Are Prices In Catalogue Realistic

revcollecotr, The problem is "some", then. So how about deductions for heavy cancel as an example.
My point is to make the scoring more transparent by starting with a base score based wholly on centering.

I wonder ... when we have these periodic threads which degrade (pun intended) into grading. After everyone has spouted their stance for the thousandth time, is there ANYONE who actually changes their mind? I have strong doubts!

Note the extensive list of "problems" in the Point Deduction section that could merit being broken out apart from the centering score.

A simple solution would be to develop a standard grading 'score card' which the major organizations would all agree upon and use. A copy of the score card would be included with each submission return thereby not only increasing transparency but also serving an educational purpose for hobbyists to learn what to look for when procuring material. This would also serve to limit 'wannabe' grading (i.e. self grading or those who dream up their own criteria) and bring much more consistent grading on multiple submissions over time.

Doing a standard score card approach like this would go a very long way, in my opinion, in make grading more acceptable to the hobby.

We (this community) have enough expertise to develop a draft score card ourselves and then present it to the organizations for consideration, saving them from having to spend time and money on the development. We could also meditate any modifications that might be desired by the various parties. A dream? Probably. Because there are forces which do not want transparency or for the playing field to be level.
Don

My understanding is that the obsession with centering is not universal, but mostly a USA view.

Damage, such as tears, thins and the like are more universally accepted as faults...except where they are expected for a particular issue.

I think the interest in having well-centred stamps is universal, but no-one else - or not in Europe, at least - tries to put a percentage or a list of letters to it. "Well-centred", "four clear margins" etc suffice. An adjective like "fine" simply refers to condition, not centring. I hope it stays that way.

Don - What you describe would be a worthy endeavor and I would love to be a part of it in any way. I have to believe that even Siegel might back such a system given the verbal head scratching that comes through in some of their lot descriptions as to why a stamp graded a certain way or why a negative cert was issued to an extension item. If someone at Scott Trepel's level knew the nuts and bolts behind some of the expertizing bodies opinions I doubt that these expressions of grading frustration would be published. That being said it is likely that nobody involved in the sale of philatelic material wants to rock the boat if the bodies wish for their means & methods to remain proprietary. But really, what's to lose if a bunch of forum members want to try for some positive collector-centric change to how things are done. At the least it will be, as you stated, a great learning tool for many and a refresher course for others.

At worst it will be received like the SAN provenance/historical sales pricing feature was by some in the business. Nothing ventured.......

And then there is the thought that the "score cards" already exist. Does anyone know what records are created and kept?

It may have been in the past but I can attest that centering is now very important to non-US collectors of Russian material.

Collectors in different countries have different standards/different tastes. In Germany they are more obsessed with pristine gum.

I agree with JB that a fault free 90 is not the same thing as a 95 centered stamp knocked down to 90 for some problem and that the reason for the downgrade should be listed.

About a score card breaking down different things that go into the total - they do exactly that for exhibits don't they?

Maybe the grading should be more like diamonds...color, cut, clarity, etc. so no singular score.

Well, I am going to start working on an outline and putting together some draft documents. If you want to join in you know where to find me.

I agree with angore - why not design a certificate along the same lines as a GIA diamond certificate? List the objective findings like Scott number, issue, denomination, color, paper type. Then list size and margin widths, and if the stamp design is asymmetric, so note. In addition to actual margin widths and size measurements, one could assign a numeric scale for centering.

For used stamps, add a brief cancellation description. Thereafter address the subjective findings including impression, color intensity, perforation condition, paper condition, and gum condition. Each of these would have just 4 or 5 simple choices such as "poor", "fair", "good", "excellent", although the adjectives need not be the same for each category. Lastly, a simple schematic of the stamp would allow for the documentation of faults.

It sounds like a lot, but aren't all of these things what the expertizers are supposed to be considering already?

There are many, many examples of various judging worksheets online for other things. For example


I think the key is to develop something that lends itself easy modification. This would only work if each of the primary player organizations felt that they had 'say' and input. Getting 'buy in' takes a lot of skill and is the largest and most important task.

Towards that end, there needs to be a ROI presentation which includes why this will improve the grading aspect of the hobby, how it will help each organization (time/cost savings and/or increase sales). This is more important for getting 'buy in' than a worksheet.

The simplest way to think about it is to put yourself in the position of one of the grading organizations and ask, 'what is in this for us?'.
Don

I intend to work on this through some contacts.

It likely does happen, but really, what purpose does it serve for a dealer to do that, not to mention the time involved? If only a few dealers out of a hundred are doing it on one particular item, how would that affect the "average" price that the item usually sells for. When I look at the Ebay sold listings to see what something has sold for in the recent past, I scroll down through the listings and I mentally throw out the handful of high priced ones and low priced ones, and average out all the ones in the middle. Those to me are the realistic prices. Maybe I'm not looking at it the same way others do, I don't know.

This happens a lot. In the EFO category, I know for a fact, there is an attempt to manipulate prices through prior "sales". I see items pass through at auction for $800 and turn into $4000 within 6 months after 3 transactions.