How Complete Are The Online Cert Archives?

I thought of adding this to the current thread about PF certs changing but decided that it was sufficiently different to start a new thread.

There have been many threads regarding either the difference between two or more organizations expertizing the same stamp or even varying opinions over time by one organization for the same stamp. Much is made, I think appropriately, to search archival cert data based for the true provenance of 150 yr old items.

Inherent in that advice is the assumption that the archives are complete. I have found that not necessarily to be the case, particularly as it applies to early certs. Whatever you might think of the quality of old certs, they were often issued at a time when perhaps stamps were more of a hobby as opposed to investment and the early certs likely represent the initial presence of the item in the expertizing game.

With that background, I became curious about the expertizing history of Scott 272a, the 8 cent USIR error stamp. I have an unused og copy of that stamp with 2 separate PF certs. The first with certificate #201 issued in 1946 and then subsequently resubmitted by Jacques Schiff in 1981 with a cert # in the 94,000 range. Naturally neither of these are listed in the current PF search, but they are not listed in the early cert archives either—in fact no 272a's are.

Given the above example, in addition to the concerns of prior certs with a fault or qualification being "lost", the seeker of information on a particular item should do so with the realization that the data base he is using may be incomplete

In this case I would suggest contacting the PF directly. It appears that photos were removed from the 272 page and placed on a new page that does not come up during the search. One of the problems with the old pages was that person placing the photos did not always place them on the correct page. He was an elderly gentleman with the first name of Leo, but I can't remember his last name. If he did not see that there was a 272a page he might have placed the photo on another page. PF Search illustrates almost all certificates generated during the computer age. I believe it starts with # 110,000 and that is sometime in the early '80s. Possibly 1982. The 271a section seems to be in order
The PF has done an admirable job of displaying the information on their older non-computerized certificates. They have always allowed people to physically look at the older records.

Agree that PF does admirable job. My note not intended as criticism, only a heads up

In terms of completeness...
As of the date of this post, there are a total of 364,948 PSE certs in the Stamp Smarter database, the earliest ones are dated from 1996. When we first started the project, PSE requested that the published database only show certs for the last ten years so the total number of certs that is publicly being shown is 178,235 with certs date ranging from 2009 and thru 1/06/2021.


<Don's opinion>
For me the issue is that none of the organizations maintain public 'certification version' information. In my opinion this is a major oversight and a significant short-coming of their services.
Without versioning information, it is difficult to understand the certification history and matched with the incomplete online data this effectively makes it impossible to understand cert histories and opinion criteria.

I do not know if the organizations have cert versioning internally. Without it, an expert would have to manually search for any existing certs (quite time consuming but perhaps this explains the length of time it takes to issue a cert) for each stamp/cover. It may be that this is too time consuming, it may be that the information is simply not available to them, or it may be that it is preferred that the experts do not access previous certs. Not searching for a previous cert has pros and cons for the current experts. On the up side they will not be influenced by a previous opinion(s); on the downside they may end up with conflicting opinions.

So what would a fully transparent certification process look like? I think the experts would first give their opinion without being influenced by older certs but when done a review would be called including a comparison between the current opinion and any older opinions. The deltas between old and new opinions would be compared and discussed, and in some cases the review might drive a modification of the current opinion. The certifications would carry the name(s) of those who had supplied their opinion(s). The organization would publicly publish all certs and the cert versions.

But this is a fantasy and not what any certification organization does now. The fantasy outlined above would be good for hobbyists and the health of the hobby but it is not good for sellers, dealers, auction houses, or the experts themselves. The experts do not want to be cornered at a show or club meeting and confronted by people who do not agree with their opinions (and we can't really blame them for that). Sellers, dealers, and auction houses make more money with buyers NOT having access to cert history and material provenance. Currently they can pick/choose the certs they want to promote and throw the others away without much concern. And they certainly do not want to hobbyists to have lingering questions or doubts about making a purchase. Lastly, they certainly do not want to burn time explaining variances in opinions over decades of time. (Which can be totally legitimate but is not profitable for them.)

Catalog publishers, certification organization, clubs, postal systems, websites etc. are seeking our money. It is hard to think of a single hobby related entity that is not seeking to make money. There is no shortage of lofty goodwill statements and empathic sounding words about helping the hobby but frankly much of it is just cover for making money.

Our hobby itself has a long history of building walls around philatelic information and then charging for it. This has become so acceptable that we have no issues with dropping significant money for catalogs which do not have anything close to realistic valuations. And we do not mind spending money for opinions that shift from organization to organization. And we do not mind buying platforms or venues which are not transparent; we have become immune to buying from within a vacuum of information. For much of the long history of our hobby paying for information access was the norm. When the hobby was thriving this worked but over time our hobby has had to complete with more and more 'free-time' diversions. And then the internet happened and changed everything.

Currently our hobby is in a unique era; we have blend of older hobbyists who cut their teeth in the information era of 'if you want to play you have to pay' and younger hobbyists who have grown up being able to access information much more freely. This transitional era is brutal for many of the old school people, organizations, and companies. They do not like the changes, they do not support the changes, they do not understand how to transition.
</Don's opinion>
Don

Don: I took note of your statement regarding PSE's request to not show early PSE certs but just the more recent ones because of course the early PSE certs with the color photo on the front and the opinion on the back did indeed list the 3 expertizers for that certificate. The very early PF certs were signed by the committee members. Other than that I haven't the foggiest idea who expertized any of my certified items.

I will say that the PF database does have a large number of certs that link to the previous certs for that particular item. Whether or not it is complete is hard to say. How they determine that a prior cert existed is not clear. Was the older cert submitted along with the item or do they actually perform due diligence within their records.

There should be a central repository that incorporates all of the big expertizing bodies issued certificates. The opinions were paid for and services rendered. Are these certs public domain documents now? They are treated as such. They are shared, scanned, copied and distributed everywhere.

Don - I loved your comments; please write some more!

With the user interfaces currently provided, the databases at the PF and the PSE are useful for just one thing - certificate verification. It is furthermore evident that neither organization sees it as a priority to make their databases more useful or accessible to collectors.

In the case of the PSE, it is a privately held business, and it has no obligation do anything that isn't in its own interests. I presume they see their data as potentially having value, or perhaps in some cases being damaging to their reputation as expertizers, so they are reluctant to make it transparent.

The PF, as a non-profit is a little different, but it still has to try to function in the black. For whatever reason, but probably to a large extent due to costs, the transition from paper to digital form has been far from perfect. Judging from how the database for certificates appears to have been initially set up, it was never intended for more than a verification function. The interface at the PF website gives the impression that it can be used as a search tool for any Scott number, but it was probably an afterthought, and there are many reasons that it falls far short. For example, actual Scott number(s) of any submission doesn't even have its own field - it lies within the text of the "opinion" field. The search for a particular Scott number is based on the submitter's identification of the stamp!

It is my understanding that the PF's data has also been migrated from an old database to a new one, and that the fields didn't necessarily map in all cases. Combine these factors with error and inconsistency of data entry, and the result is that a search in the PF database, besides missing very old certificates that were never put into any database, may miss many certificates while including others that it shouldn't. The database, at least that portion accessible to the public, seems to be of such low concern to the organization that I'm not even sure but what some more current certificates haven't been entered into it either.

"The search for a particular Scott number is based on the submitter's identification of the stamp!"

Of course it is. The original certs were even worded that way, because there is really no other logical way for the PF to view them. That is the information being requested; is this stamp what I purchased it as or think it is. When it is important, then what the stamp actually is part of the opinion. Over the years, since different people have been in charge of the final opinions, some certs say what the stamp actually is, and some do not when it is not a particularly important fact. If it is actually a different valuable stamp it is certainly mentioned, such as classics, but does anyone really need to know that the fake 519 was actually a 409, etc? Both the genuine examples and the fakes can usually be seen under the number, either by search with the "exact" or the "begins with" search parameters. And it is possible to search the remarks as well, so it should not be too difficult most of the time to find anything one needs.

revcollector - I guess if you are looking for all fakes submitted as Scott #519, then your rationale makes some sense. However, you can't just search the "opinion" field for 519, and you'd better know to search on "not 519" instead of "fake 519". In general, searching free text is something I do when all else fails.

There is no reason not to have both the submitted Scott number and the opined scott number in their own fields. If the opined Scott number is uncertain then it can stay empty. The same for the submitted Scott number, although I still fail to understand why you think that it is important at all. Are you interested in searching for stamps that were submitted as one Scott number and identified as another?

You don't have to search anything but the number for 519 anyway. They all come up, good or bad. Again, the submitted number is being used because that is what is being asked for. And I suspect that there are far more stamps correctly submitted then incorrectly submitted overall. Clearly there are certain Scott numbers that have a lot more bad submitted then good, but most numbers are not like that. And for several of those the correct number is often obvious. I don't really understand why it matters for the most part. Classics, I can see, but those usually have both numbers.

i am getting tired of people poking holes in things without offering either offering concrete solutions or the means to carry them out.........ie either expertise or funding or both.
while not as often used the PF photo books are and will continue to be an important reference tool and were thoroughly reordered and revised a number of years ago. meany problems were corrected including but not limited to separation of mint/used, improper sequencing of numbers, separation of listed varieties and notations of
prior certs.
as to Don's and Widglo46's comments both have more than a grain of truth and reality to them. Costs are and
will continue to be one of the major factors in updating older operating systems, especially if any are not compatible to one another as may often be the case. this is true of a for profit or not for profit entity. I was once told you are either a part of the problem or part of the solution.

Here are some suggestions for the non-profit Philatelic Foundation:

1) Fundraise for improving the database
2) Have a voluntary database improvement contribution "checkbox" when submitting
3) Charge for database access and use the funds to improve the database

m and m -


It has been my experience whenever I'm involved in discussions about improvements that could be made at the PF, that people who have been closely involved with the organization over the years are very defensive of its shortcomings. I am very happy we have the organization and I'm grateful to people who have donated their time and money.

My intention is to be "part of the solution", and I would hope that by defining a problem I'm not put in the category of "part of the problem". If I lived in NYC, I'd be knocking at their doors to offer assistance.

widglo46 there was no intent on my part to imply you or Don are part of the problem. it was a poorly worded statement on my part........the quote was supposed to be a general statement that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.