To paraphrase Winston Churchill, stamp hinges are the worst form of mounts, except all others. Peelable hinges were a revolutionary innovation when they first became commercially available about 1920. Before that, hinging was done by using some old stamp selvage or gummed paper, and the results are hideous. Gummed paper never comes off of mint gummed stamps without damaging the stamps. It is because paper hinges of this type were so pervasive in early philately that so many earlier stamps have had the gum soaked off them (and consequently, it is paper hinges that are responsible for the large premium that truly “original gum” early stamps enjoy today).
When peelable hinges were invented they were a great innovation in the hobby. Stamps could be mounted inexpensively and then removed as many times as needed and remounted without any damage to the stamp itself and with only the most modest alteration of the pristine state of the gum. But in one of the most perverse examples of fashion winning out over function (and philatelists should never make fun of women in high heels), by 1970 what was on (or what wasn’t on) the back of the stamp became more important than what was on the front. Stamp mounts were invented in the 1930s but had always been clunky affairs but became easier and easier to use as the decades progressed. The real push for Never Hinged collecting came from the stamp mount producers beginning in the 1960s. As stamp prices rose in the first great stamp speculation beginning in the 1960s, for the first time stamp prices were high enough so that it didn’t seem silly to put your stamps in mounts that cost almost as much as the stamps themselves.
The situation now has taken on the proportion of the ornate tail feathers on a peacock— originally there was a purpose, but the feathers now run the peacock rather than the other way around. Acetate stamp mounts now consume a very disproportionate share of the philatelic budget. It is not uncommon on lower priced $2 and $3 sets to see mount and album page cost in excess of the value of the stamps themselves. One of the reasons that philately has not been a very great investment over the last twenty years is because of the large amounts of money the typical collector puts into mounts and albums compared to the amount he invests in stamps. Money in mounts produces no return.
All of the above is an irritation compared to the main problem that occurs with stamp mounts. Originally created to better protect your stamps, they are now the leading cause of stamp damage in the hobby. Collectors damage more stamps taking their stamps in and out of mounts that any other way. Comers are creased at an alarming rate, and over moistening of mounts leads to many thins. An increasing issue is over-protection— stamps within mounts which are then on stock cards which are placed in acetate pages. One collector we saw recently had five such layers of protection for each of his stamps. We wanted to remind him that this is stamp collecting, not family planning. Like any fetish, the mounting fetish takes away from real enjoyment of the hobby.