Philatelic Foundation Vs. Professional Stamp Experts

It does an auction firm absolutely no good to "throw away" an old cert with a less-than-favorable opinion or to sell a stamp where the old certificate, if they are aware of it, was ignored.

As any reputable auction firm will stand by their descriptions, a buyer can easily ask to have the stamp submitted for a new certificate which, in all probability, will come up with the same determination, leading to the buyer returning the stamp and negating the sale.

Responding to Classical stamps statement that expertizing is a closed activity with no transparency I would have to sadly agree. It is based on two separate stamps with two separate organizations. The first incident was written up and appeared many years ago in Linns.

A number of years ago I sent a Scott 67 unused to one of the two major expertizing organizations. It came back as genuine used with cancellation removed. I called the expertises to ask where the cancellation that was removed was noted on the work sheet to be. I was told that the worksheet was blank. I then asked for a copy of the worksheet and was denied on the basis of "confidentiality". As stated in that Linns article, what could be confidential for an opinion I had paid for? The stamp was subsequently sent to the other major organization with the opinion of " genuine, unused, no gum but with a tiny tear in a perf hole.

The second episode occurred a few years after that and involved a Scott 45 with cancel. It was sold to me by a well known dealer who offered it upfront that he was uncertain whether the cancel was contemporary. It was shown by email or fax to a recognized expert of the period who informed me by email that the cancel was correct for the period and definitely to send it in for a cert. based on this I sent it to one of the major organizations whose fee policy was not a percentage of catalog but a flat fee based on the catolg value. Given that there was no catalog value for a used Scott 45 I listed the catalog value for an unused Scott 45 which at that time was around 2250 corresponding to a fee of around $100. But this organization wanted to charge me their maximum fee, which at that time was $600. I replied I would pay that fee if I was told that the cert would read out as a used 45 with genuine cancel but not if they were going to pan the stamp in which case there would be no basis for such a fee. They refused to disclose what their opinion was going to be so I declined to pay the fee and asked it be sent back to me. Understand: I was not telling them what the opinion should be, only that their was no justification to charge a ridiculous fee for an opinion they knew would make the stamp worthless—there being no precedent.

I'm familiar with this feature at the PF and APEX websites, but where is it for PSE? The only thing I can find is a cert lookup, which is only useful if you know the exact cert number. You can't search or browse otherwise.

Regarding PF vs. PSE, both firms have their fans and detractors. I think it depends upon what you are wanting the cert for.

If you are wanting something graded (as opposed to expertized), I would recommend PSE, as for better or worse, they have a greater market share of graded certs than the PF. They're the most recognized player in that arena.

For expertizing, it depends on what the item is. In my area, U.S. revenues, Brian Bleckwenn at the PF is a recognized expert on early U.S. revenues. Anecdotally, PF appears to have a better reputation for U.S. material, at least material expertized in the last 2 decades.

Regarding market acceptance, PF and PSE stand well above any of the other expertizing companies, at least when it comes to U.S. stamps and covers. Items with PF or PSE certs will, in general, sell for more than those with APEX, PSAGE, Crowe, Weiss, or other expertizations.

For non-U.S. material, I have very little experience, other than Sismondo certs tend to be generally well regarded.

One last thing though, regarding PF vs. PSE, that circles back to my original question: The PF puts their opinions and certs out there for the world to see, good bad, or otherwise. PSE, as far as I can tell, does not. That makes for a somewhat uneven playing field with respect to criticism. PSE's mistakes are more easily hidden.

My understanding is that if an item is determined to be not what you submit it as, you only pay the minimum expertizing fee, not the one based on catalog value of what you submitted it as. I thought that was true of all the major expertizers. No?

Revenue collector: you are referring to current policy; when these stamps were submitted no such policy was in place so I was risking paying an inflated expertizing fee for nothing. And the point is: why did this organization play that game? If they told me that the item was good and the fee was 600 and I didn't pay it, they had the ultimate control by not issuing the certificate.

As far as the first incident where you are destrying the value of a $6000 stamp and no notation on the worksheet as to where the fault or alteration was located—well that makes no sense to me at all

i have been following this discussion and previous similar ones for a while now. based on my experience the standards, methods and equipment used over the years has evolved and hopefully will continue to change. I am not a big fan of grading, however it is out there and some people will pay big money for high letter grades. certificates are opinions of the group of people comprising the individual organisations and I am sure that no one on any expert committee goes out of their way to destroy the value of an item by calling a fault on a patient. a large number of collectors do not know how to examine a stamp for condition problems or alterations. not every one can correctly identify the various types of some issues. an extensive reference collection or years of study are required. having said that the option of submitting an item is still the collectors choice and they will have a very good idea of the outcome before putting an item in.

i will add that I have been a full time paid staff member of the PF, and an expert committee member in the revenue area, and continue to do unpaid examinations of revenue items for them.

Never have and never will understand the continual referral to a stamp as a "patient."

That is true, which limits its utility, IMO. In light of APEX and (especially) the PF opening up their opinions archives I wonder if PSE operating as a for profit enterprise contributes to their reluctance to post a similar catalog.

Also, PSE went thru several private corporate reorganizations over the years and many older, or not so old, certs still do not register.

I recall writing a couple times to PSE suggesting open cert archives and rec'd no response. That was over 5 years ago.

The older certainly for PSE and here I am referring to those less than #25000 or so or even lower numbers were also the ones with the large color glossy photo in one side and the option as well as the 3 expertizers and signed by randy shoemaker

They weren't all signed; that must have come later. Second cert image below courtesy of Jim Drummond.

Is the cunliffe on that certificate related to the cunliffe collection of inverts?

One and the same.

Jim

Don - thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant by track record. Agree with what you wrote.

"It does an auction firm absolutely no good to "throw away" an old cert with a less-than-favorable opinion or to sell a stamp where the old certificate, if they are aware of it, was ignored".

The auction house does not throw them away, the seller does. The auction house might not even know.