Should Certs Be Signed?

Science gets by with anonymous peer review.

Of course, these days, the fields & the papers are so specialized that, in the vast majority of cases, everybody doing the review knows the identity of the author, while the authors know exactly to whom their paper will be sent for review.

Thus, rivalries can thrive, and revenge be taken, and homage be paid ... and that is with complete anonymity!

At its highest level, philately similarly lacks anonymity; a lot of people know who has what, and who needs what, and who just bought what, and who knows about what.

So, like science, philately - at its highest level - lacks practical anonymity.

But, unlike science, philately has a vast middle ground.

In this forum, we've had at least one guy say that he certs every stamp for which he pays more than one hundred dollars.

What is the likelihood that any one evaluator is going to care who is buying any one stamp?

What is the likelihood that disappointed collectors will become trolls (on the internet, or at shows & auctions) and confront the evaluators?

In the case of the great philatelic middle ground, our anonymity is practical & real.

Certainly, the certifying agencies should keep track of who participated in each certification, so that any consistently sloppy work can be detected.

Q/ But should all certs be signed?

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

I happen to have strong feelings on this matter. There should be swift retribution for an expertizer who makes an error and he should be able to support his opinion with a factual basis for reaching that opinion. I wish more expertizers would be aware of their limitations and refuse to issue opinions on material beyond their area of expertise.

The more important reason I like to see the names of reviewers on the certificate is more practical. Knowing the name of the expert can give me confidence in the opinion rendered or conversely make me look for an additional opinion. For example, in the old, old days, DeVoss used to expertise Canal Zone overprints for the APS. I have great respect for his opinion on the authenticity of those overprints on the first issue. However, I knew that as a typical collector he did not have expertise when it came to detecting filled thins and such when examining items for manipulation. So, for the many years he served on the APS committee, I had confidence in authenticity on Canal Zone when he reviewed the items but not on quality aspects.

After DeVoss died, the APS still expertized Canal Zone but did so without the input of a real expert (by my standards). So, 40 years later, without the DeVoss name on an old APS cert, they have lost any usefulness to me because I do not know if they were examined by Jim or not. Without names attached, certs are of very little use use to me. As a consumer, I want to decide if I can trust an opinion or not because I care about more than marketability (which many committee certs can provide), I care about the facts that lie deeper.

I can decide if I want to trust the opinion of person "X" or not (by understanding that person's strengths and weaknesses). With mystery expertizers (or worse, reviewers that I know are lacking the requisite credentials), the whole system folds under its own weight - it is way too opaque.

Currently, all certs from an issuing agency are equal. One cert from APS is the same as another (assuming they are of approximately the same age). If certs are signed, this will no longer be the case. Here are a couple of examples:

Some stamps are viewed by more than one expert. Will certs be valued based on how many experts signed it? Wouldn't you rather have a cert signed by three experts than a cert signed by only one? Will agencies start charging for extra signatures?

If an expert, over time, starts making more and more mistakes. Will all the certs s/he did become worthless? Will APS or PSE have to start reissuing certs if one of the signers falls out of favor?

Joe

Yes. I do not think that the analogy of 'science getting by with anonymous peer reviews' is a good one. Ignoring the phase 'getting by', there are many (majority?) scientists who do not believe in anonymous peer reviews. Simply put this is because a peer review has no valid scientific base, do not prevent scientific fraud, often do not detect mistakes, and only modestly improves quality. I think there is a place for anonymous peer reviews, an anonymous reviewer MAY be more honest and objective. This makes sense if, let's say, a junior scientist is reviewing a senior level scientist. But I am not seeing how this translates to philatelic certs.

Without understanding who did which cert, how do the certification firms measure the performance of the various experts on staff? If an expert, who for many years has made few mistakes, begins to make many more mistakes (perhaps due to failing eye sight or other medical reason), how do they ensure that the service they are selling retains a high quality? If the firm has a whole staff of experts, how do they know which one did the examination in light of people taking vacations, leave time, or being absent due to an illness? So if they are tracking this info, and they are selling this person's opinion, why not be transparent with it?

If an expert is willing to take a salary, why would they not be held accountable? Every employee ought to be willing to stand behind the job they do if they are being paid. At my companies we had each person inspect and sign off on the task the person before them did. This is not a 'bad' thing nor was it to only uncover mistakes, people got quarterly reviews and raises were given based on these metrics.

And I do not understand the logic that someone might confront the evaluators. In what other jobs are the employees purposely kept anonymous out of fear that a customer might confront the person doing the job? 'Sorry, you cannot speak to our chef, we don't want anyone to know who he/she is'. If the fear of confrontation is the standard, then I guess they better start building screens around every cashier, sales person, teacher, nurse, etc.

I have experience in Quality Assurance and Quality Control. I am not a person who immediately thinks 'ut oh' when any kind of audit is mentioned. An audit is simply an opportunity for improvement. Good employees at good companies welcome opportunities for improvement. They want to know how they are doing, they want to know what they need to do to make more money. (I acknowledge that in bad companies audits can be 'bad' or misused.) But I am an advocate of being held accountable for the jobs we do. This is not someone who is donating their time and effort for the betterment of the hobby, it is commercial.

Lastly, I wish that the cert carried much more information than a few cryptic words. When I go to car show after spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours on my car, I want a good review of what I have done so that I can fix or improve. If I lose, so be it. But if I get no decent feedback other than I got a third place, I feel that an opportunity for improvement was missed (not to mention that car shows aren't cheap to enter). If my car loses points for an incorrect period hose clamp, then don't simply say 'your car lost 3 points'. Tell me this detail so I can avoid the same mistake and learn.

Ideally, certs would carry information on what exactly was examined, how the process was done, and why the conclusion is valid. The cert then becomes more than simply 'this is/isn't xyz' and becomes a teaching/learning tool.
Don
APS #094826

Good comments; I agree with some and not with others. One thing not mentioned. As far as I am aware (I decline to use either PSE or PSAG because of their role in starting the grading "craze"); all APS, PF and most specialty society reviewers are volunteers. Nobody gets paid. As I understand the APS, at least with classic US, there are several reviewers which provides a form of quality control. If reviews become too much of a hassle, or names get exposed, will there be a lesser willingness to do these reviews gratis?

I have a stamp in with APS right now; a Portuguese colonial with overprint. The cert will not be signed, but I already know who the primary reviewer is for this material with APS and I trust his judgement. Maybe the system is way too opaque, as Richard states. One answer is to research the matter by contacting specialty societies that expertise stamps and where the reviewers sign the certs. What is the experience in those societies? Any "confrontations" happen if someone hasn't liked an opinion?

Steve,
Respectfully disagree, someone gets paid for virtually every cert. I do not think that an organization which uses volunteers somehow 'gets off the hook' because they are taking advantage of free labor. If they are making money, then consumer laws (in U.S.) apply independent of their labor costs.
Don

Thank you all for this great discussion. As vice president of the Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation in Toronto I am pleased to see that you are validating our expertizing process. Every stamp submitted for expertization is seen and examined by a minimum of three committee members whose opinions are documented on the submission form. When the opinion is finalized it is summarized and reported on the certificate that (good or bad) is signed on behalf of the committee.

Members of the Expert Committee at the Greene Foundation are volunteers serving without compensation

We do stand behind our certificates and will, if a disagreement arises, reexamine (without charge) anything on which a certificate has been issued. To my memory, I think we have reversed previously negative decisions twice because technology allowed us to see things that were previously misinterpreted. By the same token, we know there are stamps out there with good certificates that will receive bad certs if resubmitted because fraudulent repairs were not detected but would be using the new technology. Please consider that expert certificates are issued on the basis of the most up to date information available to the examiner at that moment.

GJP

GJP,
great input, thank you.

A couple of questions regarding this comment...


How often do you recommend that hobbyists submit material for recertification?

Are there major technology milestone dates which can be identified which help hobbyists better understand when an older cert might not be as reliable? (Assuming that this might somewhat change depending upon the availability of the technology for each certifying organization.)
Don
APS #094826

The RPS - again, time given by members of the expert committee is given free

http://www.rpsl.limited/Home.aspx

Hi Don. Those are good questions for which we don't have a fixed answer. Personally speaking, I don't think that the average hobby collector should be submitting much for an expert opinion. I believe that there are four specific reasons for obtaining certificates:
1. when buying an expensive (pick your own $$$ comfort level) it is worth an expert opinion before finalizing the deal. Auction houses allow a time extension for this purpose and a good dealer should give the same opportunity.
2. when an expensive stamp is being insured a certificate provides evidence of ownership and authenticity
3. if exhibiting a jury may require a certificate on rare or unusual items
4. when selling an expensive item a good certificate can result in a higher price and an easier sell.

I believe it is only worth updating certificates when a stamp is changing ownership but, as stated above, a collector must decide on his $$$ comfort level. I have heard people state that they should get certs when the value of the item is above $300 while others have a limit at $1000 and up.

A collector must decide what is necessary for a certificate. I ask "is anyone going to waste time cleaning, rebacking, regumming and reperforating a stamp to sell for $300?" I suspect not as that talent would likely be saved for a stamp selling at $5000 or so. On the other hand, varieties such as missing colours are frequently worth a look.

Sometimes the money a collector would spend on a certificate would be better spent on a book on that particular stamp issue with the bonus being that the book can be used again.

When it comes to technology milestones, it really depends on the body issuing the certificates. From the very beginning, the Greene Foundation Expert Committee used the "touchy-feely" approach combined with the knowledge of the committee members and the use of the reference collection. They were pretty good using only magnification, watermarking fluid and UV light as examination tools.

In the mid 1990's the Foundation purchased a Crimescope which was a fairly sophisticated system of infra-red filters coupled with a small television monitor. That revealed such things as attempted removal of cancellations and markings thereby adding some technology to the above mentioned knowledge & toolbox.

In 2014 we purchased a Foster+Freeman VSC6000 that revolutionized the way the committee examines stamps. If you go to the Foster+Freeman website it will become obvious what the technical revolution will do for the hobby. Again, the technology is only a tool to assist the committee whose true strength is the accumulated knowledge and experience of the individual members.

GJP

"I ask "is anyone going to waste time cleaning, rebacking, regumming and reperforating a stamp to sell for $300?"

The answer to that is "frequently". Plus it should be remembered that this kind of fraudulent behavior has been going on for about 150 years now. There is absolutely nothing new about it; much of the fraudulent work is very old and was never noticed before. Often it was a great job but time has done it's work and the repairs in particular sometimes start showing signs of age.

Sure, if they've got the time, the inclination, and no easier way to turn a buck.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

I like mine signed. Regummed, and one of only 100 so I feel having the signature with cert is only a payoff

I trust a personally signed certificate far more than the generel "the expert committee is of the opinion that..." certificate. Remember that a cert is only someone's opinion.

Since it is almost certain to be the same people in either case, I don't see where it matters.