Wespex Auction Is Online

All --

Cruising through the Rumsey Westpex 2022 auction catalog -- focused on the ex-Celler 3-cent stuff -- and I note that under the "Chapter" titled "1851 1c and 3c Richard Celler Plating Studies" -- that the plate reconstructions under lot number's 1377 through 1384 inclusive are NOT ex-Celler.

I believe these plate reconstructions -- are ex-Piller / Rosen -- as they were offered to me a few times by Stanley.

I am not knocking the plates in any way -- just saying that they are NOT ex-Celler.

A bit surprising that Rumsey would lot stuff that was not Dick's in a separate chapter that implicitly attributes the provenance of everything in that chapter to him -- as IMO -- when it comes to plating accuracy -- the ex-Celler provenance is the "gold standard" and really does mean something -- just sayin!

Regards // ioagoa

EDIT add on comment --

In fairness to Rumsey -- I see that they have now revised the online catalog chapter heading to read as follows:

Lots 1370-1392 -- 1851 1¢ & 3¢ Plating Studies including Celler Collection

Unfortunately -- the printed catalog that was received last week "is what it is".

Just a follow-up on the auction. I sat through several sessions. Some of the U.S. revenue single lots went for very strong money, others not so much.

Based upon the floor chatter, I'm going to have to include an admonition to Amos Media when I send in my submission for the U.S. Specialized in June, as there was talk (not sure how much was just banter vs. serious) about how the catalogue value for 1st issue part perfs should go up based upon the auction results... no. Absolutely NOT!

Until/unless Amos changes the part perf listings to separately value imperf vertical from imperf horizontal (which has been my ongoing recommendation for several years now, but has fallen upon deaf ears), the extremely high results are NOT representative of part perf multiples in general. They were for the much scarcer horizontal multiples imperf vertically. Their results do not reflect the market values of the typically found vertical multiples imperf horizontally.

The lots and collections, not only revenues but other areas, in many cases blew well past estimates, in some cases insanely so. There were two large FDC lots I was originally hopeful for, even with pre-sale bidding going up dramatically, but got completely blown out in the live bidding.

I was the underbidder on several revenue bulk lots, but had to ultimately tap out. Too rich for me. I did get the one revenue lot I wanted the most, but had to pay up for it. Because I was getting shut out, I bid blindly on one revenue bulk lot... bit of a gamble, so we'll see.

Overall, I'd imagine many of the consignors are quite happy.

Some lots of note (to me):

Lot 1999. Scott #R15e. Lovely stamp, but pricey at almost triple Scott ($6,195 including BP).

Lot 2000. R16b. Went for very large premium at $3,068. Similar pair sold for less than half that amount just 3 years ago.

Lot 2010. R25b. Insane result IMO at $1,888, almost 18x Scott. Yes, it's a scarce orientation, but still.

Lot 2020. R34b. Another pricey result. Very scarce though.

Lot 2037. R60b. Very solid result. This stamp has soared in value over the last decade and the population is miniscule.

Lot 2047. R69e. Even though it was discussed from the podium that this was NOT R69b as written in the catalog, but rather the R69e EFO, this garnered a stupid result at almost $16,000.

I bid on 6 Revenue lots, won one. Not many bargains at this auction. Was able to acquire other 2 items that I targeted but they did not come cheaply but I didn't overpay either.

I bid on 8 or 10 lots and got one. The one I got, I bid on by mistake. I screwed up lot #'s and bid on the lot after the one I wanted. With tip, and shipping, etc, I paid $165-ish for a $100-125 stamp. Aaarrggg!!! The one I THOUGHT I was bidding on went for waaaay more. At least I got something.

As usual there were so "wow" lots that blew the estimates away.




Realized $6,300 with tip




Realized $5100 with tip




Realized $4500 with tip




Realized $6300 with tip




Realized $3900 with tip




Realized $7800 with tip

I did not highlight the numerous collection lots that went for two to four times high estimate especially in the US section. Pretty amazing.

But did you examine those lots in person and figure the values? You'd then probably see how useless those estimates are. Based on the way they've broken down collections before (the flashy cover worth $100 retail becomes a lot, the $1000 cover that is rare and collectors would kill to have but not spectacular gets left in the balance), the estimates are to be taken with a grain of salt. The estimates for large lots are lowballed unless reserved and sound like they are done at the last minute. I'm not impressed at the lots bringing many multiples of estimate.

Some auctioneers like to lowball estimates (like eBay 99c starts) to be able to save their ****** and also can point out to consignors "just look at how much we got you!!!" Some of them like to lowball so they have a chance to buy the lot for themselves. Most often, it means they didn't look very hard at or don't know anything about what's in the collections. And if professionals do that, are stamp club collectors going to do any better with estimating values? Snort.

And that means you are also sitting through auctions running hours and hours and hours when the bidding for lots like the above start with a book bid of $300 (Starting at $300, do I hear 325? 350, 375, etc., etc.). WESTPEX is one auction where you hand off the bid to an agent if you don't want to stay up all night. Of course, I've seen some of them bug out and leave bids with other agents.

"China & Hong Kong, Cover Group. Approximately 130 covers mostly China with a handful of Hong Kong usages; China including a nice 1899 registered red band cover Canton to Tientsin, lots of 1940's airmail usages, lots of combination frankings, 1901 China - Japan mixed franking (one Chinese stamp missing), later PRC, Hong Kong including a oversized uprated registered envelope to U.S. (flaws but impressive); mixed condition, worth a look.
Estimate; $200 - 300.


Realized $4500 with tip"

Without even seeing the lot the estimate was a joke.

That does not speak well of Schuyler Rumsey.

It's not only them. Auction houses frequently estimate large lots too low; they don't want to spend much time on them. They figure that they will reach their natural level anyway, and as has been stated earlier, they can then brag about how well they did.

I have consigned a lot of large lot material at auction and would never accept an estimate that had zero connection to reality.

I mean unless the material was not yours why would you just shrug your shoulders? You have the best idea of what is in it.

That being said, from Siegel to Rasdale, the estimates have never been a moon shot off. Siegel was the lowest but achieved the greatest result albeit for a single stock book of high grade Canada. Kelleher produced for me a stunning multiple of estimate on a lot that consisted of a full carton of glassines. It went for nine times estimate and trust me when I tell you there was nothing of value in those glassines. I handled every single one.

I value the opinions here but having purchased large volumes of large lots over the decades I can attest that with perhaps one or two exceptions the House had most definitely gone through everything thoroughly.

Having spent the last 8 years breaking down and cataloging large lots (nearly all US), I can assure you that they do not.

There are only so many hours in a day, and they are rightly going to give priority to the big single lot items.

I also wonder if seeing large lots in person versus an online only auction with no previews ends up differently. I imagine previewing lots in person you would have a much clearer picture of its true estimate.

Absolutely. And large lots are usually examined by professionals, who know exactly what they are worth.

Rogdcam wrote:




Revcollector wrote:







Should not Revcollector's second statement be applicable to the auction firms work as well?

In any case it is admirable in a strange way that someone is honest enough to admit to not being thorough in their occupation.