Scott 1895-H, Flag Over The Supreme Court, Black Field Of Stars Instead Of Blue

In The 1995 Plate Number Coil Catalog (8th Edition) edited by Richard Nazar, there is a note for plate 9




Has anyone else found one (or more) of this error?

Around 2006, on behalf of an estate, I got a used #9 PS3 certified by the APS.

edited to ad plate #

eyeonwall,

I found the PS3 you referenced using the APS certificate archive. I also noted that the only two submissions were rejected, one as being "chemically washed" and the other for being "colors chemically altered." Both submissions appear (to me) to be legitimate 1895h stamps.

The opinions make me question how APS came to the conclusion that they were chemically treated when the "black field of stars" error stamps clearly exist. It's a shame that they can't add something like "we used a dual-column gas chromatograph, Hewlett-Packard model 5710A with flame analyzing detectors" (borrowed from "My Cousin Vinny").


Scott

They probably used a UV light and the VSC6000. That would work.

Is it just me? Would it be asking too much for them to document the methods or approaches used while authenticating stamps? I have to hypothesize that I'm correct when I submit a stamp for a certificate. I'd like to know that the expertizer on the other end isn't doing the same. Just my 2¢.

" I also noted that the only two submissions were rejected, one as being "chemically washed" and the other for being "colors chemically altered." "

I'm not completely sure what you are saying with your choice of words, specifically "the only two submissions" part. Do you really just mean there were two submissions rejected and not that they were the only two submissions?

"The opinions make me question how APS came to the conclusion that they were chemically treated when the "black field of stars" error stamps clearly exist."

Just because real ones exist does not mean they can't also be faked.

eyeonwall,

Apologies for the typo, what I meant to say was "the only other two submissions" that appeared to be the 1895h variety. In sum, there were 3 submissions to APS found in my search.

You are correct that as real ones exist there can also be fakes. I want to know why they think they are fakes. Were there red flags? Was a certain test they ran that provided conclusive evidence? Or did the expert take 5 minutes to verify it was an authentic stamp (paper, perforations, design, ink color, tagging) and instantly decide what it was or wasn't? My fear is that there may be a tendency by people (and experts) to make assumptions on how a stamp became discolored or colored differently. It happens here (and in other places) often enough to raise that question.

It's easy for someone to say that a stamp is a changeling or was chemically altered, but how did the person arrived at that conclusion? I have come to believe that we should receive more information in the expertization process than we currently receive as to how the opinion was developed. If they added it as an additional service, I'd pay for it. Without that valuable information, how are we to know the difference or what to look for in the future when buying or selling stamps? If philatelic scholarship cannot be shared by the experts, where does that leave the general stamp collecting population?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Have you shared this desire with the APS?

eyeonwall,

I have not, but you make an excellent point. My fear is that if I'm the only one asking for more that it will fall on deaf ears. Either way, you are correct and I will share my desire with a few different certifying entities.

Thanks,

Scott

If it was your submission and you asked, they would likely tell you exactly how it was done. For others I don't know. But looking at an example in ordinary light proves nothing about an item like this. That's why the UV is so important.

revcollector,

Would UV be able to detect any sort of chemical alteration? Are there other tests available? Genuine question, I don't know what processes are used to determine when a stamp has been bleached or bathed in sunlight or had chemicals applied.

Scott

I came cross this the other day and would like some opinions on whether or not to send it out for certification.

Looks like it's a possible candidate...the pic is a little fuzzy. I'd send it in for a certificate. I'm 4 for 4 on certs for 1895h so far...I hope you get good news!

Scott

I think I'll send it in.
Also, there's a space on the form for "The following information is desired" and as per Walkman82's comments above I will ask that they advise as to what methods or processes were used to base their conclusion on.

Still waiting for official results, it's still being reviewed by a second expert, but first the one thinks it's a changeling.
I've asked for a detailed explanation on how this was determined if it is deemed to be a changeling, I'll advise when I know more.

It doesn't appear to me to be a changeling as the black and red colors are clear and crisp. When I sent in my first submission a couple of years ago, they thought it might have been bleached. The second expert review found that it was genuine and I haven't had any problems with subsequent submissions. Hope they get yours right! Good luck!!

Scott