Do People Toss Bad Certifications?

Anyone who wants to know who works at the PF need only go to their website and read what their qualifications are:

http://www.philatelicfoundation.org...t-the-staff/

The expertizing community (and, therefor, the hobby) could benefit from regularly scheduled closed meetings, at which only the certifying experts meet, in which they all identify & grade a small batch of stamps and, then, stamp-by-stamp, round-robin, review their anonymized results.

That they participated in these 'continuing education' meetings would give each of them bragging rights, and let them all be better at their jobs.

Wait, Don!

I feel the 'information sharing' meme a-stirring.

Q/ How many expertizing trade secrets are there?

The open resources (the libraries, certain reference collections) are open.

The private reference collections remain private.

If everyone advertises that they use Technique X, and I use it correctly, and a competitor uses it incorrectly, do I really enjoy my advantage?

Bad certs are bad for business; these guys are all better off bringing each other up to speed.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Well said ikey

Education and debate over a certification controversy would only make the expertizers better. Any reluctance on the part of an expertizer or expertizing service to not engage in educational activities that could improve their abilities and educate /advance themselves and public suggests an element of financial subversion in all this. It's not moral and not in the best interest of a hobby that is very complex and difficult to navigate, especially for the beginner.

Round 2 for pay-per view philatelic forum: (perhaps another great specimen to debate at a national meeting between PSE and PF) : Seigel auction July 2016





PSE claims reperforated (2015)

PF claims not reperforated: graded XF-S "95" -- the real deal! (2016)


$1.00 Trans-Mississippi (292). Extremely Fine Gem, with 2009 P.F., 2015 P.S.E. (calling it reperforated) and 2016 P.F. certificate (XF-Superb 95)

I would love to see the perforation analysis done by the expertizers from both companies?
Wouldn't you?

bonus Specimen #3 for the great debate, from December 2016 auction Seigel






conflicting certificates with 2016 P.S.E. as "never hinged, reperforated at left" and 2016 P.F. as "regummed" though no mention of reperfing

What a mess? Any thoughts? They can't agree on the gum or the perforations. I just feel that as collectors we deserve an explanation. This can be done at a large regional or national show. It can be done nicely, with mutual respect for the expertise of both parties debating their opinions.

I would rather that both stamps be part of a set that all of the attending expertizer-graders examine, rather than aiming for a head-to-head.

I would also prefer that the expertizer-graders meet away from the crowd, as I think a private/closed meeting would be more likely to attract more participants.

The forensic accountants, the forensic pathologists, and the forensic philatelists all deserve a professional atmosphere, free of spectacle & audience, for hashing-out Best Practices, et al.

Let them work it out amongst themselves.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Why? Expertization is merely an opinion, and as with anything else in life, opinions vary. Expertizing opinions are not carved in stone and are nonbinding.

Opinions of expertizers have differed ever eince the practice began; this is hardly anything new.

Here is an example I posted several years ago (not sure if it was here or on another board), that Frank Bachenheimer originally showed me.

His commentary:

At least we've all agreed on one thing. The stamp is a genuine #62b. Combining all the listed faults, this stamp is reperfed on the left and right sides, is torn, has a cleaned stain and has a touched-up paint job. Yet the latest certificate mentions only a minor touch-up. Is it any wonder that our hobby is suffering? Taking into account the substantial cost and time in obtaining these certificates, which one(s) should we consider to be valid in a sale? Or do we just let sleeping dogs lie?

Cert 1: APEX, October 2, 1980.




Cert 2: PSE, March 24, 2008.




Cert 3: APEX, August 19, 2008.




Cert 4: Philatelic Foundation, October 22, 2008.

Cool example revenue. At least they all agree ....genuine unused no gum. The inconsistency of the reperforation opinion part scares me the most.

Which faults they describe and exact wording used in cert perhaps not as important ( torn, stain, toned)

The 1980 cert is too old to have any meaning at all; anything might have happened in the 28 years separating it from the others.

Since three certs in a row have not mentioned a tear, I would think that there is not one.
The "cleaned stain" and "painted over toned spot" are basically two ways of describing something very similar, an alteration to improve appearance.
That leaves us with the perfs. Now it comes down to which group of expertisers one believes is the most knowledgeable about the perfs of the classic era. Many dealers are not as strong on perfs and gum as most collectors would think.

"Or do we let sleeping dogs lie"

My answer.... NO!!

Not only is it boring for hobbyists to just accept ambiguities, but also frustrating.

It's not fun, not educational, and gives the sense of surrendering to the forgers, stamp doctorers, and expertization services....

For me it's more about the fun factor

revcollector: Could the unwritten rule be "Faults: find one and done"?

Having certification folks disagree with one another is one thing but the corrective actions are far more important.

What happens when an error is found? (A real mistake, not just an honest empirical disagreement.) There is documented evidence where the certification group acknowledged an error in a cert yet have left it uncorrected for years (even after committing to fixing the error multiple times). In this particular case the stamp has since been resold twice, with the incorrect cert, since it was originally reported to them. In my opinion the correct action procedures need improving to prevent the bad paper to continue to float around the marketplace.
Don

any opinions on perforations of either trans miss 1$ above? Or do we just surrender and send these stamps to the land of misfits this holiday season. I personally do not feel either is "reperforated". Since one is used and other possibly regum, not sure back scan will help. I have my reasons for my own opinion on these stamps, but would like to see if someone else wants to chime in with their own analysis of the perforations. Comments?

probably get slaughtered here, but changed my opinion: Also I guess I can analyze it any way I want since PF and PSE experts can't seem to agree. Its the wild west!








No vertical natural straight edge guide lines apparent to make this decision easy. Perfs look equal depth and size in general and line up relatively straight relative to each other in line. Search deeper…rob, search deeper…If there is any perf that seems larger or out of whack it is perf 3-4 on right side from bottom-- but left side is issue?



used trans miss 1$; I agree with PF, not PSE on this one. Seigel experts also agree "vehemently" with PF that there is no reperf done here. If this is reperforated it is one hell of a job!




unused trans miss 1$ appears reperforated (lines slant left to right at angles not consistent with top and bottom row of horizontal perfs- something amiss?

revcollector: your link to the Philatelic Foundation lists the staff. But do those few people do all the reviews? I tend to doubt it. I got a PF cert years ago for a now sold copy of Newfoundland C18. The persons listed all appear to be US reviewers only.

Which brings me back again to the feeling that this thread is mostly non-relevant for those who don't actively collect classic US. At least, whenever I've brought this matter up, the thread immediately defaults back to a discussion of classic US.