Scott #278 $5 Dark Green Graded 98j By PSE

Please somebody help me understand PSE's grading standards for GEM stamps. Is there a mathematical calculation for the centering or is it entirely a judgment call? The reason that I ask is that I'm looking at lot #1371 in the upcoming Siegel sale #1199, which has been graded 98J, and in my estimation should be virtually mathematically PERFECT centering, which left to right, it does not appear to be. Since this otherwise $5K-$7500 stamp could potentially eclipse 6 figures, is perfection an unrealistic expectation? How exactly is this grade derived at PSE?

The PSE will also take into account eye appeal which can add or subtract points.

http://psestamp.com/pdf/2009_Gradin...e_092009.pdf

there is something wrong either with the image or with the real stamp.

Also in the original image at Siegel, the design is not rectangular at all. I can't imagine that it is real, but if it is, it's not a nice eye appeal to me.

Reedededge, grading is basically done off a weighted checklist. But one consideration is: what is the range of quality and centering for a particular stamp? I've seen #278 jumbos but reperfed, I've seen better centered #278s but also reperfed, but a mint sound jumbo this nice is pretty exceptional, certainly better than a 95, I would say. And there are 4 other mint examples graded 98. That said, grading is a combination of art and science; no absolutes. Outrageous, perhaps? Then why trust a third party that renders an opinion?

stamperix, your eye is too good. The real stamp is very slightly distorted/not absolutely square because the paper is damp/wetted before printing and there is shrinkage as it dries, and not just only in one direction. Check with what you have for other stamps of this issue and you will find varying degrees of not being absolutely square. Further, the color is likely off to some degree since the stamp image is oversize. Perception changes as you change the object size; stamp enlargements get brighter and lighter with more paper showing.

Thank you for your answer, indeed I looked at some of my stamps of this issue (with a rectangular template) and none were really off. Most are pretty good rectangular, so I wonder why this can get a 98 grade - I think the reason (shrinkage, damage and so on) should not be too relevant if the appeal of a stamp is not good when it's just like that.

Well then..question answered. Just like coins, the process is almost purely subjective. Obviously, if a micrometer were used to measure centering, there would be only one standard, irrespective of how that particular issue comes.

I think if a straight edge causes a stamp to not be graded then what about a design that is not rectangular? In my opinion no grading is possible here (in this logic) as well, as the distance from the design to the perforation is not equal all over the sides. I wonder if this case is mentioned anywhere in the "grading guidelines" of the PF or PSE.

So there are some that are clearly non-rectangular to you. And overall, they are still not perfectly rectangular, then? And you blew up the image to 500% as it is above, magnifying and emphasizing the difference? Being perfectly rectangular is not in anyone's criteria set except perhaps yours. Consider also that the perf tips/stamp edges do not form a perfect rectangle, which is rare if not nearly impossible with a small line perf stamp. And what about imperf stamps with margins not perfectly rectangular or ones with very small margins for the issue but perfectly rectangular?

I am not searching for the perfect rectangular stamp :).
I just explained why in the first post Reedededge wondered about a stamp with grade 98 where he thinks the centering should be perfect, but "it does not appear to be". So I gave the explanation why the stamp does not appear perfectly centered and even not symmetrical and has much less eye appeal than other stamps with such a high grade. I don't think we need any magnification to see that in this stamp. I didn't make a study to see how the other stamps of this issue are rectangular or not, but as in the plate they are perfectly rectangular I would assume that it's the exception, not the rule, to get a result like in this 98 grade.

I would believe that perfect centering with balanced margins would be a 100 ?


http://gradingmatters.com/smq/SMQ_2...ng_v15-3.pdf

Since the more experienced posters have not yet raised the specter of reperforation, I won't either. But could someone please explain to me how it comes about that the right-hand perf holes are much more ragged AND about 10% smaller on average than the left-hand perf holes?

While it did not reach 6 figures, the lot did hammer down at a smooth $75,000. The Siegel sale was a continuing example of PSE dominance with graded certs. Nice stamps with PF certs did not fare so well - i.e. a pretty 278 light hinge cat 2k went for 1,300.

Other stunning graded winners:

Pan Am 296 grade 100 cat $170 sold $28,000

US 319f gr 98 cat $25 s $2,700
US 367 gr 100 $9 s $1,900

515 used 100 $1 s $425
518 100 $95 s $14,500
537 100 $20 s $2,100
c7 100 $4 s $1,500

The one that blew my mind was the used 11A 100J that went for $1600 - 100 times catalog. Now that's a multiple.

The raggedness I believe come from the perf pins not being absolutely perpendicular to the paper. In this case, the pins that cut the right hand perfs were very slightly bent to the side. The left and right, for example, do not have to look exactly the same -- different wheel perforators, for one, plus the slight perf pin bend. This is a not uncommon look on Washington-Franklins.

Left perfs compared with right:

I only see one perf hole that appears clearly smaller, the 4th from top. That could be explained by the above or possibly a worn perf pin. Also, if the right side perfs were separated slightly to the left of exactly half of each perf hole, this stamp would look to have smaller perf holes. That's also may be what you are seeing here.

Reededege's pic is cut off. Stamp looks alot different on the Siegel website:

https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...+1-2%2C+2019