Does this look regummed? Canada Scott 226


The gumming on the stamp on the left looked "Too good" to me. The stamp on the right is that same mint Canada 226 from my store. I posted this on another site I frequently visit, and folks there agreed the stamp on the left had something done to the gum. However, one responder said the stamp on the right did not look proper either. What the hey. This regumming thing is driving me crazy, and is making me very leary of buying early single mint stamps. What do you folks think?

As an aside, I was licked off that site for a week for using "Scott 226" in the title of my post, after getting completely trashed by the site adninistrator. I probably don't even need to name the clown.


  • 29 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • John,
    While I'm not a Canada specialist, what I can see here are some flags of regumming.
    The stamp at right has a curl in it, that's not present in the stamp at right. If these stamps were printed as flat plate prints, then there is no reason for the stamp to curl. This is a common sign of regumming. However, it is not on it's own conclusive either.
    The gum is disturbed as well. If it has been heated during a high humidity period, and is in a dealer card, or a plastic backed album page, then the gum can melt and take on a smooth surface, sometimes with bubbles that will leave impressions.
    One thing that will help is if you can send images from the front as well, and then individual scans (flat, without the curve in the stamps), as high a resolution as possible, that would be helpful.
  • At best, the gum is disturbed, but yes, does not look authentic. In fact , if it is a re-gum, it is done poorly. I would say 98% yes, re gum. The curl on the paper also gives a clue. Re gum dries individually on the stamp and often contraction causes that.
  • Thanks folks...I'll take a few more pics,
  • edited October 2022 0 LikesVote Down
    Look carefully from the front at the perf tips. Reguming usually leaves visual evidence at the tips where they separated from the sheet. If the stamp was regumed from edge to edge which is usually done, you will almost always see the evidence at the perf tips. I don't have one handy for a pic. From the back neither look to be regumed, you can see the little shreds at the tips on both - but it is better to view the front. However, in the unusual case where they were rugumed as a sheet, this technique may not work.
  • edited October 2022 0 LikesVote Down
    I'm no expert, but I see a hanging chad (lord, I never thought I'd ever need to say that), but yes, a hanging chad on the far edge of the stamp on the left.

    After checking some of my stamps from that set, I'd say the gum on the stamp on the right looks closer to mine. One thing with these Canadian stamps, they will have very sharp impressions of the engraved image visible on the back. Re-gumming may dull that look.
  • Looks from those pics at least to be very possibly regummed to me. Look closely at the "fuzz" at the ends of the perfs where it was separated from the adjacent stamp. If it was regummed after separation, the "fuzz" will get regummed as well and look kind of stiff. If not and it's still fuzzy, it could still be regummed if done prior to separating the stamps from each other but it's also possible that it is simply glazed or otherwise damaged gum if the perf "fuzz" is still present.
  • I'm no expert, either, but I would venture to say that is a case of glazed gum. The gum, perhaps due to humidity, softened up, while in a plastic mount. The pressure against the mount smoothed the gum to a liquidy glassy appearance.
    This is somewhat similar to how glossy photographs were produced, back in the day. After developing and rinsing the print in the darkroom, the print would be placed on a polished stainless steel “ferrotyping tin” face down, with a blotting cloth clamped down over the backside to dry the print. This would create a glossy finish on the print. The same print on the same paper air dried would give you a matte finish.
  • I tend to agree with Ted T that it is case of gum glazing in a mount.
    My highly scientific test for regumming is to very gently feel the perf tips. If the tips are "stiff" it's probably regummed. If the tips are "soft" it's probably original gum . Phil Merrill above also mentions that the design can often be seen on the gum side. My memory wants to say that applies from some of the Admiral issues up to the time "synthetic" gums came into use.
  • I think I'm going back to tying trout flies for some extra money.
  • Hahahahaha! Just do both. Similar tools....tongs, magnifying glass, fine thread for your kiloware bundles, etc. :smiley:
  • John, the better scans would really help a lot, both front and back.
  • John, you must tie flies a lot faster than I ever did (50 years ago). Can't believe the price of hackle today.
  • I agree with Ted it is a stamp that was in a Crystal Mount and they did more to destroy the the stamp more than anything else. They were the worst mounts that were ever made.
  • As requested

  • Such a beautiful issue....
  • Does this gum make my backside look fat?
  • They just don't make 'em like that anymore....
  • The shading of the camera onto the stamp image makes the stamp look as if it has toned gum. Cleart images are a necessity.However, I do agree with Ted's assessment of glazed gum.
  • Yes through the years I have seen a lot of stamps that came out of Crystal mounts that affected the gum on the back that looks like what John has in his first photo.
  • I ended up returning it. The condition is obvious when you have it in front of you. If I sold it, I'd likely get at least some kickback from a buyer. Not worth it. Too is pretty stamp.
  • Yeah, fair. At the very least, it's disturbed gum. If they sold it as "OG" but didn't mention the gum condition, then that's a bit of a stretch.
  • That is why you should always have photos of both the front and the back so you can get an idea of what it exactly is you are buying.
    You can also see how the gum has been sweated by the color of it.
  • Rookie question ... what is a crystal mount?
  • Crystal mounts were popular for a while in the 1970s. The had no black background. So I avoided them based on looks. Hey I was a teenager. But I dodged a bullet there.
  • Luree,

    The crystal mounts were a tube type mount. They were clear mounts with an adhesive strip at the top, on the back of the mount. They were prone to shrinkage, gun disturbance, and also those mounts would adsorb the colors from the stamps into the mount itself.

    Here is a picture of them.

  • Oh yes , I recall those . They were not cheap . Fortunately I bought Showgard later when I started buying nicer items … that is a historic picture .
  • Yes, They are not exclusively the cause of sweated gum, but they are one of the culprits.
    And wow, it's been 100 years since I've seen a pack of them. :)
  • I remember using similar mounts (and hinges) when I first started out back in the 1960's. The mounts I used had a light blue backing paper that one would peel off to expose the adhesive. Does anyone remember if these were Crystal Mounts or were they made by a different manufacturer? Not sure, but I think they were supplied in blue-coloured paper envelopes as well. It would provide a nice 'nostalgia buzz' for me if someone came up with the name and I recognized it...
  • Thank you all.

    Would: "Made of Mylar, STAMPMOUNTS are flexible, crystal clear, tear-proof and resist yellowing with age" be considered a Crystal mount?
Sign In or Register to comment.