It's Like Magic: Removing Self-A Dhesive Stamps From Paper
It's Like Magic: Removing Self-A Dhesive Stamps From Paper
It's Like Magic: Removing Self-A Dhesive Stamps From Paper
F
or more than twenty years now, collectors of used Unit-
ed States stamps have had to deal with the ever-increas-
ing number of self-adhesive stamps issued by the United
States Postal Service, as opposed to the traditional stamps with
water-activated gum. I believe the issues of the Eagle and Shield
stamp (Scott 2431) and the Flag stamp (Scott 2475)
were the first self-adhesive stamps. [I intentionally
did not include the unsuccessful issue of the pre-
canceled self-adhesive Christmas stamps of 1974
in this category.] They provided collectors with the
challenge of trying to remove them from envelopes,
because the traditional soaking-in-water method no
longer would work. These stamps signaled a significant
change in how collectors viewed used stamps and in the
techniques they used to release stamps from paper to
add to their albums.
There were two clues in the Scott catalogue around that time that most collectors missed — the
fact that the Flag issue had been printed by Avery International, the label people, and that Scott values
for used, self-adhesive stamps would be the same, “either on piece or off piece.” The gauntlet had been
thrown down and the traditional soaking of stamps in the bathtub was slowly, but inevitably, dying!
Through the 1990s, with the increasing numbers of self- collector described it to me, with the thickness of the album
adhesive stamps being issued came an increase in the dissat- pages coupled with the stamps and the envelope pieces.
isfaction of collectors who couldn’t find acceptable ways of Throughout this period of dealing (or not dealing),
successfully removing them from paper. Of course, with this with the changes forced on collectors by the reality of self-
frustration, came a number of responses that would change adhesive stamps, the ubiquitous letters to the editor began
the collecting habits of thousands of collectors. appearing in the philatelic papers, magazines, and journals
In the extreme, many collectors announced that they complaining, often vociferously, about the curse of the self-
would cease to collect used United States issues and sold adhesive stamp, the frustrations of removing them from pa-
their collections. Some collectors vowed to end their collec- per, and the impending doom of the hobby.
tions with 1990 or 2000, so frustrating and upsetting were For fifteen years, no one seemed to be able to help col-
their experiences. Others began to cut envelopes, keeping a lectors. It sounded like a solution to “soaking” self-adhesive
margin of paper around the stamp “on piece” and mount- stamps had been ignored by researchers, chemists, glue spe-
ing them in their albums. This proved unsatisfactory after cialists, even the philatelic press. That is, until William P.
a while, because their album pages became “bumpy,” as one Winter, a chemist, wrote a letter to the editor of ἀ e Ameri-
910 Amer ic an Ph il at el is t / October 2010
T
tell anybody, they wouldn’t approve.” Certainly, liquids for he Author
watermark identification were only used sparingly and with Peter Butler is a Fellow of the Royal Philatelic Society
great care. Those who used lighter fluid or carbon tetrachlo- of Canada and its Executive Director at the National Office.
ride to remove ballpoint pen or scotch tape did so in secret, Peter also is a frequent instructor and longtime-student at
because the chemicals were toxic and very flammable. There the APS Summer Seminar.