Another Incorrect Miller Cert, Not #19

On what basis? "Mr. Miller issued a certificate stating his opinion, but people posting in an internet forum think his opinion is wrong." Really? There is no way to prove that Miller applied the red cancel, if that's what you're thinking. Anyone in an anonymous chain of buyers and sellers could have done it.

"Fraudulent" requires intent to deceive. That's a pretty serious contention.

Is there a rule of APS or ASDA that permits disciplining a member for giving an opinion in a cert, even if that opinion is objectively wrong? I'm not being intentionally contrarian, I'm actually interested. And there have been plenty of threads here about supposed errors in PF and PSE certificates.

Hate (!) to go off topic, but just a brief aside:

Hundreds of threads & thousands of pages about philatelic organizations & encouraging membership & the like. A never-ending discussion - to which I have largely ignored...

I have never 'joined' a philatelic organization - defining that as one which requires annual 'dues' - which would certainly include the APS.

Without a doubt, the biggest threat & most compelling reason to shy away from philately is fakes/forgeries/counterfeits & the like - it is disheartening & makes me wonder why I even bother. This does not differentiate between those pulling these shenanigans 100 yrs ago or this morning - on a cumulative basis, it makes the hobby worse.

The APS - if it is, in fact, the organization it claims to be - (which granted, is just a guess on my part - I've never even taken the time to investigate?) - the patriarchal/guardians of our hobby - I would've expected them to have taken hundreds of 'members' to court by now - and sought not only injunctions to prevent them from using their name/logo, but to further force the guilty parties to inform prior certificate holders.

If they allow their name/brand/logo to be used on what everyone instantly recognizes as a criminal forgery - without a peep - why should I consider this an organization worthy of joining??

I agree with the statement above and I think it needs to be echoed. The Miller cert is an opinion and most professional expertisers state "it is of our opinion" . The one cent franklin is probably the hardest stamp to differentiate the types in all US Philately and orginazations such as the PF have also issued certs that were later corrected.

This is a hobby where knowledge is certainly power. Luckily there are more resources today than ever before which can help determine a positive purchase. If collectors have not learned by now to do their research then...........

It is certainly true that certifying individuals and organizations are offering their opinions, and these can certainly be arguable or even demonstrably wrong in some cases, but there is such a thing as an informed vs. uninformed opinion. It seems that the Miller certs, to judge by the number of examples cited here, all too often fall into the latter category.

The difference between a casual opinion and Mr Miller's opinion is that Mr Miller's opinion has a hard cost associated with it and potentially negative financial consequences. The bottom line is that any certs other than those of the Philatelic Foundation should not be considered at all when making a decision on a given item. They are, as far as I am aware, the only organization without some type of vested interest in a given outcome or ties to the industry that could be considered to be less than neutral.

CJ - Mr Miller portrays himself as a professional in his field and justifies his expertising service by that assumption. If he can play the "it is only an opinion card" to avoid any repercussions and responsibilities associated with rendering his opinions where does it end? What other " professionals" get a pass? I am assuming that the answer is that LISCENSED professionals are open to action against them. Therein lies the rub for philately.

Correct - but not my intention - nor to my understanding, others commenting here - to state that Mr. Miller was the one who 'fraudulently' added the fake cancel or altered the stamp.

But it is my contention that as an expertiser - he should be held to a certain standard. When it is obvious to everyone that the stamp is a fake - then any expertiser who claims it is real is also committing fraud. Not the same type of fraud as the guy who added the cancel, but a fraud nevertheless...

Knowingly deceiving is certainly the correct standard; but if everyone says the sky is blue, and you claim to certify, as an expert, that it is purple, then that is also deceptive & intentionally so...

@rogdcam, @mdroth - we are on the same page. For a century, expertising has been unregulated and the market has decided which certificates are entitled to value. Perhaps the time has come for FIP, APS or an independent group to examine (on application), test and certify the knowledge and expertise of expertizers, who would be the only ones allowed to use a particular certification mark (which I mean in the trademark sense). They would be a Fellow of the World Society of Philatelic Experts (WSPE) for example and sign their names Jane Doe, FWSPE. And they would have the freedom to "grandfather in" as Fellows certain individuals of such high reputation that their expertise is beyond reproach.

I would also add that companies/organizations that issue certs should address the issue with others forging their certs. In many cases it is relatively easy to forge/fake a certification from a legitimate company/organization. If all certifying companies/organizations offered either a manual process or automated online lookup that allow collectors/buyers to verify an existing certification it would go a very long way toward ending others from forging their certs. Like Chris suggestion, this too might reduce the number of 'backyard' certifiers that have floated into the marketplace.

In my opinion I think that hobby would benefit in standardization of certifications. Obviously no one could enforce the standard to all companies/organizations but if the primary groups used a standard hobbyists and consumers would benefit. ('Tricky' wording and other subjective content could be minimized.) I also wonder if there might be value in having 'grading' and 'authenticity' split into separate documents or at least two parts (part A and part B) of the same document.
Don

Edit: Regarding the Miller certs, I concur that intent is very difficult to prove. And I also concur that everyone makes mistakes and we should all be tolerant.
But even for a casual hobbyist like me the red cancel stamp and trimmed perfs stamp scream altered stamps. So while an occasional mistake in understandable, trends should be considered. So in fairness, does anyone have an incorrect Miller cert which calls out a stamp of lesser value but is really a higher value stamp? Or is the trend that the mistaken certs are always for higher values stamps?

If APS investigates this and explains what happened here, and helps curb it, I will gladly join APS and make a donation.

If they sit on sideline I'm happy to sit here as well, far from organized philately, and save my money on a membership.

I'll put the ball in APS court. I doubt they care about gaining a 45 year old member. Or maybe they do care?

I'm sure they read this forum. I'll wait (probably a long time)