A Used 60 Premiere Gravure Or 70c Reddish Color Variant

Those that follow my threads know that I have a love affair with the 24c 1861 series stamps.

I'd like to tell you my story of one of my stamps. A while ago I bought a used 24c 1861 series stamp that was PF certified in Jan 1961 as Scott 60 premiere gravure and listed
In Scott catalog as trial color proof 70TC6. It had intense deep violet shade with a clear
Impression on thin paper. I know that the 3c, 10c and 30c premiere gravure
Stamps were postally used in small numbers, but not many know that a used 60 was auctioned in 2017 in a Siegel auction and bought for $35,000 as I recall.

Wanting to sell my 60 stamp at an auction, I sent the 60 stamp with 1961 PF cert to PF
as the stamp was sound. I waited for 8 months as Numerous experts examined it. The experts disagreed initially but then it was returned to me as used Scott 70c "reddish violet" variety. I had not heard of such a variety. I was disheartened to say the least. This 70c variety isn't listed in Scott specialized catalog. I decided not to sell it as I felt it was one of a kind color variety. . I heard that one outside expert did think it was a premiere gravure 60. Should I submit this stamp to the PSE for another opinion?

The used "60" sold by Siegel in 2016 had a 2016 PF certificate noted in the description but a search of the PF database does not return that stamp now. It would be interesting to know what happened there.

And don't ask me to show you the recent PF cert 70c as it has been lost

...and it does not appear to be in the PF database either.

All of this would be problematic for me as a buyer. Here today, gone tomorrow and so on. It kind of reminds me of other issues that change as time goes on such as 476A. That is not a color but rather a watermark issue. 476A was sold for years. When I sought one out for my collection Christopher Rupp advised me against it because as time wore on it's existence became questionable. It is still a somewhat "foggy" issue with one being up for sale in the upcoming Spink Collectors Series Sale. China Clay paper also comes to mind.

Back to colors though, if a stamp ID is so difficult that certs are changed and it takes months on end of technical analysis, hand wringing, debate and reexaminations I would question the veracity of any associated opinion and would be wondering what will happen when the stamp is resubmitted once again because it surely will be put on extension at its next sale.

Blackjack: agree wholeheartedly with the above discussion. This further cements my skepticism that with the so called explosion of information and technology since the early days of the PF, I am not convinced that the experts of today are substantially better than those of the past. A dedicated collector and student of the discipline like Alfred Lichtenstein, Theodore Steinway, or as in your 1961 cert, Louise Boyd Dale will get my vote most of the time since they are driven by passion to know and get it right. I would never have resubmitted your stamp with a clean 1961 PFC just as I don't plan to resubmit my #60 with a 1951 PFC.. it is more than curious as to how various stamps and their certs disappear from websites as if they never existed—-but your 1961 cert in hand trumps all that. Unfortunately, whatever your stamp would have been worth not recertified, as a used 70c, it is worth less now.

By the way, your stamp is not the first time the PF has certified a 24 cent 1861 as "red violet." The used 70c with the Smithville,MS CDS that was on your other thread and Don kindly posted for me has an interesting history that I am glad to share now. I bought that stamp from Allan Katz at Ventura stamps in NJ. It had previously been certified by PF as red violet on cover, the cover but not the stamp exhibiting some damage. By the time it was offered for sale by Katz, it had been removed from the cover and certified as 70c violet as a single in 1995 by the PSE. I had wondered whether the MS referred to Mississippi and whether this could have been a blockade runner cover. Further research indicated that this was probably Smithville, Mass, with MS being an approved abbreviation for Massachusetts in 1862. Researching the lifespan and hx of 3rd and 4th class post offices 150 years ago is a true labyrinthine effort.

I will ask Don to post both cert images on this stamp when I have the time to forward to him.

Consider this,
I was (trying) to read an article from Academia, on colorimetry of Postage Stamps.
In particular the analysis of the early stamps of Chile.

It flew easily over my head, but can explain the depths today of which scientists have for inspection of stamps and their colour.

Note that the VSC6000 is old technology and has been discontinued, the latest and greatest is the VSC8000 - http://www.fosterfreeman.com/produc...vsc8000.html

But even this technology is only using the current spectral imaging of an item. In other words, how the colors of the stamp look today, not how the colors of the stamp looked 150 years ago when printed. Who knows what the stamp has been through over the years (light exposure, chemical changes, soaking, etc.). Assuming the exact same equipment and ambient lighting, if you took a reading 150 years ago, a reading today, and a reading 150 years from now all the readings would be different!
Don

What is the number of the cert? If it is before 112,000, it has to be searched in the "early certificates" section.
http://www.philatelicfoundation.org...cate-search/

So I will be forwarding to Don to post images of my #60, the 1951 PFC accompanying it, another 70b, a better image of the Smithville, MS cancelled 70c and three certificates accompanying that stamp which present a very sobering story regarding certifications of shades. I had forgotten the third cert I had with the 70c.

It turns out that to my knowledge the first certification of the 70c was on cover on October 5, 1994. At that time the stamp was certified as 70c red lilac (#284708). Then now off cover, the stamp is certified by PSE in December 1995 as violet. AFTER THAT, I have the original cover with stamp attached now being certified by PF as violet, and with the same certificate number as before but now the certificate date one and a half years later on May 8, 1996., 5 months after it had been certified off cover as a single by PSE.

If anyone truly feels comfortable with the process after reading this, you must be an eternal optimist.

***Images Added by Don***

What is the number of the cert? If it is before 112,000, it has to be searched in the "early certificates" section.

My early 1961 PF cert is #13211
It is the farthest right in bottom row
In this PF worksheet of Certs

Funcitypapa. I completely agree with what you said about the experts of today not being better than the ones 60 or more years ago even with all the technological tools experts use today. The knowledge added to our hobby by such people like Alfred Lichtenstein and his daughter Louise Boyd Dale is unestimatable in my opinion as they were in the golden age of philately with and abundance of stamp material in their hands.
What we are witnessing is the disruption of our good hobby by the technological overload of instruments.
It is like instant replay in football where replay video in slow motion "distorts" what should be obvious to an expert and he makes questionable call or opinion. I will always value my used 60:as it was described in 1961.

The problem is if you want to sell your 60 or my used 60 the buyer will insist on getting an updated cert.

it Is interesting to look at the early thumbnail views shown on the PF website. Not on the page you show but with lower #'s the image is shown but no comments whatsoever are written in pencil. The opinion on your 1961 cert is written out in full; my stamp has nothing written beside it including no notation of regummed.
If you look at the first two pages for #60, you see a lot of uncertainty; others are listed as not 60 or 60a but not stated exactly what it is —sort of what you are experiencing in your current submission.

As regards your comment about what buyers would insist on—certainly that describes a segment of the collector or investor market; but not everybody. I had no problem buying my #60 with the 1951 cert and not insisting on something more current—but that's in part a reflection of my skepticism that were there to be a difference between the prior opinion and now, that the newer opinion would by definition be right and the older one wrong.

If you look at the regular PF search under Scott 60 you will find 11 examples. At least a third are no gum unused genuine including one or two at a minimum that were certified twice over a very long period of time including one which was by the cert # certified some time in the 1950's and subsequently with cert around 440,000 corresponding to a recertification 50+ years later—with a clean cert initially and later. So these classics that trade infrequently it would not shock me to not have seen the light of day in half a century but were owned by one person who knew how to care for it.

I fail to understand why someone with 50+ years of professional philatelic experience today is somehow not as good as someone then. They have seen at least as much material as anyone in the past. It still comes down to who one trusts for an expert opinion on a given type of material.

Is this you talking about yourself, Rev?

No, I am talking about people I know who do professional expertising for the PF. I do not have 50 years as a professional; I only have about 10 although I have been collecting for 60 years. However I do know one of them 50 years. I know the others perhaps 15 years.

It's absurd that such subjective minutia makes a difference in catalog number and value. This is why chasing catalog numbers is silly.