Deception Of Regummed And Reperforated Stamps

Here is the POP report for 612 (and others). As Mooter points out there are many MNH to choose from. I was shocked to see three DG/RG/NG stamps recorded. Why?

interesting that the population report includes one example of OG for the #613...

Why would anyone even bother to grade a 613........

Think about it for one second. If say the PSE grading system/definitions were to be universally adopted, all previous graded certs by PF (etc) would be invalid. PF would never go for this.

Aside from software measured centering it would be difficult to remove subjectivity from the grading process. Color, how short a perf or perfs is/are, gum state, crispness of impression, cancels in the case of used stamps etc. would be a bear to try and regulate. And having things too controlled would obviate leanings in a particular direction for large ($$$) clients. Not that it happens.

Has there ever been a live demonstration of grading a stamp at a show or videos made? PF/PSE provide descriptions of the process, but it would be interesting to watch the process actually executed.

In regards to software measured centering, I've been using one of the retail versions for many years and don't think I have ever gotten a stamp back from grading that matched the software grade. The good news is that almost always, the final grade received by PSE or others is higher than what I get with my grading app.

The PF uses a popular grading software that I cannot mention on this forum due to prior indiscretions on their part.

There IS a consensus grading standard for US Stamps. The PF, PSE, Scott, PSAG all grade the same way with very minor differences. The fact that expertizing agencies make mistakes, or differ on border cases, or that dealers and collectors have varying levels of skill and honesty in grading doesn't mean there isn't a standard. The fact that that some people don't like the standards doesn't negate the fact that US stamps are graded consistently (but not perfectly) where 75=f/vf, 80=vf, 85=vf/xf and so on. Every dealer and auction house that deals in high-quality US Stamps uses the same terminology and the same standards to describe the quality of stamps. It is absurd to claim otherwise. If folks don't like the standard, or think it is applied badly in one case or another, that is another matter.

And a second opinion I've shared before: describing a stamp as "expertly" regummed or reperfed is borderline unethical. It is putting a positive spin on fraud. These are "expertly fraudulent" or "expertly damaged" stamps. I prefer no damaged stamps in my collection, no matter the level of expertise of the damage.

The difference between a grade 95 and 98 or a 98 and 100 isn't normally a minor difference in value. Lots of examples where a stamp sent to PF and PSE come back with different grades. Or a PSAG stamp coming back with a lower grade if sent to PF or PSE.

There may be a consensus, but not so much consistency. I have PSE items that have the old green graded certs that I sent in to have re-graded. They are coming back at least 1 grade lower, sometimes 2 grades lower than what was on the green cert. Looking through graded items for sale, some dealers emphasize if an item has a recent graded cert vs. an older one with pricing accordingly. Not very fair to a new collector that hasn't learned how this works.

Two notes to make.

I just realized that gum condition is the ONLY thing that is not assigned add/deduct points. The gum state is a MODIFIER without numerical value for whatever reason.




This portion of the grade is called eye appeal and is described as:




It could not be more subjective.

Nice to have an expanded explanation.

I had always thought US grading, was simply the accuracy between the
perforation holes, to where the stamp's design sat.

"Eye appeal" covers it succinctly.

However, to have a certificate state a regummed stamp as "Mint"
has me bewildered.

Rod - Equally confounded here. My guess is that the front and back of the patient are being treated separately as when an unused Franklin or Washington stamp from the 19th century is mint with no gum or partial original gum or something else. Completely understandable. The thing is when you consider a short perforation or "weak" color or a slightly mis-registered vignette to be conditions that deduct grade points but deal with gum replacement (which was done to boost value in the first place) as a "modifier", well that makes no sense to me.

They might use the same terminology, but they do not use the same standards. As caspian pointed out, PSAG tends to be more generous.

Re: The eye-appeal 'criteria' quoted above -- good luck trying to integrate that into your stamp grading app!

What I don't like about stamp grading: it 'quantizes' a stamp, whereas stamps are more 'analog' than 'digital'. What I mean is that there are not a finite number of stamp values (aside from the number of dollars and cents from, say, 5% of CV up to, say, 5000% of CV. But the number of grades available for a stamp is limited to (I am not going to ACTUALLY count the number of grades available. This is only a guess. The point is that the number is relatively small.) 30 grades. Stamp 'condition' is a rainbow from worst to best, NOT a series of boxes from worst to best. Most collectors understand this, but the danger is that this obvious fact may someday get lost. There are some Graded 90, OG, NH examples of an issue that are more desirable than other Graded 90, OG, NH examples of the same issue. AND... the specific factor 'weighting' that makes the grading company ding a stamp's grade by one step may be a very minor (or very major) issue to this particular collector. Yet, the stamp is then expected to be priced at the grade that it was given. Because the 'experts' grading is better than a collector's assessment.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen a graded stamp and disagreed with the grade given. This is where I would have graded it higher or lower due to the 'eye appeal' factor, because my 'weighting' of the various factors is different than PSE's or PF's or any of the others'. For the most part I agree with the grades given - we are talking about outliers, but I think it should raise concerns, nonetheless.

We tell new collectors to read the first 20 pages of their catalogues. It's a good practice for all of us to revisit them from time to time. Scott and Unitrade are kissing cousins and they take different approaches to this issue. Gibbons is different, still. There is no consensus.*

Trying to apply a numeric value to "eye appeal" is unnecessary. You know who judges beauty? The beholder. If it looks good, and you like it, buy it. (That's not to say that there is no reason for a cert. That's different.)

I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that a used stamp has to receive a "number" so that someone who has never seen it can invest in it. Or someone who is unsure of their ability to judge eye appeal can feel validated that someone else has said, "yes, you have a cute baby."

* There is some general consensus in terminology of listing a stamp as F VF XF but that's also completely subjective. We all know (some) dealers buy VF and sell XF.