Pse And Reperfing Calls

I see quite a few US stamps at auctions that have older PF certificates that do not mention re-perforations yet some of those same stamps also come with a modern PSE certificate that state "re-perforated".

I have it said that "the tools available today for analysis are much more advanced" but really what "tool" is newer/advanced for detecting re-perforations? I assume magnification is used (that's not new) and comparison with genuine examples, hole size, etc. (that's not new). Could it be that re-perforations is a very subjective science that just seems to be used more often today?

BTW I was at a show this past summer and a dealer showed me two PSE certs on the same stamp, within a year of each other ... one said it was reperfed on the right and the other said it was reperfed only along the top. I'm guessing a lot of grading money rides on opinion rather than physical evidence (?)

I have noticed the same thing and posted about it. The July Siegel auction had a number of stamps with the conflicting cert issue regarding reperforation. Mostly older PF certs that were recently determined as having reperf issues by the PSE. It is wise to pay attention to the possibility when purchasing stamps with old certs. If buying at auction if the cert(s) is/are older I absolutely put the lot on extension. I also approach high value stamps that only have an older cert with caution because it makes no sense that they were never sent for a newer cert during the subsequent years while being traded. Unfavorable certs do get "lost" by unhappy owners/dealers. Finally, there is at least one very large dealer on online stamp sales platforms that carries an inordinate number of stamps with certs from the 70's to the 90's and again, it makes no sense that at least some of these stamps have not had newer reviews during their life.

As I recall, the general rule is that, if a stamp's latest cert is over 5 years old, one is allowed to send the stamp for a new certification. One must, of course, make the seller/auction-house aware of your intention to recertify.

I find myself agreeing with the sentiments expressed by canyoneer. I remember a very well known Czech collector who many of us are familiar with due to his postings on the Frajola board as well as his extensive and highly graded US used classic collection that was exhibited on the PSE website. This collector often got both PF and PSE certificates on many of his stamps and was confounded by the lack of concordance between the two services for the same stamp. I have to say, the longer I am in this hobby, this doesn't surprise me at all. Nor does some of the seemingly unexplainable grades we have seen (both high and low) given stamps by one service or another. For all of the reference to new knowledge and new technology, expertization is still done by humans with all of the imperfections, weaknesses, and yes biases that we see everyday.

And since human nature hasn't changed in the last millennia, it strikes me as strange that we accept the older cert as automatically wrong and the newer one automatically correct.

Data shows that as the use of technology has increased, the touchy-feely human element in analysis and rendering opinions has decreased. That only makes sense. Using technology such as the VSC6000 has led to a substantial increase in reperforation detection. In the case of data from the Greene Foundation there was a 65% increase in reperforation detection when the VSC6000 was put into use, from 6% to 10% of submissions.

http://analyticalphilately.org/docu...%20Nixon.pdf

The "new technology" is presumably available to both PF and PSE, so that would not appear to explain discordance between certs from those organizations in the same stamp in the same era that our Czech colleague referred to above experienced.

Funcitypapa - The PF and PSE do utilize the same technology for the most part. You do not say if the "issue" was grading or fault/alteration detection nor do you say how long ago this issue was noted by Czech collector. We cannot conflate the two and the time period does matter. In any case the number of reperforation cases has demonstrably increased because of technology and it has little to do with human imperfections and weaknesses unless one equipment operator is not as proficient with the equipment as another operator which is entirely possible. If a certificate notes a thin or crease or other fault and another from a different expertizing organization does not I would probably say that the first was doing a better job. More detail from your end would help to better understand the Czech collector's specific complaint(s).

FYI

Note that the VSC6000 has gone end-of-life and has been replaced with the VSC8000.
http://www.fosterfreeman.com/produc...vsc8000.html

Foster + Freeman does occasionally sell equipment on eBay but frankly they 'think a lot about their products' (read as these folks demand top dollar for their hardware and software). I do not recall ever seeing a used VSC6000 offered for sale. This may be because you would really need their software so if buying 'used' you would need a transferable SW license with it.

There is no real magic technology in a VSC machine but they cater to law enforcement and forensic organizations and can demand whatever price they want (the VSC6000 was around $50k-$75k) since they do not have any real competition in this niche market.
Don

Foster + Freeman loaned the RPS a VSC8000 for Stockholmia 2019.

The number of stamps listed as having been reperforated has also increased from decades ago because dealers are not doing the certifying any more; there are dedicated full time employees doing it instead. Back in the day, dealers did not like to point out too many flaws in other dealer's stamps, lest it come back to bite them when they submitted something. That is probably a bigger reason then technology. And since not all experts are created equal, there will always be some differences between the different organizations. All eyes are not created equal.

It is important to note that Greene's data is not from "back in the day" although you do not define what time period that "back in the day" is. The period analyzed was from 2001 through the year 2016. They purchased the VSC6000 in 2012. The pre and post VSC6000 percentage of reperforated stamps detected within that time period increased by 65% as I noted in my post above.

Edit: I see that you have edited to define "back in the day" as decades. Not relevant for the Greene data.

I was not discussing Greene, but the original point of PSE vs PF. I don't know anything about Canadian reperfs.

From the article, it's not clear to me how the use of the VSC6000 has improved detection of reperforation problems. It mentions that is is used less for regumming and reperfs than other applications. I think it mentions that the VSC6000 is only used for 10-20% of submissions besides.

I like the Canadian 7 1/2 pence example they detail - very elaborate alteration of the 12 1/2 cent issue. No small feat for the faker!

I'm guessing that reperf detection techniques are basically the same as they were 10 or more years ago but I am open to hearing any details/examples showing how advanced technologies help. Perhaps it is simply more years of experience.

The high definition magnification and side-lighting capabilities of the VSC6000 have made it possible to see alterations and repairs that were more difficult to see before. The PF has a great photo of one such instance on a pair of Scott US 291's here:

https://pages.ebay.com/stamps/expertizing.html

As far as Canadian reperforated stamps being different from United States reperforated stamps, well, I cannot speak to that. I thought that the basic premise was the same.

In my experience, dealing with anything to do with the edges of an issued stamp involves knowing how and when those edges were created. This applies to perforations, roulettes, coils, and even how an imperf was actually cut. Reperforations are never created the same way that the originals were created, and the lack of pressure ridges and edges that have been cut too sharply are usually fairly easy giveaways for many 20th century reperfs. Nineteenth century perfs can be much more difficult to be sure of in many cases. I always try to use other stamps to check perfs rather then a perf guage, that is one of the best things about having very common stamps around. Using 5 or 6 #26, 65, 210, 231, r15, R44, etc. is the best way to check them, at least for me.

Reperfs are often caught while examining for other alterations and repairs that the VSC is excellent at revealing. Sounds obvious to say, but a regummed / repaired stamp becomes a "suspect" in other philatelic crimes.

I also worry that sometimes we are on a witch hunt, and are looking for reperfs when they are not.