Why I Despise Grading

This in a nutshell is why I despise grading. Lot 1341 of Siegel sale 1140 is a graded 100 single of R71a, and at first glance it looks like a great stamp. Unless one is aware that until recently it was the bottom center stamp in the the largest recorded multiple and only known block of six, ex Joyce, Cunliffe, and Curtis (lot 356). It brought $750+15% ($862.50). The single only cats $300, and since revenue collectors generally don't care about grading, it seems likely that $900 less the sellers commission is the absolute best that can be hoped for here. So a unique multiple was destroyed so that someone might break even, or possibly make a tiny profit if they are very lucky.

Sale 1140
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...9-11%2C+2016

Curtis sale
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...r+16%2C+2014

It is too bad that this is happening whereby several stamps in a multiple are destroyed in order to make one stamp very well-centered. It is up to specialists who specialize in the affected stamps to protest this kind of desecration. To destroy unique philatelic multiples is truly outrageous. Even though U.S. revenue stamps are not my specialty, I am tempted to email the auction house that sold it.

Ouch!

We might also take a moment to blame the brave, new world of digital information, where it is far easier to collect reliable historic price data for singles than to construct a reliable estimate for pairs, strips, blocks, margin blocks, center line blocks, and all of those with & without the available plate numbers.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

We could always start a boycott of the offenders. By the way, who was the offender?

I don't know. I thought I recognized it and double checked.

The resultant "100" also looks horrible - just a manufactured monstrosity, rather than the result of original, serendipitous cutting.

Ugh. Destroying a unique multiple for the sake of obtaining an artificially high grade is despicable.

Awful...sadly there is a market for this stuff. Not sure why, but apparently some collectors like having graded stamps.

It's not just that it's graded. It also shows sections of surrounding stamps. Apparently a community of buyers thinks that is attractive. I do not. It looks like a contrived collectible to me.

The only response I can see is not to buy from Siegel. Regency Superior also regularly offers these cutouts, and I stopped buying from them as a result. It's probably impossible to know who did the scalpel work, so the only way to address it is not to patronize the seller.

Such a shame there's a market for these butcher jobs. You'd think they would at least just trim it to the ends of the margins and not completely destroy all the other stamps.
Of course the best option is to leave it alone, but when there is a chance to make a buck common sense goes out the window.

This is mostly happening to imperforate stamps. However, I thought that the norm for imperforate stamps is that they should be collected in at least pairs or more as multiples rather than singles even with bits of other stamps all around. They are now ruining imperforate multiples by doing this since originally at least pairs were philatelically favored. Now not even pairs are being left from multiples.

Legally it comes down to a personal property right; if a person owns something they have a right to do with it what they want. We might despise the practice, we might boycott those who do it, but at the end of the day a person can light cigars with their stamps if they want to.

Ethically we only have boycotting. But boycotting this practice means convincing buyers that they really should not buy a stamp due to an ethical consideration. Can an ethical consideration suspend the greed and selfishness of buyers?

Altering stamps to increase value has been happening for decades. In the same way you cannot undo the destruction of a rare multiple you cannot un-reperf a rare stamp or remove a faked cancel or overprint. Yet after decades of this kind of outright fraudulent behavior we still have plenty of buyers who are willing to support those who do this.

To exert maximum pressure an ethical boycott would mean not buying anything from a seller. But time after time I have seen the position 'yes I know this seller is dealing in bad material but I am good enough to pick and choose the good deals for myself'.
Don

I have reviewed the APS Code of Ethics. We might explore point number 7 under the APS code of Ethics, namely, I agree not knowingly to sell, trade, produce, or advertise repaired, altered, or otherwise modified philatelic items unless that condition is clearly stated. This places the onus of "clearly stating" that the material has been altered. Might this also apply to the certifying agency? In other words adding the "altered" designation to the grading certificate should be required of the agency that is grading the material. In the museum world, when one alters or cleans material for the goal of preservation on conservation, one must document one was done to the object. Should we not push to use that standard for philatelic property?

Dipping a stamp in watermark fluid alters a stamp (by cleaning it). Can cleaning a stamp improve its grading?
Don

Watermark fluid does not "clean" a stamp. It only shows variations in the paper which might be good (watermarks) or bad (thins and other faults).

Will the stamp organizations really do anything about this when the sellers such as auctioneers could be their big advertisers? This may show a conflict of interest if they ignore this philatelic issue.