Scott #5A Or Scott #9?

This a stamp that I see advertised on Hipstamp as a Scott #5A, position 3R1E. It is accompanied by a 2021 PSAG certificate. It looks very much to me like a #9, position 3R1L. A #5A 3R1E is a triple transfer, and I just don't see much evidence of it on this stamp. Also, both the bottom frame line and the top frame line of the stamp below are heavier than those of the 1E stamps I've seen.

Is the resolution of the image inadequate to make a determination? Perhaps I've just become too skeptical.

Can't tell for sure based on the photo, but the easiest visual way to tell 3R1E from 3R1L is the fact that the latter is recut twice at bottom. This stamp looks like 3R1L to me. Another clue is the top frameline of the lower stamp--13R1E is a Type IIIA with broken frameline at top.

dudley - I overlooked that position 13R1E is a type IIIA. That clinches the case - it has to be a #9 3R1L. Considering the value difference of a #5A and a #9, it looks like another PSAG cert with a very grievous error.

I believe it is a 5a as certified. You are referring to 13R1E here for some reason, but it is a 3R1E.

jamesg - The 13R1E that we are referring to is the stamp below the stamp in question. The bottom margin of the stamp I'm questioning is generous enough that you can just see the top frame line of the stamp below it. There is no break in that stamps' top frame line, hence the stamp above cannot be a 3R1E.

Looks like a #9 to me. Am I surprised? Hell no! This is an error that only novices would make.

I have seen other "novice mistakes" from PSAG recently. Notably an obviously fake PR4 with an obviously fake cancel with a cert for genuine used.

Attached here is the corrected PSAG Cert #590757. On occasion when there is a mistake made, we appreciate our fellow Philatelists reaching out to us so that we can correct what we need to. We pride ourselves on honesty, customer service and timely responses.
Randy Shoemaker

While it is admirable that PSAG corrected the certificate the fact that it was incorrect in the first place is very problematic. The difference in catalog value is very substantial, $90 for Scott 9 vs. $8500 for Scott 5A, and if not for Lorry's examination and expertise this stamp may well have traded for 5A money and perhaps already has. That is no small thing and is completely unacceptable. I will avoid PSAG certificates myself.

In the interest of transparency it would be good to read an explanation of how this mistake happened. Who examined the stamp, who signed off on the opinion and what the PSAG QA/QC process is. You have to understand how something went wrong in order to ensure that it does not happen again.

The signature on the cert has changed over the years but it sure looks like Shoemaker's signature. I am less concerned as to how this mistake occurred than to note that it did. I also think the grade is generous for this example's centering compared to what PF search shows for a grade 90 in Scott 5A or Scott 9 from their perspective.

A 'I'm sorry' shows that you are a nice person, but corrective action shows that you are a smart person.

I am a big fan of corrective actions, and in this situation PSAG has indeed shown corrective action (they fixed the cert and have published the correction). This is more than other certification organizations have done at times (where incorrect certs are left in place even after committing to correct them).

Corrective actions for organizations typically come in two types; external corrective actions and internal corrective actions. Yes, PSAG could have published their internal corrective actions (what they have done to their processes to limit or prevent this kind of mistake from happening again). But this level of transparency is not that common in business, it is really hanging the company dirty laundry out to dry in front of the world.

In my opinion and in this day and age when Vaseline is constantly being applied to the reality lens (COVID, racism, immigration, foreign wars and retreats, etc.) to an effort to generate division and hatred; I think that PSAG fixing this mistake and publicly acknowledging the issue is a breathe of fresh air. I am thankful for their post.

I am also thankful for Lorry for bring this misstep to light and his efforts in helping the hobby.
Don

Don - I agree with your statements. I do think that some insight into how this happened and what is being done to help prevent it in the future would be valuable when it comes to rebuilding confidence in PSAG opinions.

I agree, but I think we are asking a company to 'give up' some of their trade secrets. At least that is what they would probably claim. I am all for transparency, but I doubt this will produce it. For those that caught this - good catch! It never should have been needed, though.

Completely disagree. What "trade secret" or proprietary information could have been involved in a human or three examining the patient and making the wrong call? This boils down to competency and what you get for your money when you submit material.

Check out the PSAG website. It names the "experts. There are PDF's on expertizing. There is a lot there to digest. Nobody is asking what is in the Colonel's chicken recipe or Coke's secret weapon. It boils down to "did the right person or persons examine the stamp and who approved their work?". Humans made this call, not a patented machine with secret components.

This is not meant to pick on PSAG. Others make mistakes as well but this is a whopper from a monetary standpoint and some collector could have been seriously financially damaged by this. This example was CAUGHT. Luckily. And it makes me uncomfortable when I look at other pricey stamps with a stand-alone PSAG certificate and no other bodies certificates to confirm the opinion.

It is not too much to ask how for some insight into how this may have occurred. Most people are very understanding when an error is explained. As I said above, it rebuilds confidence that it was a rare instance.

Although it has not been said as of yet, "I cannot tell you because it is a secret" would not be the right answer.

It sounds like you have practically answered your own question, Seriously, what else could it be but human error?? If there was some non-human fault with their system, do you really think they would tell the truth about it to the general public? They would likely say it was human error (or perhaps the ever-unsatisfying 'computer error') and leave it at that - whatever the error, I hope they would do an internal audit of how this could happen and make any corrections they could. In the end, I expect their public response (if there is one at all) would be, "This was a case of human error, and we have taken steps to avoid this in the future."

I learned in my career that where the human element is involved, there will likely always be errors. I also learned that even if there are double-checks, triple-checks, etc, that the incidence of 'catching' the error goes down as one gets farther along in the multi-check of the product. It is NOT like the first guy misses 5% of the problems, his back-up also misses 5% (5% of 5% means 1/4% gets by), the 2nd back-up misses 5%, etc. We would like to think it works that way, but it does not. There is a point of diminishing returns. That is little comfort if you are on a plane that is going down because of a faulty valve that was missed. Like it or not, it is simply a fact of life. I would fully expect this error is along those lines. Unless PSAG is going to perfect the human creature, this stuff is going to happen. This was (or certainly COULD HAVE BEEN) a very expensive mistake. This should also be a lesson to us that we should know what we are buying and check for ourselves what the experts have claimed. In this case, that part of the process worked.

I agree though: this doesn't look good for PSAG. Also, please remember, we have seen cert errors from all the certifying entities.

I agree with your comments Mooter. There is a reason why the Challenger exploded and why bridges fall down before they are even turned over to the owner. In the end people need to know what happened or public confidence is lost. In the case of the bridge scenario the contractors and engineers and QA/QC team would be lucky to get a new contract for lemonade stand for a decade or two if ever. The best thing to do is to be transparent because people will assume that you are hiding something bad even if you are not unless you are proactive in explaining what happened to the very best of your knowledge.

At least this was "just" a stamp.