How To Get Scott's To Include More Efos With Error Book?

Another example are the precancel Christmas stamps (#1384) "inverts". My understanding is that these were removed from the companies which were applying the precancels.

My point about specs calling out what is acceptable is that would be one way to be able to ID something as 'not a typical stamp'. For example, if the spec said a mis-registration of <1mm was ok, then it be assumed that stamps outside that spec were less common. The assumption is that security printers are ISO compliant (which I think they are) and have typical QA and internal quality control procedures.

Without anything definitive in place, everyone is allowed to list a badly centered stamp as "RARE ERROR, UNIQUE, ONE_OF_A_KIND".
Don

Bart can do math!

Seriously though, most things that are stolen property remain stolen property. The issue is more about will anyone make the effort to force the matter and in this case time and lack of interest says NO.

There are instances where the matter became legal quickly as with the Nixon stamps. (see my link to the story elsewhere in this thread)

" Without anything definitive in place, everyone is allowed to list a badly centered stamp as "RARE ERROR, UNIQUE, ONE_OF_A_KIND"."

They still would anyway.

I have come across a stamp 2544AVAR certificate from PFE 562071 that states my stamp is indeed

IMPERFORATE RIGHT MARGIN HORIZONTAL PAIR, WITH USPS COPYRIGHT IMPRINT. AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
IT IS GENUINE, NEVER HINGED.

I need to contact Scott, because they indicated in the catalog that this is printers waste. Other certificates claim printers waste, and other details like, orange missing, but my cert is 100% clean as a whistle. So while there could be printers waste varieties, I believe I have the real deal. So Scott may not always account, and it is only as good as the feedback it gets.

Of course you are assuming Scott will agree with the cert.

Well, wouldn't you know it eyeonwall. Scott doesn't agree. I am so tired of their arbitrary inclusion/exclusion process without them having to provide substantiation. I have argued unsuccessfully for removal/addition of items (I had recent arguments with them about 1556d that they can't prove exists. Ironically, my contention on that listing was predicated on bad certificate wording) Anyway, even with overwhelming documentation and proof either which way, they just don't care and do as they please. So for 2 separate listings with certificates, one they claim they honor the cert which is easily identifiable as a bad cert, and the other they don't honor the cert, which is clearly a shiny recent good cert.

What a mess. Zero consistency.

I have the stamp mentioned in PFE 562071 and Amos published an article about it in Linns, citing the Cherrystone auction where it was properly sold with the valid certificate. https://www.linns.com/news/auctions...rate-issues. If they were reporting on this uncatalogued item, you would think they would do some sort of due diligence. No. They don't. They do nothing of the sort. It's just a hype article pumping the Cherrystone offerings, exactly what you would expect from a publication that takes advertising dollars.

They claim that article was purely based on Cherrystones advertised catalog. The certificate for this stamp is from July 2019, so it is recent, not a decade old item. Scott is stating they have reason to believe it came from a batch of printers waste and are stating that selvage measurements are inconsistent. This is without an assessment of my holding. They are flat out rejecting it. PF recorded it as genuine, 6 months before when they wrote that article, 7 months before the sale.

If and when I do plan to sell it, I will be selling it as the certificate states as a VAR listing, since I have no reason to believe my copy is not genuine. If I start to doubt the certificates, especially recent ones, then entire collections become impossible to validate. This situation is not really tenable. If we can't trust a certificate on a modern stamp 2-3 years old, something is seriously broken. This stamp pair was over $2000.

This is yet another reason that undermines confidence in the hobby as a whole. If noone is held accountable, then the hobbyist is screwed.

For me, 'what is best for the hobby' is a difficult argument to make when someone has skin in the game.

In my opinion, general catalog inclusion is largely about money. Assigning a catalog number is not 'free', it drives costs that end up being passed on to all hobbyists who use those products (catalogs and albums). On the flip side, it also represents additional potential profit for some.

But when I consider the issue of varieties and their inclusion in catalogs, I think that general catalogs should not be that detailed and complex. Our hobby is already far to challenging to start and come up to speed. We have to be conscious of the time and money it takes to start the hobby so having just the basic, mainstream material listed in general catalogs is most desirable. And having large numbers of varieties handled by specialty organizations and specialty publications seems to me to be 'what is best for the hobby'.
Don

The problem with that is in deciding what "just the basic, mainstream material" actually is. I am sure there would be a wide range of opinions here on exactly what those should be.

You could start with deciding on a 'cap' on how many catalog numbers the general catalog/album would contain (accounting for XX number of new annual issues).


I remember when Rismoney first joined this community and some of the conversations we had at that time. As I mentioned to him then, I am not a collector who is in this hobby for investment purposes but rather for the intrinsic value that I glean from it. I also do not think it a good idea to promote the investment aspects of philately especially if someone believes that they can make a quick buck.

Unfortunately, catalogs often publish values that are much higher than market values. People look at a catalog value, go to eBay and 'sort by lowest first', then admire just how great an investor they are until the day they try to sell their holdings.

And just as unfortunate, we often tend to promote the finding of a rarity without mentioning that we have spent far more on the hobby than we will ever get back (unless you assign a value of 2 cents an hour to your time). And there also exists 'urban legends' about how 'someone they know put their kids through college by buying plate blocks for years at the PO'.

But the bottom line for me (pun intended) is that I support everyone in the hobby no matter what, or how, they collect. Philately as an investment is possible on several levels (as a collector, turning your hobby into a business, writing books or developing apps/websites, etc.) but I do not think that it is ever a path to making a quick buck. It takes decades of study, dedication, sweat equity, and cash infusion.

But most importantly and as Rismoney post above has made clear, there are many pitfalls in 'investment philately' and buying unlisted items (cert or not) as an investment can represent significant risk.
Don

I agree with you entirely. Specifically, this is about minor listings, that would generally appear in a specialized catalog or catalog of errors, and probably should not be in a general catalog. I am largely making the case, that Scott took it upon itself to override the PF for the 2544A imperf listing despite a perfect cert without substantiation, but on a1556d discussion insists one particular broken cert as the rationale for the listing and refuses to amend it as being improper.

Yes, the editor can do what they want, but the subjectivity of this leaves a lot to be desired. Every issue is different...

So I paid $2000 for a beautiful stamp that was properly expertized, talked about in the press, auctioned, and then dismissed as legit by the catalog only a year or so later. The press in this case, is the catalog publisher, and receives advertising dollars from the auctioner. I am not bitter, but this just feels wrong all around. To be honest, I trust PF expertizers more than Scott.

For the record, I collect space errors, and welcome this legitimate stamp into my rarity collection despite what Scott says.
I also do not endorse printer waste, although have them in my collection for the purpose of completeness on topic.

A cert drives demand to a degree, but you rightly acknowledge that a catalog inclusion drives demand even more.

Hobbyists know that catalog inclusion drives demand (and ultimately value) so I can't really 'blame' the catalog/album publishers. If anything, they lean towards more, new inclusions because it helps them drive more annual sales. If so many collectors were not so married to catalogs and preprinted albums, then inclusion would not have so much influence.
Don

Since nearly all collectors start out this way, it is not likely to change. It's only after some exposure to the hobby and the discovery that there are infinite ways to collect does that usually change, if it is going to.

Agreed, but is it possible to change this? For example, how many times in this community alone have we seen the advice given to a new hobbyist, "go get a catalog" as one of the first steps? Are there now enough online resources to delay this kind of advice as one of the first steps and until a person is sure that this hobby is for them?
Don

While finding online info first is a good idea, I suspect that beginners will still gravitate towards albums and catalogs, at least until they get their feet wet.

What does catalog inclusion have to do with how someone collects? Collectors, beginner or not, needs to know how to identify stamps. Stamp identification is just one function a catalog provides. I would see a printed catalog vs an online catalog as being EFFECTIVELY one in the same. Online being advantageous for easy updating and lack of physical publishing constraints, and offline having the physical thing in your lap.

Albums are abridged versions of stamp collecting methods to assist users in mounting their possessions. I don't see how this relates. If you want to flyspeck or collect varieties blank pages or varios are going to be your go to and no album will help here.

If you are talking about completeness, there is no such thing, unless you artificially draw a line around what you call complete. It's marketing nonsense.

I find this all funny, as the other advice often given, is to have something expertized. So if it is not catalog listed, or questionable, seek an experts advice. I took a risk on buying an uncataloged item. Yes. But all these things cumulatively aren't good.

So here I am...if I say I have the only complete set of US Space Stamps ever assembled, what does that even mean? Is 2544A-imperf part of that or not. This is the question. If I don't have 1556d am I disqualified or is that just a bogus unsubstantiated entry... I apparently can say what I want. Doesn't change anything.

So For 2544A Scott says no valid imperf. PF says yes. Does it really matter? no. but its problematic, nonetheless, and hampers a true study of the body of work.