Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

PF Certifies "Continental" after Feb 3rd 1879  
 

Previous Page | Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1723 Posts
Posted 07/06/2018   05:26 am  Show Profile Check sinclair2010's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add sinclair2010 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Apples and oranges. The criteria for how to plate the 1857's were first set down by students from nearly a century ago, in consideration of what could be done with them. But are you actually expecting that criteria for plating of 1857's should carry over to later issues to the exclusion of all other approaches?


It isn't apples and oranges, nor is there any "criteria" for plating the 1857's or any other issue. This is about how a prudent "expert" should arrive at a particular decision and what should be considered corroborating evidence. The value of each of your supporting points is zero. You can add zero to itself ad infinitum and the answer is still zero. The certificate in question has zero supporting evidence. I don't actually see what "approach" was used in the case of the later cover.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
39 Posts
Posted 07/06/2018   08:21 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Turff49 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Does seem to go against the grain of how you identify and certify an item. Assumptions based on "if's" is not how it is or should be done. Is this another "164" debacle where there was significant influence to cert?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1743 Posts
Posted 07/06/2018   11:04 pm  Show Profile Check eyeonwall's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add eyeonwall to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
All you have is a possibility that they came fro the same sheet, which is far from proof. Certing it as such is going too far.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
512 Posts
Posted 07/11/2018   5:39 pm  Show Profile Check rlmstamps2012's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add rlmstamps2012 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thank you kindly essayk for your support and nice words. Your knowledge of the bank note issues is incredible. When you stated
that " My hat is off to you!", that made my day complete. It does not matter to me what the naysayers say. Your support means a great deal to me!

By the way, eyeonwall, the way that I see this is, it is not a possibility. I see it at least as a probability!

Golly gee Winston, if you are so twisted over the second cert,
then why have you contacted me privately to try to purchase these covers?

I would like to thank everyone for their interest.




Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1723 Posts
Posted 07/11/2018   8:13 pm  Show Profile Check sinclair2010's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add sinclair2010 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Golly gee Winston, if you are so twisted over the second cert, then why have you contacted me privately to try to purchase these covers?


This was my entire email to Bob:

Bob,

Congratulations on those two certed items. Do you have any interest in selling them? If so, how much?

I will probably end up disagreeing (maybe very strongly) with the PF on the later cert. What evidence was used to prove it was a Continental printing?

Thanks,
Winston


My potential opposition (at the time) to the cert on the second cover was made pretty clear. As I expected, I have seen zero evidence to support the PF opinion on the second item. Not from you, the owner, or anybody else.

essayk, who you so glowingly speak of, had this to say about the two covers on 12/26/2015: "If the original contents for the first cover (Feb 3) are not found, then its philatelic significance far exceeds its historical value. In that case you might consider selling it, and I would be willing to make an offer should you be willing to consider one. We can discuss that off list if such a time comes. I am not personally interested in the later item (Feb. 28), but am not surprised that someone from the R.I. Historical Society has chimed in"

essayk knew the second cover was a nothingburger. Now, with a PF cert, it is a giant nothingburger. His defense of this awful certificate does you and everybody else a lot less good than you realize.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by sinclair2010 - 07/11/2018 8:13 pm
Pillar Of The Community
1677 Posts
Posted 07/11/2018   8:50 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rogdcam to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1723 Posts
Posted 07/12/2018   06:10 am  Show Profile Check sinclair2010's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add sinclair2010 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
As for my interest in the covers, I was only interested in the first cover but would buy the two as a group. It wouldn't be a great deal different than me having to hold my nose and buy from some of the people I buy from on eBay.

Why do you suppose it is that essayk gave you the following advice: "Now you will need to keep those two covers with their certs and together for as long as possible."? Is it because the second cover has no stand-alone value and no discriminating buyer that would be interested in such items would ever pay anything for it? I am sorry to say, Bob, that you are allowing yourself to be misled.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1685 Posts
Posted 07/13/2018   6:08 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add essayk to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Why do you suppose it is that essayk gave you the following advice: "Now you will need to keep those two covers with their certs and together for as long as possible."? Is it because the second cover has no stand-alone value (emphasis added)


Yes Sinclair, that is precisely why, as I am sure you very well know. You are making much ado about a variance the PF chose to make by rendering opinions on a two-part stamp combination. By their own acknowledgement it is an exceptional circumstance. But that point has been made before, so we are just repeating ourselves.

As for your tone and casting aspersions: I would like to see a bit less passion in the discussion. It's a good intellectual exercise; let's don't spoil it.

Understanding that the burden of proof rests on the positive assertion, ironclad proof is not possible with this. In that regard, remember my comment: this is as close as we can come so far to establishing usage of a soft paper Continental after the date of consolidation.

The PF is saying we have good reason to accept it as such, based on a concatenation of special circumstances. Circumstances you cannot credit. Okay. If you want vindication, then see what eventually happens if and when these are put up for auction. In the meantime this needs discussion by qualified experts via the Chronicle. That will come I am sure.

In the meantime: Since I am sure you understand the problem, how would you propose to solve it? What would it take?

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1685 Posts
Posted 07/13/2018   6:16 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add essayk to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
@eyeonwall
Quote:
All you have is a possibility that they came fro the same sheet,


would you quantify that please? Slim to none, better than even, almost certain?

I say it is better than an even chance, but not ironclad.

When it becomes possible to do a comparative non-destructive chemical analysis of the stamps, I am of the opinion that those who see these as coming from the same sheet will be vindicated. In the meantime the nay-sayers will rage and chafe.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by essayk - 07/13/2018 6:20 pm
Valued Member
United States
39 Posts
Posted 07/13/2018   9:35 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Turff49 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Seems in this instance they decided to go with the benefit of the doubt. Arguments could be made both ways and such should not have been certed. I just hope the owner of these is not a donor or drinking pals with members on the committee.
Still see the "164" when I read this thread...
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1723 Posts
Posted 07/14/2018   08:01 am  Show Profile Check sinclair2010's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add sinclair2010 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I think it is pretty safe to say that the only influence the owner of the cover had on the final decision was his dogged persistence to get a cert that stated what he believed, by his own words, was a "probability" of the proper description/identification.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
39 Posts
Posted 07/14/2018   08:58 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Turff49 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Not sure how anyone could say it was "probable" for every argument of why it could there is the same argument of why it may not. The first could've been the last stamp he had and the 2nd a fresh stamp just purchased. I've always been told when in doubt then go with the lesser. This is no different. They "created" a rarity by assuming with no definitive proof.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Moderator
Learn More...
5436 Posts
Posted 07/14/2018   09:54 am  Show Profile Check 51studebaker's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add 51studebaker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
This thread touches upon the issue of 'cert shopping' which is not often discussed in philately. I assume that while this obviously has happened before, it thankfully is probably not as common as 'doctor shopping' because there is a fewer number of certifying organizations and experts. But I am sure we have all seen situations were certs were applied for, a undesirable result is returned, it is simply thrown away, and the same stamp/cover is resubmitted in hopes of a different result. And this thread also touches upon the topic of cert 'shelf life'; over time the body of knowledge and technologies can change and produce different results.

This hunt for facts reminds me of the evolving 'ancestry' industry. They first sold us on 'we have birth/death/immigration/military records and you can learn your true family ancestry'; conveniently ignoring the truth that a significant percentage of those records were totally incorrect and misleading. Then they moved to dicey incomplete DNA databases and sold people on using them when they could not differentiate between an Asian heritage and a Native American heritage. Only now are they finally beginning to become accurate. But imagine all the articles and books which are 100% wrong because they relied upon this shaky ancestry industry evolution over the last 35 years.

In another 50 years will people look back upon the current certs, stamp identifications, and our posts and recognize just how far off base we were? Or will they say, 'wow, these guys really got this right'?
Don
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1723 Posts
Posted 07/15/2018   06:53 am  Show Profile Check sinclair2010's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add sinclair2010 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
In the meantime: Since I am sure you understand the problem, how would you propose to solve it? What would it take?


The "problem" at the patient level is proving that the two stamps originated from the same sheet of stamps, or, as another distinct possibility, from a completely different sheet but still a Continental product on soft paper.

The latter possibility is entirely unprovable unless there is some future revelation that something changed on that first day of ABNCo production and that change can be somehow discerned by us.

We are left with proving that the stamp came from the same sheet. This can only be accomplished by plating or by demonstrating that the two stamps were adjacent to each other on the sheet. Plating is not currently possible and the stamps were clearly not adjacent to each other on a sheet. The problem went unsolved and the certificate should not have been issued. Some stamps and covers can't get the certificates that the owner desires. It is an unfortunate reality.

I suppose that circumstantial evidence can be used on a case by case basis but all of the evidence needs to be weighed. In the case of these covers, it appears that the strongest evidence was overruled by a very tenuous set of circumstances. I will say it again, the two stamps are quite dissimilar. RLM should post a nice high res scan of the stamps together, side by side, to show that I am wrong. It seems he would have a strong incentive to do so.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1685 Posts
Posted 07/16/2018   4:39 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add essayk to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. The problem to which I referred was of proving that a soft paper stamp used after Feb. 4 1879 was a Continental soft paper. Can it be done? How?

I have a soft paper 3c used on Feb 4, 1879 on piece. Does that do anything?


Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2018 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2018 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.77 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05