Issue With Stamp Purchased From Auction

If I'm understanding correctly, the certificate was commissioned post-sale by the auction house to prove that its description was accurate (Rubgyfan is seeking help in locating an expertizer in Australia I would guess to give a second opinion).

Don't buy stamps on line if you have not seen a clear picture of the back of the stamp.

To get another certificate you will have to go through another large experienced dealership as your stamp is most probably going to be sent off to the UK.

You need to make sure that the new people entering into this situation understand the background.

Your time limit would of run out by now? The door would of been closed after the certificate was obtained by the auction house?

I would not pay $1,300 + 19.75% buyers tax + mailing and insurance for a stamp that shows only one side as a postal bidder.

The stamping world is a very small place in Australia. Be very careful.

It seems we are only getting bits and pieces of information here.

To the OP:

1. How long ago was the stamp purchased at auction?

2. Was the cert part of the original auction listing or obtained after the fact, i.e., on extension?

3. On a purchase of this magnitude, why wasn't the stamp viewed in person or an agent used? Barring either of those, why didn't you ask for an image of the back of the stamp prior to bidding? Reputable auction houses will almost always accommodate requests like that.

Quote I would not pay $1,300 + 19.75% buyers tax + mailing and insurance for a stamp that shows only one side as a postal bidder.

I agree with KGV on this. If you buy online and you don't have the image of the back of the stamp they are likely hiding something. For that kind of money you should have asked for a scan before hand. Or gone an viewed it in person. I refuse to buy from sellers who have not very clear images of the stamp or who don't show the reverse side.

I am not an expert in the stamps of Australia (although I've sold a lot of them in my auction career), but I have a few observations;

1. Chris Ceremuga is, as far as I know, a highly regarded expert;

2. Because of #1, I tend to agree that the discoloration on the back of the "Specimen" overprint is "normal";

3. I do agree with those posters here who believe the toning in the upper left corner (upper right on back view) should have been noted by both the auction house and on the cert.;

4. But because it is not noted, I'm wondering if we are seeing a greatly exaggerated contrast scan and that the actual stamp shows that toning either very, very little, or not at all?

5. In fairness, if what we believe is toning in that top corner, is truly so light as to be difficult to detect, I would tend then to agree with the expert that it was so insignificant that it does not merit noting it on the cert. (which is OK in my view because the object of expertizing is not to "kill a stamp" by overdescribing something extremely trivial);

6. But bottom line, if that toning *is* clearly visible, then a refund should be allowed by the auction house.

Status International Stamp Auctions is my favorite auction house by a long way in Australia and I have purchased many an expensive lot over the years at very good prices.

All my issues/questions have been answered & or resolved every time & very quickly.

Their buyers tax increase was a strong backwards step to their business model IMO.

Their coin auctions, when it comes to how the vendor is treated need improvement big time! But as a buyer no worries.

My Previous purchases from this Auction had all been very good so I had no reason to question them. It was only this item I have had an issue with. Being an Auction house that mainly deals with stamps I thought that they could be trusted. The discoloration on the gum is obvious and should have been mentioned in the description field and at the very least a scan of the reverse should have been provided like they do for many other lots in their auctions.

With no other images and no comment about the gum, led me to believe there were no issues with it. I would not have purchased it if it had been reported and it definitely would not have sold for the amount it did. Australia has good laws protecting consumers from questionable sales, even from online auctions ( https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/o...ine-auctions ), hence the reason for taking the matter to the Administrative Tribunal.

When you read other lots with descriptions like "...tiny natural paper inclusion on non monogram stamp, monogram with slightest gum bend, mentioned for accuracy" (Lot#876 Auction 311), or "..sl gum stains affecting 1 stamp" (Lot#878 Auction 311) makes you wonder whether or not they looked at my stamp when listing it. I had spent nearly $8000 over 2 auctions and after the way they have handled this I will never buy from them again.

I contacted the Auction a within 21 days of receiving it advising them of the problem. On receipt of the stamp I checked to make sure the actual stamps arrived. It was not until I sat down to scan the purchased items for insurance purposes and put them in the album did I notice the issue. From past correspondence with the Auction House, it is my assumption that the vendor was paid before I received the stamps void their T&C's. I have asked for them to confirm this with supporting documentation but they are yet to do this.

The certificate was obtained post-sale at a cost to me after I returned the stamp to the Auction House for appraisal. The provided scans were taken prior to returning the stamp. Other than increasing the contrast on 2 of the images, they have not been edited in any other way. The discoloration is more obvious when viewing the actual stamp.

Rugbyfan,


you mentioned that there was a delay between purchasing the item and paying for it and that the Auction House had paid the vendor during that period.

What was the length of time and if the Auction House had paid the vendor that may explain the reluctance in refunding your payment,

Pagoda

Do you feel that you get your money's worth when you spend a lot of money buying stamps?

What a stupid company to not try to resolve this to the customer's satisfaction.

Agree wirh Jenny2u. Their loss as he won't buy from them again

Given that the expertizer didn't see toning sufficient enough to justify mentioning it on the cert, and the auction house didn't see fit to mention it, is it possible that your requirements are overly demanding compared to industry standards?

I guess we should ask if Rugbyfan had an opportunity to review the reverse of the item to inspect the gum (or ask the auction house of any detracting issues prior to purchase or bidding). If the gum is visibly stained it should have been mentioned in the description especially if not shown in the lot identification. Industry standards aside, some collectors expect a premium specimen when paying a premium price. The front of the stamp gives no indication that there is a problem with condition on the reverse (no bleed through). Assuming 'what you see is what you get' in this collectible field is risky. There are lessons to be learned, with I hope Rugbyfan being more cautious and query more on high value items, and the auction house more informative (although I am thinking they are more of a 'buyer beware' operation). jmo

Rugbyfan,

looking at your original scan it shows the method of letterpress overprinting and what happens when too much pressure is applied.

It is normal when that happens for there to be some minor ink bleeding through the paper and IMO is not a fault.

Whether it should be mentioned on the description or certificate is another matter but in this case it is so minor and is of regular occurrence then maybe it shouldn't.


Pagoda