Scott #537(B?) Apex Certified

I sent off this stamp block to get certified and they didn't completely clarify the Scott # for me. I'm posting the cert letter and a picture of the stamp.






Scott catalogue separates color as:

537 - Violet
537a - Deep Red Violet
537b - Light Reddish Violet
537c - Red Violet

I've looked at so many online images. Mine is definitely lighter than 537. And appears to be similar to some 537b, but I know that cameras can't tell me the absolute truth. Any idea why the certifier wouldn't have put the stamp into one of these 4 classes specifically, rather than taking the middle road between 537 and 537b? Are there other hues than what Scott lists? That seems hard to believe since Scott has been doing this for so long, I'm confident that the Scott personnel have seen every version of the stamp.

I look forward to your comments.

It's a pale 537. That is what the cert says.

Yup

Interesting...several stamps have "Light Violet" specifically named in the Scott catalogue. I don't see it in 537, so I'm not expecting it to come out that way. Especially with a stamp that has 4 different named color variations. If I didn't see "Light Violet" in so many stamp listings, I guess I would have thought "Pale shade of 537". It just seems odd for the catalogue to be so specific on so many other stamps where the specificity includes the naming the Light variation of colors.

As always, I appreciate the rapid response. Great to have you guys to pop questions to.

Sometimes it helps to see the listed varieties. Siegel Power Search can be very helpful:

https://siegelauctions.com/lot_lkp.php

Note that Siegel images are NOT color accurate. Also note that catalog color names are not accurate nor consistent. Also note that ink colors are ephemeral and change over time. Also note that determining an actual stamp color by using an image is at best a guess.

And unless a person was a serious student a particular stamp issue, it would be very difficult (if even possible?) to determine 'light violet' ink from a 'violet' stamp that happens to be a dry or lightly inked stamp.
Don

Very nice site. Thanks for the pointer.

Hence my comment on cameras. My question wasn't intended to be "can you evaluate this". The question was...why did they give me a color that doesn't fit into the 4 defined in the catalogue. If the answer is...there are variations that the catalogue isn't going to list, then I can live with that. The catalogue seems to have a lot of named color varieties for so many of the early stamps. I'm a novice at stamps, so my expectations are probably a lot different than the seasoned veterans.

Nobody said that Siegel's images were the end all, be all. Not even close.

Siegel images can at least give you some reference if you are not talking about subtle differences. If images are of no use we are all in trouble since we use them on this forum, in catalogs, in reference books, on numerous sites like Stamp Smarter, auction catalogs (electronic and hard copy) etc..

Let's be realistic.

Scott 537 has more hues than the Scott Specialized has room to list. It is quite susceptible to changes due to exposure to light. Additionally, the "a", "b", and "c" shades all show some red. Based on your scan I do not see some any red or at least not enough red to make the "b" shade.

You are correct. A good certificate would say "... in a light shade of violet" or "... in a pale shade of violet". Unfortunately many expertizing services in the US stick with stock phrases.