WERT
Departed
Rest in Peace
Posts: 1,062
What I collect: Canada and Provinces
|
Post by WERT on Jun 9, 2021 21:09:07 GMT
Here is a stamp restoration company about an hour drive from where i live. They take torn/ruined/etc. stamps and bring them back to original shape. This could be a bad thing for collecting original stamps.
I added the link for you to make up your own opinion. Robert
 |
|
khj
Member 
Posts: 1,470 
|
Post by khj on Jun 11, 2021 0:31:38 GMT
It is a paid service, and there are plenty of scenarios for legitimate need for such a service. Seriously, just consider the 1c magenta.
That being said, the stamp should be marked on the back as being repaired since it is a paid service. The restoration work on the unique 1c magenta is well-documented, so no mark is needed. I don't buy their comment that such a mark on the back of the stamp would constitute "defacing" any more than the work they do of filling of thins or reperforation. I don't question the intentions of the business owner nor customer. But without the mark, it becomes a disservice to philately -- because eventually the stamp likely will have a new owner who might assume everything is unaltered.
I've known one collector who painstakingly repaired his stamps for sentimental reasons. The repairs are indeed obvious, and basically all the stamps were common "low-value" stamps.
A couple decades back, I purchased a US collection -- quick spot-check showed no obvious problems. Turned out almost half the pre-1920 stamps were altered or repaired. I didn't consider myself a novice when I made the purchase, but I was definitely naive.
I've also noticed a sharp uptick in the number of fakes/forgeries in accumulations/collections I have purchased in the past 5 years. Some of these lots were in known auction houses sourced from former "wannabee dealers".
It's easy to say "buyer beware". But I don't believe that a business should be contributing to the problem. All it takes to prevent most future problems is the indelible mark on the back, and I would be fine with that. It's a simple option that is widely accepted across the philatelic world.
Just my opinion. I respect that others may see this differently. I just wonder if solving a damaged stamp problem but then possibly creating another problem, is a good approach.
k
|
|
WERT
Departed
Rest in Peace
Posts: 1,062
What I collect: Canada and Provinces
|
Post by WERT on Jun 11, 2021 1:15:09 GMT
khj..Agreed
For those who are not in it to make money,and maybe a grand father helping a grand son have a cute collection.
BOTTOM LINE:...Stamp a big "R" or a small "repair" on the back.
Robert
|
|
rex
Member
Posts: 1,164
|
Post by rex on Jun 11, 2021 9:11:50 GMT
I am not in favor, if they are restored this must be highlighted, otherwise it is a scam. Personally I keep antique / classic specimens in my collection even damaged ones with satisfaction.
|
|
angore
Member
Posts: 5,388
What I collect: WW, focus on British Empire
|
Post by angore on Jun 11, 2021 10:07:39 GMT
Without any marking these may end up on the market as unrestored as it changes owners over time.
|
|
Jerry B
Departed
Rest in Peace
Marietta, Georgia USA
Posts: 1,485
|
Post by Jerry B on Jun 11, 2021 10:38:15 GMT
Hi
I agree with khj. I feel that a scarce and seldom seen stamp may be repaired, AS LONG AS IT IS DESIGNATED SO. If not designated as repaired I would consider it a forgery.
Jerry B
|
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator 
Posts: 5,673
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Jun 19, 2021 20:32:00 GMT
First of all, I want to thank Robert ( WERT ) for starting this thread. It is an interesting topic, and well worth some discussion, in my opinion. My initial reaction to this discussion was that, of course, I agree with Kim ( khj ), Ludovico ( rex ), and Jerry ( Jerry B ): stamps that have been restored should be marked as such. Then I had an interesting conversation with Vince ( stanley64 ), which is almost always thought provoking, and I started to see the question in a different light: My question: where does one draw the line between restoration, viewed as unethical, as opposed to responsible stewardship of a stamp's condition? Allow me to offer a hypothetical example (I think). Let us say that in one of the mixtures I have bought, I find a classic stamp with high CV, but the stamp has staining and toning due to foxing (mold), which is undoubtedly why I found it in a mixture: nice stamp, but poor condition. It has now been abandoned by another collector or dealer who realize its CV, but believe it is worth little due to its poor condition. I take this stamp, and I apply Michael's ( Londonbus1 ) potassium permanganate solution, and I am able to successfully remove the foxing, restore the stamp to its original condition, and sell it for much more than what I paid for the entire mixture in the first place. Have I acted unethically? Have I misrepresented this stamp in some way if I have not told the buyer that it used to have foxing on it, until I treated it? Where do you draw the line? What constitutes an unethical restoration that should somehow be indicated versus responsible stewardship? Please understand that I am not taking a firm position one way or the other just yet, but I am trying to understand the arguments on both sides, and how it would be possible to differentiate one situation from the other. Is it to do with what is actually done to the stamp, or the intent of the person who does it? I welcome additional comments on this most interesting topic. Thanks again to Robert! |
|
hdm1950
Member
Posts: 1,635
What I collect: I collect world wide up to 1965 with several specialty albums added due to volume of material I have acquired. At this point I am focused on Canada and British America. I am always on the lookout for stamps and covers with postmarks from communities in Queens County, Nova Scotia. I do list various goods including stamps occasionally on eBay as hdm50
|
Post by hdm1950 on Jun 19, 2021 20:50:36 GMT
I welcome additional comments on this most interesting topic. Thanks again to Robert! Well Robert for my 2 cents worth I think cleaning is just that and not a repair. |
|
stainlessb
Member
qaStaHvIS yIn 'ej chep
Posts: 4,665
What I collect: currently focused on most of western Europe, much of which is spent on France, Belgium, Germany and Great Britain Queen Victoria
|
Post by stainlessb on Jun 19, 2021 21:01:45 GMT
Yes, very interesting- Chris brings up an interesting point and I'll carry it a step further. Most used stamps are off paper, meaning they have more than likely soaked in water, maybe some soap in the water, and maybe even so peroxide, and yes even permanganate, or an enzyme soap to remove the difficult gum found on some stamps. all varying degrees of treatment for used stamps, whether already off paper, or to remove hinges. The "laundering" process is my mind is acceptable.
Replacing missing perfs, building up thins and such should be noted as restored or repaired. Without notification, it does seem to be an attempt to mislead/misrepresent. And I suspect there are stamps that have changed hands a few times that somewhere along the way the repair/restoration wasn't noted (such as purchase from an estate sale).
As with most things caveat emptor often applies...
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by khj on Jun 20, 2021 22:25:23 GMT
It's pretty well-known that a certain amount of "cleaning" is done on some stamps sold through auction houses. They don't bother mentioning it because it is a unwritten "understanding", and nobody asks/questions. Do you really think those used stamps looked so "pristine" since the day they were soaked off cover?
I've been known to very unprofessionally get my trusty Mars-Staedtler eraser to remove pencil marks off the selvedge (pet peeve of mine -- quit writing on selvedge !@$#%!, you've got the whole back of the stamp as well as some white margin if you insist on being able to see your writing, but leave the selvedge alone!). I don't consider that altering a stamp, and you can pretty much still see the pencil indentation.
I don't think general cleaning to improve visual appearance is a big deal, if you are simply removing "gunk" that got onto the stamp.
Chemically changing sulfur contamination of inks is also pretty common among auction houses for big ticket items (seriously, how many of you have ever seen an orange stamp at a major auction house with even the slightest tinge of darkened spots in the orange ink?). Personally, even though accepted, I think that should also be documented in the auction description, as it does involve chemically changing the ink at the surface, rather than physically "removing" something. That's where I draw the line when it comes to cleaning. If you are chemically changing the stamp, not just "cleaning" to physically remove dirty ink or paper stains, then you need to document it somewhere. I will note that I am in the distinct minority on this -- in general, this practice is fairly widespread accepted without regards to documentation.
I draw the line at removing things that got into/onto the stamp during the natural production or postal usage of the stamp. For example, removing cancellations or removing a specific ink color is a big no-no. So is removing natural inclusions. Those things should be clearly documented to prevent misunderstanding in the future. So that matches my take on the business that "repairs" your stamp above. I'll accept there are legitimate reasons to do so, but those types of changes should be clearly documented on the stamp (my opinion).
|
|
