Proposed Merger Of The APS And Asda

If one is looking for more than a US based solutionor, there is the Internet Philatelic Dealers Association at https://www.ipdastamps.com/.

Scott made the comment about paying too much for common stamps but that is where education comes into play and do not think selling a common stamp at a high price can be considered grounds for dismissal if properly described. There are no standards for terms like rare. scare, etc. For those horror stories, if they were APS members then the APS can focus on member education. Outside of APS, there is not much one can do.

Scott, it is one thing for the APS to rescue the individual survivors from the sinking of the ASDA and it is another to try to float their sinking boat. Personally, my vote is for an individual rescue mission under APS rules saving those we can who want saved under our rules on a case by case basis. Under NO circumstances should the APS pay a dime to the ASDA.

If we went forward, ASDA membership is not a guarantee of APS membership. Circumventing the Code of Ethics or the bylaws isn't negotiable.




I've also been clear that I would not recommend it to the Board for action until we do a financial review to show this is a sustainable proposition through membership dues and other income/assets.

Scott

Except that describing a very common stamp as "scarce" or "rare" is not "properly describing them". It is borderline fraudulent. There might not be an exact definition of either scarce or rare, but using the quantities issued is certainly a start. Stamps issued in the hundreds of millions or billions should never be listed as scarce or rare, and doing so should be a clear violation.

IMO policing language is a slippery slope. The determination as to what is "rare" or "scarce" can be very subjective, open to interpretation, and extremely difficult to police without extensive knowledge.

For example, a very common stamp (e.g., Scott R15c) may have a legitimitely "rare" cancel, or be on a document that is a "very scarce" usage, or have a "scarce" plate variety. Are we now going to parse listing language to determine whether the use of "rare" or "scarce" was intended to apply to the stamp used, the item as a whole, or one particular aspect?

No, IMO this type of policing isn't either feasible or effective.

Also, as with coins, the number issued is not as important as the number extant, which is far more nebulous.

For some items, a number issued of 200,000 might be extremely common, bot for others extremely scarce.

Morevover, expecting sellers to know or look up quantities issued of stamps (when in many cases that data is not known) and then use that information to determine what adjectives to use is unreasonable IMO.

But in that case the description would show that, and not simply be "rare old stamp worth thousands", like we can see every day on ebay. If cleaning up misleading and fraudulent posts is part of the plan, then those must be included.

If hundreds of millions or billions were issued, even a relatively low percentage survival rate will still be millions of examples. I am not talking about relatively small printings which happen to have a large survivor population, I am talking about people who put up used examples of 300, or 599, etc and call them rare. Or 1036, or 1213, etc. Things that will never be rare short of a world wide nuclear holocaust.

The ASDA could immediately state all dealers will follow the APS code of ethics as a first step. Does that take a bylaws change by ASDA?

There's no such thing as paying too much. All sales are between an interested buyer and an interested seller. If the interested buyer is willing to pay 10x catalog value for a stamp, whose business is it to stop him? It's one thing if the seller is making spurious statements about their stamps, that's fraud, but so long as it's described accurately and there is no coercion, who can sat what is "too much" in a voluntary sales environment?

Yet there's nothing that the APS or ASDA can do about what happens on ebay. We can report fraudulent sellers, as we should, but we can't force all sellers to be part of any organization and we can't stop those who are not members from using less-than-honest tactics. It would be great if someone could, but as has been pointed out, there's a lot of nuance that needs to be weighed between "purposely fraudulent" and "innocent ignorance". How do you prove one or the other is going on?

So if someone pays $500 for a used #300 worth .25, that's OK by you. Just calling that stamp rare, which is all but guaranteed, makes it fraudulent.

If a fool somebody is so dense that they go on ebay without any knowledge of the subject they are dabbling in and take an anonymous seller's word that a non-misidentified item is rare, and they throw their cash at that seller perhaps they need a Darwin Award instead of transactional recourse.

And chances are 100% that they are not dealing with a seller flying the APS flag since that seller would not be claiming that a $1 item is rare and worth $300 in the first place. At least that is the hope.

In no way do I disagree with that, but we all know that such people exist in the world. And I would consider it just as unethical to stand by and allow it to happen if there is some way to prevent it as the person doing it is being unethical.

I assume when Scott E. mentioned the collectors complaining that they were APS members. If so, this means APS could do a lot more could do lot more in terms of educating buyers about online sellers in the monthly journal. It may be viewed as too negative. But this does not mean they have to merge with ASDA to do it. I remember all the letters from people upset for paying near catalog for stamps then get offers at 10% or less when they want to sell. They had an illusion of an investment.

I subscribe to the local county sheriff community watch email and they report scams, crimes, etc. and warn people about scams. But, there are people that continue to leave valuables in cars and respond to scams where they are asked to pay immediately in gift cards to avoid arrest.

Morning Scott and all.

Paying any amount of money to the ASDA is not called for. It is a dead organization. Their financial woes should remain just that not a burden on the APS. I do not think ten years from now stating a firm is a former member of the ASDA has much or any intrinsic value to that firm or the APS. Why pay for something without value?

Look forward to picking up a few new APS dealer members who openly agree to following the APS code of ethics in the future. We cannot change past conduct but can deny membership into the APS for past transgressions. Following the APS rules is the law of this land.

The term "rare" should never appear in any philatelic advertisement period. The primary purpose of using this word is to entice folks to pay more than something is worth.

Yes, the true value of anything is the price a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller at any point in time. That being said the buyer and seller are the only two players in the transaction who must be satisfied it is a "fair" price.