Frustrations: Swiss Air And Grills

Coming here to vent as you all will understand...

I've recently been interested in early Swiss airmails, thanks in large part to the discussions here on SCF.

I bid on a handful here and there from a few different sellers, and now finding that many of them have the grilled backs, though they have not been described as such. Before I raise a stink with the sellers and/or send back the stamps, I wanted to ask if I am correct in my examination of these stamps: Scott Catalog describes them as "grilled gum" but I take it to mean that the gum AND the stamp are grilled (in other words, on a used stamp, if the back of the stamp looks grilled then it is a C4a and not a C4?). The alternative I guess would be that somehow ONLY the gum is grilled (a light grilling?), which doesn't make much sense...

The price difference is so big that it surprises me that the sellers have not checked this already (both sellers have huge inventories of low price and higher priced items and have positive feedback). Both lots were for many stamps, though primarily I am buying the super cheapies.

I don't want to come off as an ignoramus by complaining if in fact the stamps are described correctly. If anyone is interested about specifics, please ask here and I can email links to the auctions on Wensy and Bidstart.

thanks!

Daniel

Yes, the grilling of the gum marks the stamp, too. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But if you see evidence of a grill on the ungummed stamp, it was grilled gum.

The way Scott lists them, I can see how a seller who is unfamiliar with Switzerland could miss them. It is seductively simple to i.d. the face and think you're done.

Each person has to decide on their own personal standard for returning items, but you'd be in the right. And a seller or two would learn something.

I'm on the fence about returning these, for a few reasons -- both sellers seem well intentioned & my interactions have generally been very positive. I think it is a case of "these things happen." At least one of the sellers is an APS member. I do at the very least need to email them. Going to mention it to them sooner rather than later, but trying not to get too bugged about it.

I would certainly suggest you at least advise the seller of the issue, for the benefit of the seller. If they ignore you, then you know not to return to that seller again.

If the listing specifically says it is ungrilled, then yes, the seller provided you with the wrong stamp. If the listing mere states the catalog number for the ungrilled stamp, then there is a more likely explanation...

Not having seen the auction listings, there is one point you should be aware of. The grilled gum variety is a minor catalog number in Scott. It has been the practice of a great many dealers and sellers over the years who do NOT specialize in a particular area, to not bother with minor catalog numbers (in other words, they do NOT distinguish between varieties, and just lump everything with the major catalog number). In other words, they will list/card Switzerland #135a (grilled gum) as #135, completely ignoring whether the stamp was grilled or not. If we were to switch the conversation over to color varieties that are assigned minor catalog numbers, then I think we would understand what the dealer/seller is doing. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the way it is with many sellers/dealers unless they are specialists in that field or are simply "into the details". The wet/dry printing and untagged/tagged varieties are another example of stamps in which many don't bother distinguishing and simply sell as the major Scott catalog number.

I know this practice seems really deceiving when we consider the fact that Switzerland C4 (ungrilled) costs more than C4a (grilled), and you shouldn't be getting a common grilled stamp instead of the far less common GENUINE POSTALLY USED ungrilled stamp. This has to do with Scott's confusing editorial policy. Supposedly, the major Scott number is the common stamp and the minor Scott number is the less common variety. Scott has in fact "swapped" major/minor catalog numbers over the years (and still does) to reflect updated information on stamp quantities/prices. So theoretically, the minor catalog number stamp is suppose to be more valuable.

However, once you get into a whole set or part set of stamps printed a very specific variety, as in this grill/nogrill case, then Scott may or may not bundle the varieties as a separate group. There are numerous examples in Scott where obvious set varieties are still intermingled with the normal set and the major catalog number varies from one type to the other type in the listing!

I think that's more than anybody really wanted to know... so one final point/warning --

The used prices for many of those Swiss stamps are italicized for a reason. Those prices are for GENUINE POSTALLY USED stamps! Fake cancels, incorrect period of use cancel, FDC cancels (except for the very early issues), CTOs... do NOT warrant those used price premiums. Anytime you see the used price is significantly higher than the mint price, always be a little cautious and do a little research. Just my opinion.

KHJ and CJD: Thank you both for the insights.

This is frustrating and I think it says more about problems with the Scott Catalog and these issues of stamps than it does about either of the sellers that sold me the wrong stamp!

This is a problem. The grilled gums are issued a decade later!

I assumed that sellers would know this. Also, I bought a few listed as "used" that I almost certain are CTO. Just too neatly placed in the corner, even if a little smeared...



Live & learn...

When I started using the Scott catalog, at the beginning it was exciting. I misunderstood a lot of trivial things at first, so I decided I should read the introduction carefully, and try to understand their catalog editorial policies. It was interesting for the first few years.

Then it got really frustrating for a few years as I ran into inconsistency after inconsistency after inconsistency.

But after a few years, you get used to it, and you learn to recognize most of the [potential] "trouble spots".

Even though I do a lot of griping about Scott/Amos, I'm actually pretty happy with using the Scott catalog. It is my primary catalog. If you overcome any frustration early, you will be better able to appreciate the vast amount of information in the Scott catalog. Only complainers like me end up tossing our Scott catalogs against the wall for a few years before we really learn to appreciate it. I guess I paid my dues already?

Okay... Deep breath... Trying not to let this spoil my fun...

Though here is another likely recent blunder on my part:



This is a set of C19-25 that I bought described as "used, no fault, hard to find" etc...

Looking at the cancellations, even though not perfectly set in the corner, now guessing these are probably all CTOs and not worth anywhere close to what Scott says. Even though I spent a bare fraction of the Scott Value, I am wondering if these would have any value at all to a knowledgeable collector, if in fact all CTOs?

On a less curmudgeonly note: what is up with these overprints? Turning 15c stamps into 10c stamps, 90c stamps into 30s stamps, 20c stamps into 40c stamps... Some made into higher values, some into lowers. All seems kind of chaotic...

Daniel, I'm far from being an expert on cancels, but some of those cancels on the airmails look like genuine postal usage cancels to me.

For Swiss stamps, don't assume a perfect corner cancel is not genuine. One thing that you will discover about used Swiss stamps is that there are an amazing number of genuine sock-on-the-nose and corner cancels.