US # 104 Used With Incorrect Philatelic Foundation Certification

I was recently doing research on the Re-issue group 1861-66. Specifically I was looking at examples of the #104 as I was trying to compare my 3 cent classic with the stamps I saw.

I was surprised to see a used copy of # 104 listed on Seigel's auction site as having a Philatelic Foundation cert which stated that the stamp was genuine # 104used with a small corner crease. However, what the Foundation's cert did not mention, according to Seigel, was the reperffed left side.

I am a fairly knowledgeable philatelist but certainly not a recognized expert. It took me 10 seconds to spot the doctored left perfs. Maybe someone on this site could help explain how the group that calls themselves the "Gold Standard" could miss something this basic on a $17,500 stamp.

The Seigel catalog is under their copyright so I am unable to share the print I made of their catalog item.. For the record the stamp sold for $7500.

I am wondering if Lewis Kaufman or Larry Lyons would have an explanation on something a novice would probably notice?

Any thoughts on this subject? Has anyone seen other "mistakes" the Foundation has made on high price stamps?

I would appreciate any insights you all may have.

You could help this discussion by saying what the cert number is or which lot # in which Seigel sale.

Seems to me that if you wish an explanation from Lewis Kaufman or Larry Lyons about this then you should call them and ask.

Siegel sale 1162, lot 194 (July 25-26, 2017)
PF cert 529287

Equally puzzling, since the reperfing was discovered prior to the sale, why wasn't the stamp resubmitted by Siegel so that the stamp might be reexamined then.

Probably not enough time.

The same thought went through my mind. Why did Seigel sell this stamp with a faulty cert. A faulty cert opens the door to someone being cheated. However, let's go back to the Foundation.

Can they be trusted?

You all may think tis is a minor thing but you just don't miss a simple problem on a $17000 stamp! The rumor is that the Foundation is having financial problems. If this is the quality of there work I can understand why.

Is my assumption correct that this is related to this thread https://goscf.com/t/58323 and the intent of this thread is to establish that PF makes mistakes?

Is the next step to then say 'if PF made a mistake on this cert then my #314a stamp is not a fake'? Or is this just residual anger at PF over not getting a clean cert on the #314a?
Don

Newsflash: Expertizers make mistakes. In other news, water is wet.

The real problem is with unscrupulous reperforators. For example, when is the last time anyone has seen a dollar value Colombian with a straight edge?

I can't get into the PF site to check the cert - so not sure what year it is from. But if we're talking about an otherwise good cert, that does not mention a reperforated side, then that's technically not a mistake. It is not an 'incorrect' cert - the stamp is ID'd & pronounced genuine. Failure to mention a reperfed side is an error of omission. But my understanding - especially for older certs - was that they did not get into mentioning any/all/every fault and/or condition issue - the point of the cert is to determine whether the item is - in this case - a genuine #104. From that perspective, they did their job correctly...

Here is the stamp in question:

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

I keep hearing the argument that older certs are not trustworthy because the "aim" of the expert committee was to properly ID the stamp. Everything else, including mentioning of faults, was a secondary consideration. Not only do I disagree with that statement, I don't think anyone can truly show any documentation from any of the 3 major US expertizing organizations going back to 1945 that would support such a claim. Certainly, now that the PF has shown its archival opinion on line from its inception, you can see that faults including thins, RG, RP were commonly noted. In this case, however an older philosophy cannot be used as an explanation since the cert number of over 520,000 indicates a recent submission.

The left side of the stamp is suspect, but it is possible that The PF felt the stamp was scissors clipped/trimmed at the left. Without a close inspection I would not want to permanently condemn the stamp. It is also possible that the stamp received a certificate from another expertizing organization such as APEX, PSE pr PSAG calling the stamp reperfed, but the certificate was not supplied to the Siegel firm. Additionally, auction houses have been known to over describe stamps to decrease the possibility of returns. I am not saying that is the case here, but something to keep in mind.

If the stamp is truly reperforated at the left, that is an unfortunate mistake by The PF. As revcollector notes, "expertizers make mistakes". This is true of all of the major services - APEX, PF, PSE and PSAG. They all endeavor to minimize their mistakes, but they are all run by human beings. "Reperfing" may have been noted on the worksheet, but the finalizer was distracted and did not place the wording on the certificate. The Siegel organization could have verified their opinion quickly if they had wanted to. The two (PF and RAS) are about 15 blocks apart in NYC.

Methinks the OP is being a bit mean-spirited. Expertizers are usually happy to re-evaluate their opinion when offered new evidence. The amount of "devilry" they find (that the collecting public would never catch) far exceeds the amount that escapes their notice.

Additionally, the OP infers that the PF should be more careful examining high-priced stamps. The CV and expertizer's "duty of care" are in no way related.

"I keep hearing the argument that older certs are not trustworthy because the "aim" of the expert committee was to properly ID the stamp. Everything else, including mentioning of faults, was a secondary consideration. Not only do I disagree with that statement, I don't think anyone can truly show any documentation from any of the 3 major US expertizing organizations going back to 1945 that would support such a claim."

Alas, that is not correct. I have seen dozens of examples of pre 1985 PF certs which prove that to be a true statement. Only dealers were doing the primary expertising in those days.