Damn unsoakable stamps (or if you can’t soak them… )
I felt somewhat sad after reading the latest “Editors Forumn” column at Scotts Stamp Monthly. The topic of post was non-soakable stamps, or more precisely what do to with them. I acknowledge the column was written mainly US stamp collectors in mind, but the suggested solution (collect non-soakable issues on covers) is IMHO the “wrong” one.
The situation itself is nothing new. Stamp collectors want it one way, postal officers the other way. This battle of titans has clashed several times (with quality of cancels/postmarks, number of new issues etc). And every time the collectors have lost the battle … IMO the more important question is if general stamp collecting should once again adapt to match the new situation as suggested by editor of Scott?
A superb quality example of recent non-soakable US postage stamps
As a stamp collector I admit that non-soakable items don’t fit in at all… Saving them on cut piece is IMHO not a reasonable option as stamp albums, stockbooks etc. were never designed to include large amounts of items that are 2-5 thicker than normal stamps. The thought of ending up with a pile of blown up stamp albums or stockbooks is more than unpleasing… And then there’s always the question of aesthetics and visual looks. Personally I have no objections mixing soaked and cut items, but I admit there is a risk of very messy looking output.
The other route is saving non-soakable items on complete covers. If I was interested of postal history, then I would have no objections with this. But as a stamp collector I simply want to have a collection of different stamps – nothing more, nothing less. I don’t even want to start thinking how I would store or organize thousands of worldwide covers for non-soakable issues.
My solution to problem is something You will never find in printed (commercial) stamp magazines… Don’t collect the non-soakable ones if they make you feel bad. Your collection may end up being non-complete, but which is more important – a complete collection you don’t like looking at, or a non-complete one you love and cherish with every sight?
But that’s just my 2 cents… What’s your opinion?
Keijo, I think I recognize that postmark!
Hi Larry,
you’re right with the postmark “source”
BTW. The goods were dispatched this morning towards USA. Hope you’ll like the red cross semipostals on top of the cover.
I have found a way to get the “unsoakable” off paper. Buy a can of Bestine at your local art supply store. Brush on the back of the paper and self-adhesive stamps will lift right off. They will be sticky so sprinkle with baby power. You can also try hand sanitizer. The stamps don’t come off as clean but it’s safer for children to use.
I agree. There are many times when I don’t desire or require a complete set. For example I just broke up a set of Dominican Republic stamps last night in order to add to my topical collection of fencing on stamps.
There are too many stamps in existence to get “bent out of shape” (pun intended) because a few don’t conform to my specifications. I’ve broken my heart a few times trying to soak a wonderful, but unsoakable stamp. It’s just another metaphorical life lesson and a HOBBY, not a life-or-death “issue” (another pun intended).
Hi Don,
Personally I’m strongly in disfavour of mixing chemical solvents/thinners with stamps as there’s no sure way to tell how they will affect paper,colors etc on the long run. But… as there’s no way of telling how the original gum will start behaving in 10-50 years of time, those using Bestine (or more precisely heptine included also in products like Powerfuel) could be doing the right thing.
As said, this is a matter of personal preference. If something makes You feel bad, don’t do it. As simple as that!
Of cause you are right. Fortunately you only have to collect what you like.
For me non-soakable stamps are no problem. I keep them on the cover because I’m interested not only in the stamps, but in the whole covers.
And as far I know all (official) German stamps are soakable, even the self-adhesive ones. But these have another problem if you want to keep them on the cover: After some years they sometimes fell of from itself, because the gum isn’t durable. Some people also fear the gum will damage the stamps, and there are many “tricks” how you might prevent it. But we will need some decades untill we will find out, as self-adhesive stamps are a quite new invention …
Hi Tim,
the German self-adhesives are not the only ones felling off. I’ve noticed that also some Dutch and Swiss issues have similar problem… But at least the stamps come off easily
As usual, after reading your posts; you make me think a couple things about the way I keep my collection…
I understand exactly what the writer is talking about, particularly how the collection will look if you just cut around the stamp and respect his opinion.
While I understand, it doesn’t bother me. I collect mint and used U.S. stamps, but mostly mint. When I want to mount an unsoakable used stamp, I just cut around the stamp and use a stamp mount. I don’t think it looks that bad, especially if you make a nice neat square cut all the way around the stamp. After all, with some of the self adhesive mint stamps, you basically have to do the same thing.
Look at the bright side, now you don’t have to soak all those stamps, a job I always hated anyway.
“Look at the bright side, now you don’t have to soak all those stamps, a job I always hated anyway”
Every cloud has a silver lining. LOL.
I use lighter fluid on only the stamps I want to save
for myself, who cares what it does fifty years from now
as I will be long gone anyways,but the stamps looks really good now and what I found out is that you can re-use the non-cancelled stamps as the gum stays on the stamp and not on the paper that it’s stuck on , so the process can be a little messy,,,,soak for approximately 30 seconds,peel-off,
scrape the gum off with a small knife,rub-off excess gum with a cotton-ball soaked in lighter fluid,if gum remains on stamp then use a small amount of talcum powder on sticky parts of stamp, “VOILA” perfect results always. I use a very small plastic container for the lighter fluid as it cuts down on the cost of lighter fluid and a small ceramic tile for scraping off the gum. Do only one stamp at a time,
after repeating this process for about ten stamps that is when it start to get messy. Almost all United States stamps for the past 3 to 4 years are unsoakables.
Hope this help a few collectors of U.S. stamps.
For soaking non-soakable stamps, would a sweat box do the needful? I did not experience this method myself but read it in a friend’s philatelic magazine, that non-soakable stamps can be detached by placing them in a sweat box – which apparently applies as well to mint stamps stuck together on the gum sides. And even if I did want to try the method, I do not know what a sweat box is unfortunately!
Could some body help me to understand what a sweat box is and whether it would be advisable to use same to detach mint stamps stuck together on the gum sides. My best. Diogo
Hi Diego,
a sweatbox is a bit like sauna, but in miniature size. It increases air moisture inside the box and slightly dampens any objects placed inside it.
It does not work with unsoakable stamps (as their glue does not react to water). And it’s functionality even with regular stamps is highly questionable IMHO.
Thanks Keijo!
What about the mint stamps getting stuck together on the gum sides? Is there any method to detach them reasonably safely without adding to the already caused damage?
Thanks in advance.
Diogo Dias
I’m afraid not… If they are common stamps, I’d seriously consider soaking them. That way they would be at least of some use.
Another product that will take off unsoakable stamps is Citrus Splash air freshener, non-aerosol that I found at a Home Depot. There are other brands, too. Just spray on the paper side, wait a few seconds, and gently pull off the stamp. Talcum powder will soak up the remaining glue on the stamp. It does have a strong odor, though, so I recommend doing it outside! It doesn’t stay on the stamp, though.
@lopemopay… I’ve read about this method, but haven’t tried it personally….
Like with all the previously suggested methods to remove the self-adhesive layer, I’m still worried how these methods will affect stamp paper on the long run. After all, these all are chemicals substances (some natural, some not) ; and there is always a risk involved when using these on archival material like stamps. Those who seen stamps ruined by 1950s hinges (or by 1960s mounts, or by 1970s album pages, or by…) know what I mean. Each decade we collectors have seen some “new best practises” that has become “not so recommendable” on later decades… The moment there is some piece of research information to back the use these substances safely, the moment I will start recommending and using them. But till that day comes, I urge that everybody remembers that the use of any of these methods MAY cause damages to stamps (and possibly attached materials like mounts etc).
Personally I think the switch to non-water soluble adhesives and peel-and-stick stamps (what are really just stickers) is a long term deterrent to new collectors. Soaking stamps in a old ice cream container full of water and drying on a newspaper is simple, easy and safe. Now we need to test (and often destroy) new stamps to see if they can be soaked in water or need chemicals to separate them from paper. It’s not something most parents would be comfortable giving to their children.
As has been well pointed out there is no way to know what long term effects the use of chemicals will have over the years to come on stamps treated this way. Take a look in any garage or shed where someone has a collection of old paints and you’ll find bottles of various solvents. Now take a look at the (paper) labels on these solvents, they have picked up drips and spills in their lives and often fall off the bottle with a light touch all stiff and translucent.
Have a think about what is occurring on a stamp. Using a solvent might dissolve the gum and let you remove it from the paper. But the gum hasn’t vanished, its been dissolved but its still there (like a teaspoon of salt in a glass of water). Paper (the stamp) being absorbent will soak up a mix of gum and solvent into the fibers of the stamp.
The other thing to be mindful of are the “natural” products which are based around oils. Just like the oils in your fingertips can be absorbed into stamps and promote rust/mold/staining (and its why you should never touch uncirculated/proof coins as they react much faster and immediately ruin their values) so too will the oils in a cleaning product get absorbed into the stamp paper. So be cautious about how you use these techniques.
Personally I do use solvents but I’m very careful about the process and try to do what I can to prevent the chance of long term effects on the stamps. I use a product called Shellite (basically its a lighter fluid and cheaply available in bulk at hardware stores) and apply small amounts to the rear of the paper the stamp is on. This minimises the chance of chemical reactions or absorption to the front of the stamp. Using a smooth rounded tweezer I slip that under the stamp to get it off the paper, dipping the tweezer into Shellite to get it directly to the parts that are stuck more firmly. Work smooth, quick but don’t force separation which will only result in tearing the stamp. Then I lay the stamp on clean paper and dripping some Shellite onto the back (which still has the sticky goopy mess of glue partially dissolved glue on the back) so to dissolve the rest of the glue and using a scraper (I use a narrow paint scraper from the hardware store, one with smooth hard edge that won’t cut) to scrape from the middle outward and remove all the glue. Repeat until the stamp doesn’t feel tacky on the back.
At this point the stamp is flat, clean, non-sticky and dry as the solvent has evaporated quickly. But I still take the stamp through my regular soaking process of hot water and drying books. Partly because these solvents don’t mix well with water so as the stamp absorbs water its hopefully pushing out some of the solvent that soaked into the paper, but also the goopy mess the solvent turns the glue into will often coagulate in water. So any tiny amount I didn’t clean off the rear of the stamp becomes apparent quickly and is easily removed.
It’s a long and labour intensive process that takes a bit of practice. I only do it for stamps going into my collection and I save up several specimens on paper for each stamp and do them all in case I damage any so I have a couple of good stamps to choose from to put in my album at the end.
Stamps with foils, plastic coats, lenticular lenses etc are another matter and require far more care and attention and more often then not are ruined by attempts to remove them cleanly and flatly from paper. So beware!
Pelem’s comment makes sense from a homeopathic point of view. I am seriously tempted to try…
@ everyone I live in the US and here is my club’s solution that we came up with for those who still collect used new US commems. Clip around the stamp so that you have a nice little border around your perfs and mount it or put it in a stock book. This doesnt solve the problem of not being able to soak it but it does make it easier to keep them safe
Damn! pelmen advice arrives late…I did soak stamps (USA def.) with surgical spirits and now this!…if something happen to those stamps in the long run…blimey!
hello:
I have stopped collecting USA stamps all together, seeing most of them are looking like labels made from a computer printer. Just labels, nothing engraved or with a perpose these days .
jim
I’ve done another little experiment over the long weekend, comparing Pure Citrus air freshener, Goo Gone, and Ronsonol (AKA naptha, lighter fluid, watermarking fluid) for removal of self-adhesive stamps. I thought I would see which worked best on number of identical definitives that were recently used to mail a small package to me.
The removal was about the same for each. The stamps came off easily, leaving a gooey residue that can be scraped off fairly easily with something like a credit card, leaving them very slightly tacky. Talc might still be helpful.
Pure Citrus and Goo Gone left an oily looking blot on the newspaper I was working on, which dried in about an hour, while the Ronsonol evaporated within a few minutes. That may (or may not) be an indication that Ronsonol leaves less oily residue after evaporating.
Otherwise, it really comes down to which you think is the least smelly and least likely to cause harm. Pure Citrus smells like creamsicles (orange ice cream popsicles) – this is probably the least the least hazardous to your health. Hey, it’s natural!
Ronsonol smells like lighter fluid (duh) which doesn’t bother me. I thought Goo Gone was the worst smelling – like ground orange peels plus lighter fluid. 
I think that might be pretty close to the truth since the front says “Citrus Power” and the back warns “Contains Petroleum Distillates”.
I’m not sure that any of these is better than leaving the stamp on-paper and trimming around it or saving the cover. I guess I am just used to the idea that stamps should come off the paper. Once cleaned up, these newer stamps feel strangely more like plastic than paper.
Finally, I looked up the (known) health effects of these products. The heck with the long term damage to your stamps, you don’t want to breathe too much Ronsonol or Goo Gone. Too much will make you stupid. Even more will make you dead.
With Orange Citrus, don’t drink it, spray it in your eyes, or use it as a body lotion and you should be OK. 
http://www.cooperbooth.com/datasheets/160606.pdf
https://magicamerican.com/media/154654/goo%20gone.pdf
http://bluemagicusa.com/bm_files/msds/Pure%20Citrus%20Cleaner%20MSDS.pdf
@mrprgrmr… Great practical test…. Can I ask you to run one further test ? Try to set the stamps on fire… If there’s any residue left, I would expect / think the stamps to burn differently than regular (untreated) stamps…. Likely there’s no big difference in this, but I’m curious.
Of course! Playing with fire in the name of philately!
I’ll let you know how it goes.
hahaha i dont see how setting a lighter-fluid-soaked stamp on fire helps in the goal of finding a product that bests removes the stamps but i think its freakn halarious. do it
@mrprgrmr & tucker… Stamps are not the only thing philatelists burn. Some types of plastics (used in cheap mounts etc) can be identified by burning / trying to burn them. For example PVC should self-extinguish when flame is taken off whereas PP,PET and PS should continue to burn independently.
My concern is that IF there is any oily residue left, it could be a cause for concern (thinking how oily rags etc behave if they catch fire).
Oi Keijo!… watch out with those fires outside your house…you have a nasty experience already…let others do the job!!! we need you alive…unless Lol!
As well as stamps being backed with non-soakable stickiness, the latest version of the goldfoil-coloured British Queen’s head issue comes with two oval-shaped semi-punched out shapes on each side. They are designed to come apart, similar to the supermarket price stickers when someone tries to peel them off. To add insult to injury, the parcel that I received with a row of these monsters had not been properly franked, and the postman had run an ugly biro line through all of them. On that day I almost threw in the towel and stopped collecting!
ja,ja,ja, William… before you do that…think on your blog mates, probably one or two will be happy to pick up the pieces…
@Keijo, will you burn your whole collection…if you hit the lotto jackpot this week?…I bet no!…LOL!
@Fred…. No, no, no… Priorities matter, so very likely I’d pay the mortage away. Then maybe a vacation for the family or something similar. And then maybe something stamp related…
My God!!!…I’m talking about 100 millions pounds!!!(100000000000000000000000000000000000 Krones!)
you paid the mortgage off OK
holidays for the family OK
and…something related to stamps??? like for example; a new lot of stock books?
with all the stamps the world produce in the next 20 years…thou!
and then, as a complementary gift to your audience, a trip to Finland for a week for everyone … what you think?
@Fred… Actually in Finnish national lottery the jackpots are much smaller; between 1-5 million €. The largest jackpot ever has been roughly10 million euros… …. But jeesh.100 million pounds is such absurd sum of money.I can’t even imagine what anyone could do with such sum…Fortunately we Finns can’t take part into international lotteries easily (Finland has one of the strictest legislations worldwide on gaming/gambling).
But let’s say that me & misses have talked occasionally what do if we won big… One “big” dream would be to give finger to local politics, and establish some sort of free/low-cost private health care service to village we live. And putting some money into local “common good” causes would be pretty high on the todo list as well… But of course a good part of the money would go to personal / family use. And yes, ordering a gigantic mountain of new stock books would be on that list. Or who knows, I might transfer everything I have to stock cards or stock sheets (as I would not have to worry about the budget the same way I do now).
Free Trip for everyone reading the blog? That would be a serious challenge as the blog had way over 10,000 unique visitors in past month!!!! Blimey indeed. This blog is getting seriously popular
Admirable!… what you said…definitively you are a good fellow Keijo… a very good cause and I wish someday, you could hit that jackpot!…only for that…seriously man!
Here, last week another lucky couple, got more than £ 100.000.000 (hundred million pounds!!!!) they show off on the TV , came down from an helicopter…champagne, bla,bla,bla and goodbye!…well, damn!
Well, the results are in… no noticeable difference between burning stamps that were soaked in Ronsonol, Goo Gone, and Pure Citrus and allowed to dry overnight. Each stamp takes 10-12 seconds to burn and burns mostly yellow with some bluish-green that I assume to be a result of some of the chemicals in the stamp. The flame extinguishes after 10 seconds and the glowing red “coal” extinguishes a couple seconds later. Of course I wasn’t using anything more scientific than my eyes and a stop watch.
A brand new 2 cent stamp self-adhesive stamp showed more of the greenish flame, so I am guessing the adhesive itself burns with that color. The stamp was not the same face as the others, though, so it could be related to the ink.
I also compared plain paper soaked in the various substances and dried, as well as a piece of plain paper that had not been soaked in anything. I could not see a difference between any of these, though plain copier paper of the same size burned faster than stamps.
One thing I have also discovered is that Pure Citrus air freshener works at least as well as Ronsonol for watermarking and is probably considerably less toxic. The downside is that you would probably have to wait overnight before mounting the stamp as the Pure Citrus takes longer to evaporate. Maybe I’ll have to break down and buy some “real” watermarking fluid.
Of course, just like most of the pills we take, there is no real way to know the long term effects of these produces. Don’t blame me if your stamps disintegrate in 10 years. At least you won’t be alone – mine will too.
@mrprgrmr… Thanks for the highly insightful and entertaining overview.
The radical solution is IMHO to stop collecting new issues. Seems that the “postal minds” every day looking for ways to complicate the life of collectors. And while the stamp is less used, the emissions are increasing. So, can be the year 2000 (or 2010) will be the last on the stamps collection? On this way, the w/w collection would not be unreachable!
@Domenico… I so much agree. Personally I’ve made a “cut decision” to focus my primary collection to 1840-2010. I will collect later issues too, but not with the same intensity.
@Domenico & Keijo..Totally agree. I set my cutoff point at 2008, mainly because of the unsoakables, (and partly because I managed to pick up a set of SG Stamps of the world 2008 fairly cheaply, so that’ll save me having to spend money updating those:) )
Post offices all over the world, (U.P.I.)?…they agreed not make more soakable stamps, that’s it, end of the problem…
the big business is to sell mint stuff…like it or not, love it or hate it…no way back…money makes the world go round?…Damn it!!!… I will joint that people complaining about the politicians and globalization! (I’m a riot?…yes!)
I see that so many peoples decides to cut their collection at the last years. Very good: in the same time we cut a lot of problems: unsoakables, personalized stamps, unofficial issues, private post companies, unknowed countries, booklets, se-tenant….I’ m forgetting also? No matter: is enough what I remember!
I have a big stamp collection, some with removable glue which is removable and some with the selfadesive on the back, here in New Zealand we have a choice of having either one. I have found that soaking the self adesive ones in very hot water with liquid dish washing a few drop in the hot water is a start to removing the backing. after soaking for about ten minutes the backing is removeable, if you carefully lift the backing from the stamp at one corner you can peel it off, by rubbing the backing carefull with your thumb you will find that it will peel off completely. practise on a few stamps that you already have to get the backing off. I have had a few mistakes but not many. Good luck.
@Catherine – In the U.S., some self-adhesives have a water soluable layer between the glue and the paper so they can be soaked off. It takes longer and/or hotter water than the old “water-activated” glue. I am guesing that is what they are doing in New Zealand. Some of our other self-adhesive stamps simply won’t soak off. The hard part is knowing which are which!
With all the people cutting off their collections due to self-adhesives and the overall drop in stamp use, I’m starting to think I should start stockpiling them as a retirement plan. In 30-40 years, when they become “rare” I’ll be a rich old man.
In reality, with the overwhelming numbers being printed in the U.S. alone, that could get expensive fast. I’ve been wondering if they would actually sell more stamps to collectors if they printed fewer commemoratives. If there were fewer, I might buy a whole set every year. As it is, the cost/variety is too overwhelming and I am buying very few brand new stamps for collecting. Is the same true elsewhere?
@John… I agree that lack of knowledge is a major issue for anyone collecting recent stamps. For example a growing number of Finnish stamps are these days non-soakable, but the only way to find out which is which is try ones luck. Personally I’m bit amazed that neither catalog publishers or philatelic organizations have not issued any kind of comprehensive list of these.
Keijo – First, thank you for this excellent website. I agree with your general “if you don’t enjoy it, don’t collect it” statement.
I am 34 years old and a new collector, having decided to take it back up after recalling the USPS topical collecting kits my mother would bring me from the post office as a kid, and noticing that getting mail with ANY stamps on it was becoming more and more rare. I decided to start collecting BECAUSE I think it is something to preserve, and because I may live to see the end (or a huge reduction) in our postal service as we know it.
I am particularly interested in collecting used stamps, and save all of the incoming covers at my small government office. All of the stamps, of course, are unsoakable.
I have tried the lighter-fluid method with time-consuming success. I have a can of Bestine waiting for some of my free time as well. I enjoy the “forensic collecting” feel of carefully removing the stamps from paper this way.
I suspect I am in a huge minority here, mostly because of my age and experience, but I choose to collect the unsoakables BECAUSE I think they will be rare over time, due to the majority of older collectors deciding NOT to bother collecting them.
I see this same resistance in other hobbies as well. The technology of stamp-making changes. While I’m not interested in collecting QR-coded print-on-demand meter-tapes, I do think that not collecting unsoakables ‘because they’re different’ is shortsighted from a pure-collecting viewpoint. Besides, I think many of the recent unsoakables are simply beautiful, and worth adding to my albums, if only to look at.
That said, I return to Keijo’s general point, and agree. If you don’t like them, don’t collect them. In fact, you can send them to me, a new collector who will make a nice home for them
There is no point, however, in maligning them, or trying to fight the already cash-strapped postal authorities of the world. Progress, such as it is, will continue with or without us.
Well put…
After all, it’s about as essential part of progress as the progress itself.
But that doesn’t stop me from trying to build a small resistance / rebellion from time to time
I, too, find the unsoakables to be a right pain. I would like to have a list of which recent USA (and other countries which do this) stamps CAN be soaked! I just cut around the stupid things and stick them in as is. I thought the observation that these stamps could become scarce in years to come to be quite insightful. I will not use toxic or foul-smelling chemicals to get paper mess off, because it is ridiculous to be forced to go to those extremes just to get a stamp off the paper.
I believe that the post offices around the world who do this to collectors are simply hammering nails into their own coffins. People re-use stamps by sticking them back on envelopes even with the paper on them. The hobby will become increasingly unpopular.
Another thing I have become disgusted with is the number of countries in which a person cannot even acquire special (commemorative) stamps at local post offices. This inflates the prices of used stamps and ‘forces’ collectors to pay post offices 100% profit to acquire nice stamps because they have to collect mint.
I am glad Canada (my country) has thus far a decent policy and issues only soakable stamps. I hope this continues.
I also wonder how I should store my mint self-adhesives. I’ll probably end up using hinges and sticking them into an album, since it won’t damage the stamps at all. But it’s bulky!
@Carol Miller… I so much agree that a some kind of service to keep track of what is soakable/non-soakable should exist. I know there are few online resources (mainly for US stamps), but they are somewhat incomplete / inaccurate IMHO. I’d definitely love to see the information put into catalogs.
Spot on!
I don’t know how Canadian self-adhesives behave on the long run, but the Finnish self-adhesives from 1990s and early 2000 seem to “dry” in about decade (causing stamps to fall, or the glue to turns stiff, or glue eat it’s way through paper).
Keijo–Thanks for your comments! Canadian self-adhesives do seem to be OK over time, but I notice with some countries (notably Brazil), the stamps either fall off or the glue makes a mess (and falls off). I have one rather pathetic example of this, and am not sure what to do with the stamp (right now, it’s languishing in a little drawer!). The last thing I want is to have the glue seep on to other stamps.
I see no reason why catalogues cannot just have a symbol or something to show a stamp cannot be soaked by conventional means. Surely the editors would be aware of this problem.
I might decide to use up my mint self-adhesives and just keep the nice non-self-adhesives (Canada Post issues a few each year and does make some effort in this regard). But I keep thinking they might be rare one day!
Neat and comprhensive stamp site. Thanks
I too am very frustrated with this issue, and have ruined many stamps using all the methods mentioned, some nice parcel posts
. I love to go to the states and post envelopes home with cancels of the places I have visited, and I like to stop at the smallest towns. I can’t do this anymore. Carol is correct, the Canadian stamps, and souvenir sheets, soak and look great in my album, but I miss this.
However, I have found a couple of sellers on eBay that have solved the problem, and they cannot be doing it any of the solutions here, he just has too many stamps on auction. I love to collect stamps, and now I just buy them, not quite the same, but they do look great in the album, just no personal flare to the collection. Once we figure out how they are doing it, we will all be back at it, I hope!!
@46 (Keijo) alas!…there is no progress without confrontation… there must be counteract…not submission!
I made an error when following the instructions, or it was not clear. I had been trying the old style of soaking first, with H2O. This makes the stamp wrinkle as I found out. If it the stamp is drop into the lighter fluid first the paper peels off, then a another minute or so, and the glue can be scraped of easily. One benefit, if you leave the stamp too long, the (red only)post mark is also removed, so much for USPS finding a way to stop reuse!
I’m enjoying your blog a lot. I’ve tried to soak a few US stamps with little results…..many broke, some others kept a thick piece of paper behind. the few in better condition cannot stay in the same glassine with other stamps otherwise they get stuck to each other. i ve taken the decision to cut adehesive stamps from the envelope keeping a thin piece of paper around….otherwise there s no point. i havent tried all methods though, i feel lazy just thinking about it
@Luca… Keeping them on paper is the best approach IMHO too… Not sure if you’ve already stumbled with this related post, that guidelines what US stamps You can soak, and what not.
Interesting Keijo, I had a look at that post you talk about and at the website with the traffic lights for every adhehesive US stamp….fun….Almost a challenge. Eheh. I remember once you told me that Canadian stamps are ok to soak. In a way it is true, I don’t remember having had big problems there.
Tell me if I’m wrong but i think that also new Great Britain Machins are virtually unsoakable and fragile with that “semihole” in the middle. I’ve destroyed a few…sigh….eheh
@Luca… Yep. The modern Machins with slot are unsoakable. As are also some French Marianne stamps. And most modern Brazilian definitives. And…