Do Certificates Note All Stamp Faults?

Do the certificates issued by the various expertizing outfits routinely note all faults with a stamp in addition to whether it's genuine and used/MH/MNH? If so, did this practice generally start at some point in the recent past so that one cannot necessarily rely on older certificates to show faults, or has it existed for some time? Are some of the expertizers more likely to note faults or to be more precise/complete in their description of such than others?

Thank you for any help on clarifying these issues.

Not your main question, but earlier certs won't say wither NH or hinged, however I don't know when they started making the distinction.

After a certificate there is nothing stopping the owner soaking or damaging the said stamp.

The usually note faults that may affect the value of the stamp and that may not be easily seen without the help of a UV lamp or watermark fluid.

It's only in the last 20-25 years that certs have gotten specific about faults. Earlier certs only mentioned whether an item was genuine. Back in the day expertizing was mostly done by dealers, who weren't too interested in pushing condition.

revcollector is right. Older certs, including the PF and APEX certs from pre-1985 are notorious for this practice as the primary aim was to simply identify the stamp correctly.

Now, ALL legitimate expert services, aside from identifying the stamp, also will describe in detail, any faults they detect. Both the PF and PSE actually have helpful articles explaining their guidelines. In general, any fault that can be detected should be noted on the cert. There is a certain amount of latitude allowed for very tiny things like a perf tear of less than 1mm in length or a perf tip that is only slightly nibbed (not "short") where these may not be noted, or a natural inclusion in the paper that is not observed in a part of the design where it can be easily seen, or similar tiny things that will someones not be noted.

There is also usually an attempt to prevent beating a stamp to death if it has multiple faults. The major one or two will be listed, but not every single one most of the time.

Good point. "Beating a stamp to death" is not necessary in my view either, so what I usually do is describe a stamp with a lot of faults as "multiple small faults" or "mutiple small faults evident when viewed in watermark fluid", or if the faults are more serious "multiple faults", etc. But I do describe any repair or alteration if present, no matter what. So that might look like this; "Multiple faults including reperfed at left", etc.