Why Do Some People Have To Be Negative?

I'm a member of the same forum and know the thread you are talking about. Here's a suggestion to bounce off "the other guy":

"Yes, even experts make mistakes, and the certs are both over 20 years old. If you're so sure of your opinions, please send me a check to cover the certification costs and I'll send one or both of them back to PF for new 2018 certification. If one or both of the new certs come back in agreement with your opinions, I'll send you double your money for the cert(s).

I'll back my opinion by voluntarily paying the round-trip shipping and insurance costs, no matter the outcome of the certification process. A copy of the tracking number will be sent to you as proof of shipment and receipt by PF.

How confident are you in your opinion?"

Include the current PF certification fee for each new cert and a mailing address where he can send the funds. You might want to give him a time limit to do so.

I see nothing wrong at all with Bart's (revcollector) comments. They are completely reasonable.

This is the problem with describing someone else's comments rather than quoting them verbatim. The person with an issue frequently spins their own personal feelings into the mix when paraphrasing.

I will let you pay for them, since it's your idea. The added perf is obvious, even you should be able to see it. As life teaches, education is not always fun, and it's not always free.

This was an interesting read, and it was good revcollector put his side forward, I was going to say he was probably jealous but now I see that wasn't the case.

Thing is we love our stamps and me included sometimes don't want to hear anything negative about them especially when its a stamp you're proud of in your collection.

Okay, folks, let's step back a bit.

I was venting my frustration and never meant this as an attack on anyone. Please look at my two posts.

Maybe I could have worded it differently, but I certainly didn't want this to create an uproar.

I went so far today as to call the Philatelic Foundation and they recommended replacing the certificate only if I'm getting ready to sell the stamps, which I'm not.

There was no indication from the PF that they would not have paid attention to something like an addition or repair to a stamp. Yes, the attention to grading has changed, but not the basic soundness of the stamps. At least that was my understanding from the conversation.

Let's just agree to disagree, please.

We can do that, but the root cause here is simple. It is an expert's assertion of an opinion as perfect and absolutely correct, based on two images and a certificate seen online, without having the stamp actually in hand for inspection with appropriate tools, and further without giving any weight to contrary evidence from an experienced owner who does have the stamp in hand and is competent to dip it and report the results. Any opinion given under these circumstances is inherently imperfect for lack of all evidence, and it would help if the expert was willing to admit the same. Philately needs to advance based on evidence and not instinct from images seen on the internet. But the latter is how the Facebook group works, so take it for what it is.

There is always someone who will try to burst your bubble. Keep your head up and don't let them affect you. Even in this forum when I first posted about the stamps I received, I felt negativity - like people were telling me that what I had was worth nothing not knowing all what I had. Some people are just filled with that and it's going to show in everything they do.
I have good stamps and never thought of their remarks as a set back. You alone make your world and keep it positive. When you do that positivity will always be by your side.

In an ideal world criticism would only be rendered when a critique is asked for. On the other hand there is a fine line at times between offering information which you deem as necessary to impart and being critical for the sake of being critical. For myself if I wanted to share a new purchase and a knowledgeable person mentioned that there was a particular problem with said stamp/cover and it was not disclosed at the time of purchase I would be thankful. I would probably follow up with the dealer or auction house and seek recourse within the sale T&Cs. At the end of the day I do not believe that you can ever have too much information. You do need to sort the wheat from the chaff. My 2.5 cents worth.

cjpalermo1964
There is a significant difference between just "someone" looking at the stamp, and someone who is very experienced in looking at and examining stamps on a daily basis for a living. Who has also examined many hundreds over the last 10 years specifically because they were getting certs and was going to sign on them. Certain repairs can be seen from a high res scan if one knows what to look for; this is one.

This is a very interesting discussion and I would like to add a couple of thoughts to the mix. Before I do that however, I would like to ask revcollector to state his "formal" philatelic credentials. It appears that many of you on this forum know this individual personally; I don't and maybe others on the forum do not as well. I do NOT require a person to serve as a member of an Expert Committee, to be considered an expert. Indeed I think many serious collectors are equally expert in their knowledge, without the title. My interest here is not to challenge revcollectors expertise which is self evident, but I am unaware if he sits on a formal expertizing committee for the PF, PSE or APEX? Just a question; nothing more.

Comments:
1. Expertization is NOT science---which is imperfect as well.
2. In the end, we are dealing with people, with all the baggage and imperfections that implies
3. We have all seen opinions proferred by expert committees that leave us scratching our heads. We have seen perfectly centered stamps being graded 90 or maybe 95. I had a now deceased expertizer misidentify a 12 cent pictorial essay in green as the genuine 117. A long time ago I submitted an unused 67 buff to the PF that came back cancellation removed. I called the PF and spoke to the chairman at the time requesting a copy of the worksheet which was denied on the basis of "confidentiality" but when I asked where on the stamp the worksheet listed the supposed removed cancel was located, I was told that the worksheet was blank.
4. In the end, these all just opinions folks, from highly knowledgeable individuals to be sure, but opinions nonetheless. I can see competing forces for a resubmitted 121 presented here as receiving an updated cert unchanged even if revcollector is correct. These would include an expertizer concluding that if there was no GROSS change to the naked eye in appearance from the original stamp from the same organization to just rubberstamp it again. I'm not judging this activity---it is human nature for an item of this value. If we were talking about an inverted Jenny, maybe the same effort would automatically be applied the second or third time around as originally due to its implications on value, but I don't believe this happens universally for lower value stamps----again human nature.

5. I believe the philosophy of the expertizer, not the decade that the stamp was submitted in, has a lot to do with the opinion. If you were Bill Weiss for example who self admittedly approached every classic stamp as being regummed and having at a minimum a tiny flaw, you would be setting the bar exceedingly high. I am not trying to be critical of Bill Weiss only stating what he told me himself, but I would bet that not all expertizers have that exact philosophy.

6. I have heard for many years this issue of the unreliability of old certs and their opinions based on the presumed emphasis on identification as opposed to condition and a laxity of precision on the part of the old expertizers vis a vis their current counterparts. I don't believe this. Naturally, if you have a stamp that certified in the 1950's and has been through innumerable tradings and transactions, there is a high likelihood by handling that the condition has changed. But, if you have a stamp, say originally expertized, in 1946 by the PF with Alfred Lichtenstein and Theodore Steinway as the expertizers, or Louise boyd Dale, and that stamp was was not repeatedly sold but stored by one collector and then resubmitted 50 years later, the likelihood seems to be that the original opinion will stand. So I think it is more the handling over time and not the quality of the experts that explains this. Again, people are people.

7. To the assertion that old expertizers did not look for faults: all one has to do is research the early cert archives now put on line by the PF, and you will come swiftly to a different opinion.
8. There is a parallel discussion on the Autograph live--Is it Real website with a forum batting around JFK signatures---what is genuinely signed and what is secretarial where by implication they are trying to pull down Charles Hamilton, who wrote the book on JFK signatures, in the same way the early expertizers of the PF are thought to be too "old hat" and maybe not up to today's standards. I have to smile when the "experts" start lecturing and use their official title to shout down a knowledgable collector. Here is the dichotomy: take money and the value of a future sale of any item out of the equation, and I will take the opinion of a long time and extremely dedicated collector over a commercially bound expert any time----one's motives are purely to get it right without impact on value; the other, no matter how knowledgable is doing his work as part of business.

So, particularly if revcollector is an expert, but not part of an Expertizing Committee, I take my hat off to you. You are just trying to set the record straight. It does NOT mean, however, that if resubmitted, the original opinion will not stand.

@revcollector - I did not refer to "someone," I referred to "an expert". Even experts, with the experience summarized in your last post, need to consider contrary evidence, and accept that their opinions are necessarily imperfect when they don't have the stamp in front of them. Your post proves my point: The back scan does not show a fault, and the owner's dip does not, yet you will not even weigh that evidence in the calculus. (Even with the front scan, on the subject perf tip you may be looking at coincidentally placed cancel ink or soiling.) Your stubbornness means there's no more to discuss here so I'm retreating to a neutral corner, but it's useful to know for anyone in the Facebook group. I'm not sure why anyone would participate there when you take such strident positions without consideration of possible alternatives; it's not the way to advance a science.

To begin with, I have been collecting for over 60 years. Although I am not part of the paid staff, I do expertise revenues for the Philatelic Foundation on occasion, and have done so for many hundreds of items over the last ten years. I also make a living breaking down and cataloging large lots and collections for dealers, as well as examining large auction lots for dealers before sales (all types of US, not just revenue lots). I sometimes work shows for dealers as well. I am not someone coming out of left field
One of the important factors in expertising is the knowledge of how to examine a stamp. This includes problems such as reperfs and regums as well as the more hidden faults that might exist. Concealed repairs, removed cancels, added cancels (often to cover a repair), added perfs, etc. Top dealers do this well. although most collectors would be amazed to learn how many dealers cannot. FYI-my philosophy about examining a stamp is to let the stamp explain itself, without any preconceived ideas.

As for your assumption about certs: expertising for many years (up until the 90's) were done by dealers. And they were not anxious to have their sales spoiled, so they were not anxious to spoil other sales either. So most certs did not call attention to condition. Since the on line certs are not dated, one must have some idea of when the cert numbers were issued to know the actual time period. Hinging was mentioned, but care must be taken in making assumptions about what is or is not stated. If you go to the image of the 121 in question on the PF site and look at the image (cert 268748), the added perf at the top left is clearly visible. There are also some other perfs at the top right that arouse some suspicions but must be looked at more closely to be certain.

Hello all,

I really liked this discussion, especially the very well put together reply by funcitypapa. I liked how Stampman2002 stated his frustration, then later admitted to how it could have been reworded. I liked revcollector's response, as well. This is one reason I joined this community. Even with the disagreements, I have learned a lot: about stamps, about posters, about certificates. I thank you all for this discussion, and hope to eventually have the expertise to contribute on these types of matters.

I have no opinion on the stamps - I am definitely not at the level of expertise as the collectors on this forum. However, one early decision I took when I decided to start selling stamps (which I have yet to do) was to only offer stamps with certificates when dealing with US classics. Anything else in my stock that is not certified will be listed at 10-15% of Scott's. Since grading could be considered subjective, another decision I took is to NOT list my perceived grade (F-VF, Superb, etc...) and rather provide high-quality scans of front and back. I've thought long and hard about my return policy and basically, I've decided I'd cover the cost of certification for any stamp that is misidentified and will take back the stamp (and certificate.)
As far as repairs and faults that go undetected on my end by my own ignorance, am still not sure how to handle that - which is why I would not sell or list them at full value.
In a separate thread someone mentioned that the headline for our items should be, well, click-worthy. I agree, but would also disclose to the seller that all items should be assumed to be regummed, repaired or otherwise faulty, and are sold as-is, but offer them the option of having the stamp certified, split the cost, and then adjust the price accordingly. Not sure how this would work out: I may end up with a bunch of genuine, certified stamps where I have to eat the cost - but then I'd have something I can offer that I can feel confident about.

Because there's more to a stamp's grade than just centering.




Expertizing organizations are not infallible. Different expertizing organizations have had different levels of accuracy and reliability in various periods depending on whom the expertizers were at that time. Some periods are notorious and certs from those eras by those organizations are immediately suspect.

Additionally, just by the nature of the passage of time, (1) the longer since a cert was issued, the greater the possibility of damage or environmental issues since the point it was examined that would not be reflected on the cert, and (2) standards change and sometimes newer research and scientific/technological advances can overturn widely held opinions from decades past.

One of philately's dirty little secrets; certs have a fairly short shelf life. Certifying organizations do not want publicize this fact much, it would probably cause some people to not purchase certs.

Off on a bit of a tangent…I am unsure why anyone would even participate on Facebook; I guess if Facebook was willing to pay me for my personal information that they sell for a profit I might consider it, but otherwise no thanks.

Facebook has built a network of human relationships. This data is a monstrous source of marketing insights and eyeballs, just the kind of thing which makes advertisers drool. With this incredible marketing gold mine; Facebook does not see users, they see only the connections between users. You are not human, you are part of a collection of data points to be targeted and converted into profit.

If folks want to turn their life into a database, then Facebook is the perfect medium. But there are significant issues with turning humans into data points. The most obvious is that this makes everyone equal no matter what is coming out of their mouth. So a person spouting something like 'the Holocaust never happened' has the same marketing value as a soccer mom posting a recipe. It is all the same from Facebooks perspective; an ad category is an ad category.

Folks love to hate ebay as an impersonal mega-corporation but ebay's 2017 total revenues were half of that of Facebook. Think about that, think of all the millions of listings and items being sold and it still does not come close to how much money Facebook is making on people's personal data. It baffles me how folks can think that Facebook is 'free' and/or that believing their personal data is not being sold. Others think that if they do not post their life on their page then it is fine. But the truth is that you do not have to make a single post on your Facebook page, just having a list of 'friends' is more than enough data for them to sell. I think that the Facebook demographic has changed in the last 5-7 years to one of more older adults. This population apparently does not understand (or care?) how Facebook generated $40.7 BILLION last year. Hey, its free right?

In my opinion folks should really think hard about being on and posting to Facebook. And certainly anyone who is critical of ebay should have much more heartburn with Facebook. ebay's 175 million daily users pales in comparison to Facebooks 1.5 billion daily active users. Facebook does not charge fees, Facebook does not have to support troublesome and costly transactions. Instead they simply connect sellers with your personal data. Yet while we hear constant complaining about ebay we hear virtually nothing about Facebook. This baffles me.
Don