Canada #16 Prince Albert - Expert Committee Report

I am watching this auction but am suspicious that the color (brown) does not seem to match a genuine # 16 (should be closer to black) (looks more a #17 to me). May be it is due to my monitor?
see ebay item https://www.ebay.com/itm/362801519158
Does anyone know the expert certification listed as "professional stamp experts?
Comments welcome.

I wonder which "short perf at the upper left" the cert is referring to.

Gilles le timbre

I see what you mean. The color doesn't seem to match what Unitrade describes as a deep shade. I have a faulty 17 that resembles the shade of the stamp featured in your post.





After posting the image I can now see a considerable difference in shade. Please ignore the post.

This image will give you a better idea of what a genuine #16 black brown looks like. The color is a start but it must be perforated 11.75. There is a very dark shade of 17b that resembles 16 but the perforation are not 11.75. Unitrade also lists 16i perforated 11.75 which is a lighter shade.




APES Certficate #71412, Canada, Scott No. 16, used, red cancel, genuine. Feb. 21, 1990.

The stamp with the PSE certificate does not appear to be a Scott 16. Watermark is correct. It should be a much darker color. The one with the PSE certificate appears to be one of the many shades of Scott 17.

PSE (Professional Stamp Experts) is now located in Henderson Nevada and is primarily a US stamp expertizing organization. They do China and BNA as well, but I do not think it is to the same extent that they expertize US material.

Thanks for the comments. This seems to confirm my hesitation to join the bidding on this so called 16. I'll keep watching for a good 16 from well known auction houses.

You can and should verify certs, if you can. This one is in the PSE database. http://psestamp.com/Cert/01308160/

Thanks WK. I'll check that site.

I would have the same response as Bill Crowe. I don't frankly know whether this is a chocolate brown variant i
Of Scott 16 or not. The images shown of the ebay lot doesn't look blackish brown to me as would a Scott 76a or 95a for US. I don't have quite the confidence in PSE for worldwide stamps as opposed to US. I would probably have more confidence in the PF, but primarily more on reputation generally. But actually, I think I would trust APEX the most for Worldwide classics if forced to choose a US expertizing service. If using foreign service for Canada, I would probably be thinking Royal Philatelic. I have not had personal experience with Greene or Sismondo.

You could inquire about a return pending approval by a committee more attuned to Canada. I have used Greene twice and found them amazing, especially my last experience. Keep in mind it takes up to 8 weeks+ so factor that in to the return discussions.

I will recheck mine but I do believe I have a black brown. It is definitely much darker than the image you posted shows but it is all about the perfs, as was stated.

Ok I will preface this with the fact I am not a perf expert at all. They could be re-perfs or I may just suck with the perf gauge - I will eventually consider sending for certs but the bigger point is that I have quite a few Alberts and the three at the top show 11.75 on all four sides and show very distinct colours. The three on the bottom are not 11.75 all around and also show distinct colours - some that may be mistook for a #16. The top left two and bottom right two came from a Kasimir Bileski collection of rare Canadian stamps and were identified as 16's and 17's respectively - that said, he did make errors in classifications. Again, the point is more to show the wide variety of shades and even the perfs. Without a Canadian specialty certification such as VGG, I wouldn't hold my breath on any of my top 3 row just yet. I do sure hope the top left one is, though, as she's purdy!

The "short perf" is obviously on the upper RIGHT side.

The top left one from @stamps101's post certainly looks far more like a 16 than the PSE certified one. I would only trust a cert from Greene or the like in this area. Although to be honest, I don't think #16 merits its own Scott #.

This stamp has been discussed on the forum before, by many of the same people, now a different seller and new thread, still is not a #16.

Can anyone please explain why #16 is its own Scott number? Why not just another variety of #17? Just one of several distinct colour varities and perforations.

I would think if you wish one number for the 10c stamp it would be 16 with all other colors and perforations as variants. #16's were first printings of the denomination. I just prefer the established numbering system as it has been this way for a long time.