnants: Soak.
Heavily damaged gum with hinge remnants, or stains: Soak unless there are varieties where the gum makes a major difference (but even then, you'll only have a damaged stamp).
Multiple hinge remnants, but largely intact gum: Try the hinge remover. Note that the "repairs" made by the hinge remover liquid do not make the stamp "mint" again!
Mostly intact gum, and a single hinge remnant: Leave as it is, as long as the gum is not affecting the condition of the stamp paper.
But most importantly: Get well soon!
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Well, Martin-
Thanks for writing. It appears we do not have a consensus regarding this whole mess of mint vs. unused and whether re-gumming has any merits. Let me explain.
Officially/technically, it seems that you're correct about the "mint" classification. However, throughout the world of philately, in practice, it seems to me that mint is more often than not extended to include any stamp that has the appearance of an unused stamp, which I assume means any stamp without visible cancellation. I mean, it wasn't me that made up the oft-seen term MNG! (I was, however, the first person to coin the term NGIA, which should have been NGAI. Oops.)
I'd asked about this re-gum in another thread...
"I get a warm feeling when I see stamp dealers listing stamps as repaired. But I don't really get "re-gummed." Isn't that a used stamp that avoided cancel with new gum on the back? Would anybody pay any more for a "re-gummed" or a MNG "missing gum" stamp than they would for a used stamp with a missing or ultra-light cancel? This confuses me greatly. Is there a consensus or protocol here?"
"Stamps are regummed for many reasons. 19th century stamps often have old glue, bad gum, multiple messy hinging, etc which makes them pretty unsightly and unsaleable. Soaking off the gum and perhaps a touch of your favorite liquid can eliminate foxing, enhance colors, even out stains, etc. This gives you a "no gum" stamp which if undamaged is very saleable - I sell a lot of them at 15% of catalog. If the soaking uncovers damage (old repairs, rebacking, hidden thins, etc the stamp will be repaired and regummed to cover up these defects to the naked eye. Regumming is also used as a means of helping to conceal "washed" or eradicated cancels.
Yes, MNG can be worth a lot more than used (even with a trace cancel). Scott prices classic US stamps as gummed, no gum and used. A Scott #114 (my avatar) with gum catalogs $250, no gum $80 and used $20 (2012 pricing)."
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
"... I'm with you regarding pulling a stamp off-cover to check for a watermark. It scares me ..."
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
" .... However, throughout the world of philately,
in practice, it seems to me that mint is more often
than not extended to include any stamp that has the
appearance of an unused stamp, which I assume means
any stamp without visible cancellation. ....
Not in any world of philately that I know of.
Maybe among scammers on eBay, but certainly
not among reputable auction houses or as far .
as I can recall anyone I have dealt with.
Maybe my head has been in the clouds for
the last ten or twenty years, but
that description is "verboten" and would
get you an ever so kind hint to correct
or remove any lot posted here or just
about anywhere I would be interested in
stamping..
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
rushing to soak ... may incur ink bleeds, or loss of chalk surface.
UHU solution applied sparingly with an artists brush is more secure method.
I no longer use hinges, as the whole process of soaking is messy and time-consuming.
rubber cement /thinner allows quick replacement of album items...
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
It is quite common to see the description "Mint Hinged" by sellers and do not consider them all ebay scammers. ebay is a diverse selling platform and there is no enforced code of descriptions. The usage does not concern me.
What irks me more is all those adjectives sellers use to describe stamps - rare, stunning, etc.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
'
The use of MNH ("Mint Never Hinged") invites the use of MH ("Mint Hinged").
There is no ambiguity in "Mint (but) Hinged"; I know exactly what that means.
And, since "U" could be used in place of both "used" and "unused", they are no help.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Classifying stamp conditions has been a recurring unresolved debate on SOR for as long as I've been here (3-4 years) with endless tedious/pedantic discussions and arguments with no resolution.
There are different "authoritative" (or perhaps just "outside/independent") opinions, and many more "personal" classifications. But all just seem to get us bogged-down in arguing trivial details. (Didn't I read something recently about the classification of "lick marks" on gum?)
What if we just dismissed the rest of the world's opinion as unimportant, and did what we want for us? "MSORGA"!!! So everyone can describe as they want outside (e.g. in eBay), but "in here" (i.e. SOR), this is how we do it! And then we could codify it so all SOR members agree to use the same convention.
So, should we look to make some reasonable rules for "our gang" to follow, or just keep wanking this around for years to come?
(A Very Cranky Today) Lemaven.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
'
Well, AMEN to the "cranky" part, anyway.
We've got enough rules/terms/etc for the newbies to read - and little enough luck getting them to read & comply with them - to add vocabulary lessons & glossaries.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
"We've got enough rules/terms/etc for the newbies to read - and little enough luck getting them to read & comply with them"
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Glad I only mentioned it but didn’t exercise any futility! I realized trying to simplify things is too complex.
I’m just going to add MLL (Mint Lightly Licked) to my descriptions and leave it at that.
Slightly less cranky now...
Dave
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
" .... (Didn't I read something recently about
the classification of "lick marks" on gum?) ...."
Good lord, I hope not.
That would ruin an otherwise decent week.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
" .... And there are also some sellers
who don't even read these discussions
OR the rules. ...."
Maybe we could invite a troop from the
sheriff's posse over for a weekend's
cultural exchange.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Maybe we could invite a troop from the
sheriff's posse over for a weekend's
cultural exchange.
No ???
That's what I thought.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
What time is the posse comin'??
I wanna be sure and be elsewhere.....
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
ikeyPikey, because of possible ambiguities when abbreviations are used, some catalogs use signs for the conditions of stamps. You have surely seen them already, but I'm going to list them for the benefit of newcomers reading this thread: ** stands for mint, * for unused, (*) for unused without gum, the sun symbol for used (postmarked), a wiggly line for used with manuscript cancel, and three parallel lines for other cancellations. As the latter three symbols are not usually found on computer keyboards, the sun symbol is often substituted by an o. For the other two we might use a tilde and an equal sign if need be (my proposal).
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Is there a list out there anywhere of stamps with water soluble gum. I know it is sometimes listed with the stamp but that means we have to look! Also how about the odd stamp that is printed on gum side? Soaking one of those would be a problem!
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Mounted Mint anyone?
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
Martin, the catalogs use symbols like * ** (*) in a designated area in their tables, but characters like these do not lend themselves to use in sentences because, if written in a paragraph (like this one), they would send people off to find footnotes.
Therefor, in text - forum postings, press releases, journal articles - authors use character strings like MNHOG, MNH, MH ... and CTO, FDC, SOTN, etc.
This is especially important when describing newer & narrower categories, such as UXBOS. (*)
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
(*) Unexploded Booklet, Original Staple
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
@ikeyPikey:
Abbreviations aren't necessarily better than symbols, because in both cases you have to know what they mean. While you can look up the latter in the catalog, the former depend on the language used, may be subject to local variations, or may even have been created on the spur of the moment. Besides, some may be just as wrong as the expression they are derived from - see examples above ...
@Harvey:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no such list, although I would agree with those who find it useful. I mean, if catalogs print information about self-adhesive gum (Michel does, for instance), then surely they can also state whether the stamp can be soaked or not. Perhaps, if we write to the publishers, some day this will happen ...
-jmh
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
At least for US stamps, Scott indicates soakable self-adhesive stamps in their catalogs
Wikipedia has an entry on stamp condition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_condition
The notes refer to Stephen Datz source.
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
"should we look to make some reasonable rules for "our gang" to follow"
re: Should I soak hinges off of MH/NGIA issues? Or any used or MNG stamp?
"... Abbreviations aren't necessarily better than symbols ..."