Proposed Merger Of The APS And Asda

When did he resign from ASDA?

I've only been an APS member for 10 years. Being overseas, I used only two parts of the organisation, the journal and the store, as nothing else is available to me.

I feel so strongly about the route the APS is taking with Hipstamp and ASDA, that I won't be renewing my membership.

I'll be very interested to see how the membership projection pans out!

Neither am I and for the same reasons. I will put the APS dues money towards donations to this forum and Stamp Smarter which which I get infinitely more out of.

According to Linn's, Mr. Epting announced his resignation, effective immediately, in an email to the other board members on Nov. 5.

I agree with all Scott's comments, except any comments suggesting that a merger should proceed. For me, nearly all the concerns expressed in this thread congeal around one observation: the designation "ASDA" has ceased to act as a viable certification mark for a quality stamp dealer. I believe APS is overstating the present value of the ASDA brand. In the proposal to designate the merged entity as "American Stamp Dealers Alliance," having the last word beginning with "A" appears to be an attempt to retain the ability to use the ASDA bug or badge. I feel this is a mistake given the lack of confidence of the collector community in the meaning of that mark.

On the positive side, Scott's comments about improving relationships with dealers are quite good.

APS would be better off pursuing a non-merger alternative:

• Conceive and adopt an independent badge of dealer quality


• Improve APS' existing dealer relations functions and services in the manner Scott has suggested in prior comments


• Offer a discount on APS dealer membership, or another incentive, to present ASDA dealer members who are not APS members, to try to move the "good ones" over from ASDA to APS


• Explain how real enforcement of dealer quality standards will occur


• Expand outreach to collectors about how to identify, work with, and resolve problems with dealers concerning purchases or material, being unafraid of addressing uncomfortable or negative issues such as the presence of fake or deceptive material in the market--this will require the courage to "name names"

To an extent, this implicitly adopts the suggestions of Don and Cephus on mergers; let the old organization go, and offer people connected with it a new opportunity in the new organization. If they pass, no hard feelings, but let's not worry about or try to integrate an organization that failed in its mission. APS has a role to play in identifying quality dealers and educating collectors about dealers, but relying on the ASDA brand would be a misstep.

We all comment here based on individual frames of reference. Mine is as a branding professional. Internet platforms like Hipstamp and ebay want the platform to matter to the consumer, and not the seller or the seller's brand. To an extent, Hipstamp and ebay seek a world without brands so that buyers have confidence in the platform alone and don't care about the true seller. In that world, badging quality dealers, backed by real enforcement, is the buyer's only bulwark against platforms that seek to hide the failings of sellers.

I think the issue of the brand and IP surrounding the ASDA periodical, which could be argued the best asset the ASDA has, remains a legitimate justification for discussion.
Don

Edit: Would the ASDA periodical, coupled with a new online presence, be a reasonable foundation to build a new organization under the APS umbrella?

I think this entire thing is just a debacle. APS and ASDA are opposing ideologies as everyone before has stated.

Getting into the weeds a little:
I think in an online marketplace, the value of a "seal of approval" on the dealer side, is a marketing gimmick at best. At worst you just get ripped off, like from any other seller. Personally I don't trust any dealers. Nor should you, until they earn it. Nearly every dealer has tried to sell something misdescribed, intentional or not. Even well respected auction houses make mistakes. Let's face it. You need to do your own full due diligence.

Solutions... Ok-
What I do trust, is a recent expertization certificate alongside the stamp. If you want to make things REAL, you require all dealers who sell stamps over $100 USD to accompany their wares with a valid certificate in the last decade or they lose ASDA. This is where credibility comes in. If you get ripped off for <$100, then you move on with life, or deal with the 1x occurence through the site/dealer reconciliation process. Expertizing adds credibility (and cost), but a deal is worked to provide discounting for ASDA members to expertize. The expertizers will welcome the new volume deluge, so it starts to become a win/win of helpful business growth. Customers now trust this process.

Otherwise it's no different than yelp restaurant reviews getting bought by "positive review" spam engines.

Absolutely not.

Given that the minimum cost on any legit cert is roughly $30, you've effectively required that the dealer be noncompetitive with non-ASDA competition at that minimum threshold.

$500 or $1,000, ok I'm willing to listen, but requiring certs at $100 is completely unreasonable IMO.

And this is exactly where the APS expertizing service could fill a void and offer discounted certification services for lower cv items. I don't know of a lot of $200 items that require months of examination and high technology. Some perhaps but not enough to warrant a blanket higher cost for all certificates. And let's face it, cert fees are based on averaging out costs over all levels of difficulty when certifying. Some $1000 items take minutes and some take hours.

It should not be insurmountable task to find some compromises in certifying at a fee that makes it work for lesser catalog values.

One of the main problems might well be the cost of shipping items back and forth in an accountable/safe manner.

Required certs? Get real. So If I go to a show and sell an uncerted plate block of zepps to a dealer, they could not sell it to the next customer, but would have to send it in for a cert, taking weeks and tying up their money before being able to offer it. Not workable at all.

A block of zepps is a poor example given that it is obviously not a single stamp which is much more prone to reperforation, regumming, hinge thins etc. You don't see many certified Zep blocks at Siegel but you sure as heck see the singles certified and they all came from, you guessed it, intact multiples. Even then though a cert for the block will only add value and I would get one PRIOR to presenting it to a dealer.

There will be many more comments regarding what CAN"T be done instead of what CAN be done and that just leads to maintaining the status quo which is not an option.

PS: I'll take a cert over a silly logo/badge every single time.

PPS: Buyers will still be free to buy from dealers that sell uncertified material. Some people love to gamble, and others can't resist a "bargain".

Actually it's the insurance costs that drive cert fees. Most items sent in for a cert do not require "hours" of work.

Well then ASDA could require a disclaimer be put on the item, that states: No certificate is available or known for this and is best described by the dealer AS/IS. (whatever). This requires the dealer to at least have done a search for outstanding certificates, and/or/not misrepresent. If you want the badge validation, somehow you have to earn it with every sale. I am not saying mistakes don't happen, but something has to give, and the scores of feedback loops have to mean something. Also we are talking individual sales. I think when you buy collections/etc you follow auction rules of getting what you get. I am trying to find middle ground.

This informs the buyer that they get what they get... Which is sort of the case now, but adds transparency that the onus is on the buyer to accept. Which really it is, but I would think a good dealer would have no problem articulating they are selling indeed exactly what they proclaim to be.

I think it should be a requirement that any dealer should allow for the buyer to obtain a cert, and get full refunds... yadayada. This is all about trust worthiness, and it's something earned...

I am not implying I have the solution, just trying to explore the scenarios...

Excellent point. I hadn't even gotten that far in my analysis, focusing instead on how untenable it would be to require certs on $100-300 items.

A requirement like this would actually cause dealers to avoid becoming a member, as it would likely paralyze their cash flow. Being forced to tie up money for 1-3 months before even being able to offer an item is beyond unreasonable. You would either kill membership/adoption, or dealers would circumvent the policy in stealth, which defeats the entire purpose.

EDIT: I think one has to be causeful about coming up with a myriad of onerous hoops to force dealers to jump through, as the point is for dealers to WANT to be part of said organization, not eschew it.