Scott #5 Census Update

I really wish there was an area of this website Community where we can discuss current stamps up for auction and our opinions regarding whether we believe certificates are legit, if we agree with the certification, etc. don't know legalities of snagging images from other sites and placing them here to have informative discussions. Would be nice to have a separate area of site for this. Lot of experts on here that are great and I would love to know there opinion when see a stamp that is "questionable"... perhaps leave out the "grading" thing because that is just crazy as every stamp could be argued up
Or down

I think redwoodrandy was speaking about certs in general, not just for #5.

rgstamp - You've made some very helpful observations on this stamp. It is so easy for me to overlook minor faults when I am otherwise enamored by a stamp. #5's come on the market so infrequently that it is hard to know what is realistic to expect in terms of quality. To bring you up to date - Irv Miller contacted the PSE to see if they would expand upon the "tiny faults". The PSE said that the examiner's notes state, "4 tiny pin-point thin specks and a light corner crease that can only be seen in fluid when drying. Two of the thin spots are located in the right margin." I think that I have convinced Irv to get a PF opinion, but I'm convinced I'll have to take a look at the stamp myself before I buy.

Regarding your comment -


I have made a few posts in the past concerning stamps coming up at auction for which I know have undisclosed certificates. No one has objected or expressed the feeling that this was improper. I agree that grading is another matter, and with ambiguous standards and so many factors to consider, it is usually an almost fruitless discussion.

I thought an update was warranted for all of you who took the time to give me their advice.

Irv Miller agreed to submit this stamp to the PF for a 2nd opinion. The resulting certificate confirmed the genuineness and is much more specific than the PSE's "tiny faults". As rgstamp commented, "A stamp like this is an important find and the certificate should stress its authenticity." I felt the same way, and in spite of the faults being clearly described on the PF cert, I purchased the stamp with a much better feeling. The stamps condition is now fully disclosed and not just on an examiner's private working notes.

Siegel has since added the stamp to the Waghal census. I'm proud to own it, and even considering the faults, I think that in terms of overall appearance, it compares very well with most other known examples.

Awesome stamp. In my opinion, the highlight of any US collection! (But I am biased towards the 1851 1c).

Curious if you agreed on the price before or after the new PF cert? Or did the asking price change with the new cert?

sinclair2010 - Nothing was written in stone, but Irv Miller and I agreed on a price before the new cert was obtained, and I felt no need to renegotiate afterwards. I had dealt with Irv several times before, so there was a lot of mutual trust involved in the whole transaction. I did split the cost of the new cert with Irv up front (I'd call it "earnest money"), but I'm sure he would have fully refunded me if the stamp had turned out to be not genuine or if substantive new faults had been revealed.