Problem With Expertizing; #28B Example

Sinclair raises an important question. My answer would be that expertizing in my opinion is a philatelic crapshoot, or Forest Gump's proverbial box of chocolates. Unless you were reaching for a graded opinion, why would anyone be anxious to surrender a clean older cert unless they knew it would be replaced by a newer cert that was also clean? The argument that a new buyer would insist on it sounds reasonable but the above example of the Scott 28b would give me pause: I wouldn't be interested in that stamp based on the cert calling it reperfed, whereas I would have been interested based on the prior certs and not felt the need to resubmit.

I always insist on a new cert when purchasing because when I sell a stamp I do not want the new owner to place it on extension or purchase it contingent upon a new cert, possibly receive a negative opinion and leave me holding the bag.

As far as the 27 in this thread I have a feeling that there is more going on here than meets the eye. The stamp has a 2018 cert calling out a reperf, it is sold at auction without that cert but with thins mentioned and it surfaces again with a 2019 cert that mentions neither reperfing or thins. What? I wager that there are other older certs for this stamp somewhere.

I wrote PSE about the two certs for the #27. Very interesting that the graded copy does not mention reperfing.

I'll post their answer here.

Update: The stamp appears again at Schuyler Rumsey Sale 88, Lot 1030. Sold on 10-5-2019 for $375 plus $56 buyers premium for a total of $431. Same description as the earlier sale and no cert.

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/sr/sr8852.cfm#125

It's a stretch regarding reperfs, but a graded cert need not read like a standard cert. They are entirely different animals. Some things could just be baked into the grade, not that I am saying is what happened with this amazingly well traveled #27.

From the PSE website:

Ungradable Stamps
Altered - Reperforated, removed cancel, added cancel, etc. An altered stamp does not change the Scott Number

From the PSE website:




and




http://gradingmatters.com/all-about-grading.html

Top grade for a reperfed stamp could not be above 75, according to their own rules.

The Scott 27 has changed from one cert to the other:

Great eye Alub. You got me to looking and quite a few perfs on the bottom and left side are different now.

I have been adversely impacted by having old certificates overturned by more recent
Expert certs without knowing the who and the why. To be fair, each submitter Is at the
"mercy" of unknown number of experts rendering opinions that may change with time
or resubmission. If two certificates say PSE and PF differ who do you trust?
Obviously the one cert. opinion which is most favorable.

I'd like to make the database that I've created on the PSE site available to the community, but I'm afraid it might violate copyright laws. Does anyone have any ideas? There is a provision is the copyright laws that allows images that are for the "public good" to be exempted. Any legal opinions out there as to how it could be argued that this is the case?

cjpalermo1964 (Chris) could probably provide some valuable insight.

widglo46,
If you would like to contact me through Stamp Smarter, we can discuss what you have to publish. If you have your own work effort and data that you have compiled, then I think it would be legitimate to publish. If you are considering publishing images from another site, then at a minimum you would want to get their written permission.

Scarfing images or content from a website without permission is both bad form and a copyright infringement. Using an image or two from a website, such as posting a few images in a forum thread, is not typically going to be challenged. But if you are going to ruffle feathers and/or publish a significant scope of content**, then using other's work is likely to cost you money in legal fees.
Don


**In 'fair use' below note the language "using the image sparingly, only for limited purpose".

In the past I have posted generalized comments on various copyright topics involving hypothetical situations. This thread seeks specific advice on the situation of a particular individual. I apologize, but I don't provide advice in that context because providing situation specific advice for a (reasonable) fee is how guys like me fund our stamp purchases. It also creates liability exposure under state law. I accept email through this site and @widglo46 is welcome to contact me privately. More facts are needed anyway: I don't know what is meant by "database that I've created on the PSE site" and how it compares to what PSE has authored.

cjpalermo1964

Thanks for your response, and I understand fully your position. I have a son who is an attorney, and even he won't give me free advice - at least not advice that is worth much more than I paid for it. I know what a lawsuit can cost, and it is actually one of the reasons I'm not too worried about the PSE filing one.

I have no intention of establishing a website or widely publishing the information that I've scraped. However, considering the huge importance that certification and grading has become to the hobby, and considering the prominence the PSE plays in that role, I do think it would be very healthy for the hobby to have the certification process be much more open. If it isn't possible, perhaps I will offer some sort of stamp vetting service. The likely candidates for missing certs are pretty easy to guess.