Woohoo! Went 3 For 3 At The Philatelic Foundation!

Doin' the Snoopy Dance for the second time in a week!

Just got my shipment back from the PF and all 3 items I sent in are legit. These were all found in the wild, culled from lots or collections I purchased. They weren't bought as singles or identified/highlighted in the lots I found them in, so finds are indeed still out there to be had... it just takes a crapload of time and scrutiny.

First, an R135a, designated by the PF as "the shade pale vermilion", which I find interesting. I didn't realize they differentiated between a pale and nonpale vermilion. If anything, I thought the stamp might be faded.






Second one up, my case of "lightning striking twice", finding a second example of the VERY scarce R15e, 2-cent USIR orange on green paper. The rudimentary census research I did puts the number changing hands at auction over the past 50 years at 16 total examples, with the population being lower as some of those 16 were the same stamp being resold. You can see that information in this thread:

https://goscf.com/t/38480

With my submission, I included data from old Siegel auctions showing other examples of R15e with the same company cancel as mine. I have no idea whether that factored into the decision or not, but I figured that collateral justification data couldn't hurt.

It's not quite as nice as the first one I found, but I ain't complainin'!






And lastly, one I am really happy with: R53f, the 40-cent Inland Exchange, double impression. Opinions varied on this one based on images I had posted, from double transfer, to "kiss" impression, to true double impression... with the latter being my vote (but of course as the owner, I'm admittedly biased).

I sent it in along with printouts of Jim Drummond's stamp (the Scott listing example) and his PSE cert indicating Eric Jackson and Ron Lesher as two of the expertizers of that stamp. My stamp happened to have the exact same company cancel, which while not conclusive, is a positive indicator. The doubling on my stamp is a bit more pronounced than Jim's example.





Jim's example:

3 beauties
Green paper...Wow

And out of the blue the R15e has been traded away. For a fleeting moment in time I was the owner of two certified R15e... oh well, finding it and confirming it was all the fun anyway.

Dare we ask? You must have gotten something spectacular in return!

Unbelievably cool finds and PF result!

A bisect document I wanted plus some dough. I'll post pics when transaction is complete.

suh-wheat man. Thanks for sharing as well.

I find it interesting that you sent in auction data and other pictures/documents to PF along with your submission of these stamps. Is this an accepted practice???

In other words, you are helping or swaying the authenticity of your material. Sound like a good idea. I have always wondered if PF or PSE accepts this practice or would just disregard the supporting information you send along with the submission. I don't know how this practice is generally viewed by the "experts", but would be interested in knowing if it helps?

Then could you extrapolate it to "grading" and show supporting evidence that a particular stamp deserves a "95" based on other examples!

More information is always better. I would not go so far as to say it "sways" anyone; the stamp in question still has to support itself.

I would use the term "support" or "justify" rather than "sway". The latter has negative connotations, in my opinion, as if the verdict isn't really warranted.

I figure it can't hurt. There's no downside. Worst case scenario, the supporting information is either circular filed upon entry or simply not passed on to the expertizer(s). Best case scenario it *might* offer additional context or validation. It certainly won't make the case in and of itself, but what's the harm?

When I sent in my R53a in for expertization, I included the fact that the cancel and date were identical to an example already certified by the PF as legitimate, in the same way that the cancel on the R53f above is the same as the other known example (that we're aware of). It's just one factor amongst many, but the more positive indicators the better, IMO.

I don't think that the various expertizing groups "talk" to each other, at least not on a regular basis, about each and every "patient", though I imagine that there are several expertizers that work at more than one group, from time to time. I mean they are all competitors (more or less) with each other, right?

So, in the case of the 40 cent double impression shown above, which up until Dan's example, it was basically unique, and, more than likely, no one at the Philatelic Foundation had ever seen or handled a copy before. It wasn't even listed in Scott until very recently.

This is not to say that a revenue first issue double impression stamp couldn't be properly identified by itself by the P. F., but surely the documentation of the other, "first" copy must have helped at least a little to assure Dan's copy's genuineness.

Jim

Here's an example of when submitting a stamp for expertization might perhaps be "encouraged" to lean one way or the other, as far as genuineness, if submitted with further documentation.

Or vice versa, I suppose.

Two stamps, both with apparently the same overprint, but one is claimed to be genuine and the other is counterfeit.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen either of these two stamps in person, though I do have other, similar examples of this overprint. The overprint looks identical on both, at least to me.

Jim

There was a very long time in between these two items, probably 20 years or more. For certain different groups of people saw them, possibly with very different levels of experience in this specific area. Plus more research has been done on these in the meantime.

Nice items all. Many thanks for the look!

Supporting data is always a good thing particularly for rare things. Rather than swaying the expertisers, it helps them cut to the chase. Say, if you have a stamp already properly plated, noting the position makes it easy for them to check against known examples or the literature.

Turn it around the other way: Why make the expertiser's job as hard as possible?

Probably not very positive words to hear to the holder of the one stamp; no big deal to the other guy though.



Jim

Unless someone decides to get a new cert. FYI-I have never seen a used example of this handstamp.

Eric offered this one back in 2010, if it helps any.

Maybe, for this particular overprint, only unused remainders/left overs are currently known?

Jim