Kelleher Sale 810 - A Couple Of Listing Issues

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/V/V810.cfm

Kelleher has a nice sale with a lot of nice material coming up. From time to time I notice errors in lot listings, at various auction houses, but I rarely bother to mention it unless I know the owner personally, and he/she knows me. Otherwise, any notice I might give tends to get either ignored, or generate hostility. Its not worth the trouble. I had a friend once, at a show, gently say something to a well-known dealer, and my friend almost got assaulted for pointing out an error that dealer made.

Anyway, I was browsing this nice sale, and I noticed not one, but two errors on highly valued items, so I thought I'd make a thread here for entertainment, and awareness. I am not placing any judgement on the seller, as some of these varieties are difficult to get correct.

The first victim is lot 3240 -

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/V/v8106.cfm#63




So, the 1c stamp is clearly a Scott #7, Type II, and not a valuable 5A.
I'm a little fuzzy on how this got confused, but the guide dot at lower right, and overall color + impression and design completeness make this a fairly easy call. The stamp is probably from plate 2.

In addition, the 3c stamps are called out as being #10, orange browns, but this cover was used in 1857 -- the odds of this are astronomically low. It is highly likely that these are #11s.

The colors on the stamps are very attractive, and the transcontinental 10c rate usage is nice with this franking, but it isn't what it is described to be. In the synopsis of the sale at top, they mention that they have two #5A's in the sale. Well, only one - lot 3241.


The second victim is Lot 3262 -

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/V/v8107.cfm



This one is a different category of error. This stamp is a Scott #22 Type IIIA that has been altered at bottom to appear to be the more expensive #19 Type Ia that it is being sold as.



The entire bottom half of the bottom ornaments has been drawn in all the way across the bottom of the stamp. This is to make it look like the ornaments are complete, which would be characteristic of a Type Ia, #19, which it is not.

Anyway, the purpose of my post, once again is for awareness, education, entertainment and not to disparage anyone.

Lot 3241 is described as;




While it does mention a "faint diagonal crease" it sure looks like a tear on upper right?

I don't see mention of it if it is a tear.

I see the same above the "U". Sealed tears?

I've pointed errors like this in the past, and the auction house has pulled the items.

What do these have in common? No certs, which frankly is the exception for Kelleher. Having had stamps placed on extension come back with bad certs from Spink, Schuyler-Rumsey and Kelleher I would only go by an auction house's say-so if it was Siegel. And of course, always take advantage of the extension clause if offered.

Sir, I shall now have to knock you down! Make ready for fisticuffs!

When you are spending real money, its often/usually a very good idea to buy on extension for a PF certificate. Any reputable auction house will allow, and usually facilitate this.

Let me give you an example from personal experience of why to buy on extension.

I purchased a Scott US 313 at a Kelleher sale in 2019. It had two certs already from the PF and PSAG. The PF cert stated "unused, o.g. (original gum)" and the PSAG stated "unused, original gum, previously hinged". The stamp went to PSE and came back as having four repaired perf tips and regummed. My money was refunded.

That's ugly. Its actually three pretty significantly different opinions.

A quick pfsearch.org check, shows that a lot of the 313's that are submitted as unused, are called out as previously hinged. Not a surprise, but interesting that the PF, on their cert, didn't note any issues with gum on yours, when they are clearly in the habit of doing so for this stamp.

I'm not sure that this is instilling the confidence we want, in the expert orgs, but it is true that regummers have gotten pretty good at their craft -- and to your point, that fact alone makes it worthwhile to resubmit a purported OG or NH stamp, regardless of prior certification.

The perf tips issue being missed twice is interesting.

Here are the certs:

Its interesting that the PFC is under Neinken's watch.

I have a Neinken-signed PFC for a 1c 1851 stamp, that is incorrectly "typed" / identified, and incorrectly plated. Go figure (he wrote the book )

I'm a little suspicious of some PFCs from that era. I think over time, experts, often with better equipment, have gotten a bit better at catching some of this stuff.

This has been my experience with them. Almost every purchase whether needed or not has been accompanied by a Cert.

In this sale only 4 of the 1851 Lots have certs. The majority of the 1847 Lots have Certs.

They were more lax 40 years ago.

Good conversation.
Wayne Youngblood wrote in "The American Philatelist" wrote that "the PF has enjoyed the luxury of being considered the cert to have by many, despite an ethics scandal and legal action that threatened to destroy the organization during the mid 80's and a track record of frequently inaccurate certs, (a situation not unique to the PF)".

The theme of his article "The Ongoing Problem of Certitis" May 2023, is that certs are opinions, and the collector must ascertain the legitimacy of the cert with his knowledge/ research. He also stated that "It wasn't until about 20 years ago that the actual physical condition other than obvious major faults began to become a standard feature on certs. Some of these lesser faults include perf creases, tiny thins, "brushed original gum" (to cover hinge marks) and natural inclusions".
Another point Wayne made is that the accuracy of certs is dynamic, that depending on who is expertizing the patient and whether they are working within their expertise.
I have quoted Mr. Youngblood for all the content here. Disagree? take it up with him.

Certs are important, but it still is a buyer beware world out there.
Cheers, mark

Mark - Excellent addition to the conversation and I agree with Wayne.

There are other facets to the subject of certification as well. One is that the organizations often times share experts so that going to one or the other really only offers you a different brand and/or process but not different eyes on the patient. This applies especially to particular items that require competency that only a few may have.


This comment by Wayne is a tougher one to reconcile for a lot of people:




If someone had the ability to essentially expertize an item themselves the only reason to obtain a certificate is for the perceived value added in the marketplace. Speaking for myself, I lack the confidence in my ability to adequately opine on many stamps, especially those with subtle types and expert alterations/repairs. This is Wayne's most stinging commentary since it puts something, a certificate, that most collectors see as offering them comfort when spending substantial money into the "buyer beware, as-is" place.

At times collecting US stamps feels a bit house-of-cardish with the market values dependent upon one primary catalog publisher and a couple of expertizing organizations.

Of course, none of this matters if you stick to collecting material that if found to be hinky would not hurt you. But a lot of us feel that advancing in the hobby means ever increasing in price material to fill those annoying holes.