Philatelic Foundation Database And Submission Research

Please let me know if correct.
The basic formula for each stamp in PF's database is this:
1st: COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
2nd: The submitter's personal assessment
3rd: The final verdict according to the PF

Also apparent:
The Scott number (written in by the submitter) does not change, even if the PF deems it to be something else.
For example, if you search for a Scott # 63a in the database, they will show you a list of both 63a's that they deemed to be GENUINE, and stamps labeled 63a by the submitter that weren't given the "a" variety by the PF.
It would look like this:



I asked a question recently on here about whether or not the PF will specify a stamp's variety even if the submitter failed to label it as such.
According to the formula used in this database, it should be easy to find the answer by simply locating a verdict that would resemble the following:

----------------------------------------
63 1861 1c blue
----------------------------------------
AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A 63, RATHER, IT IS A 63a, ULTRAMARINE*********

Or...

----------------------------------------
157 1873 2c brown
----------------------------------------
AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A 157, RATHER, IT IS A 157a, ON DOUBLE PAPER*********


I searched through hundreds of pages of #63 and hundreds of pages of Bank Note issues. There were many submissions that claimed to be varieties in color, paper type, double impressions etc. which were 'knocked down' by the PF, but none like the two examples I typed above.

It's not like they wouldn't know, as they go to great lengths in mentioning even the slightest crease or tear. They are examining each piece very closely, and should be able to recognize most varieties without any extensive lab work.
Here are two "dot in U" 63 varieties:




One was prelabeled as such by the submitter, the other wasn't. In fact, every "dot in U" I found (which are very easy for anybody to find from a picture) that wasn't labeled as such by the submitter did not have the variety included on its certificate.

So I would like your opinions on this, or if you could provide a picture that shows a variety being included that adds value to what the submitter originally requested, it would be very helpful.

IMO what you are seeing reflects the reality of people sending stamps in for certificates that they think are a valuable type, whether faked/altered or misidentified, when they are actually the more common stamp. Human nature dictates folks running to submit when they think they have hit the jackpot.

All that means is that there have not been any specific examples such as you are looking for submitted. I am sure that if they found such a stamp, it would be stated on the cert.

Did not have time earlier but figured that grills would provide an example of a PF finding to a scarcer stamp.

This 85 turned out to be a 85C, Z grill:



http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

The example rogdcam shows illustrates the poor communication of the PF's certificates.

I have contended several times here (and gotten push-back), that the title line of any certificate should be issued for what the stamp actually IS determined to be, and not what someone guessed at when they submitted it as a treasure hunt.

The above 85/85C example should have been certified on the main title line as an 85C which it is, then perhaps mention "submitted as 85" in the fine print of the analysis. Certs like these are bass-ackwards and just plain poor communication.

Similarly, the first stamp in the original post should have been certed in the title line as a 63, and not have the actual ID buried in the comments - regardless of the submitter's guess.

It sure would make searching much more direct and efficient by only needing to search the "what is it actually" field. Scott 613, the "good" black Harding is another example of having to look through dozens of mis-IDs to find the actual examples, but I am sure I will soon be told I am wrong.

I agree with you John. The current methodology is illogical.

The only way to enter an item into the PF system to be expertized is by whatever cat number it is sent in as. THEN after it is entered and scanned, the experts will examine it and determine what it is.
All anyone has to do is search The Final and Submitted Comments section down at the bottom of the search page, and anyone can see all the stamps submitted as a given cat number that are actually something else.

I just conducted a search for Scott 85C using all three of the key word search choices. Each one turned up the exact same results in the exact same order. On the first page 10 opinions were listed, each one with "85C" in the "Cat. No." field. Five of these were actually not "85C's" and were so noted in the comments. There is no way to call up clean search results for all actual "85C's". The same applies to all other permutations. It makes no sense really.

Funny thing, I was told offline that revcollector would be the one to reply first to defend the PF database.

There is no reason why the submitter's ID cannot be in a secondary field, then when the ID is actually established, it will become the primary field. Whoever designed the database fields and input process had poor design skills to think about how to get logical data out of it. As rodgcam points out, the absence of any ability to get a clean search out of the database. It does not easily met the needs of the customers.

Who would ever design and populate a database with the most asked for field full of errors? If they paid a consultant for the database design, they should get a refund.

The catalog number cannot be a Primary key in a database since it is not a unique number. Typically, you add an 'ID' field as the Primary key field and let the database assign its own unique ID numbers. And you almost always keep this ID field hidden from users since they do not need to know it and the DB indexes on it.
Don

I agree with Don's better phrasing and description. My use of "primary field" would be the first field the searcher would see, beyond any hidden internal fields.

I have never had a problem with finding anything I wanted to as long as a cert had been issued. My understanding is that the certificate program was created some time ago; creating a new one would certainly not be cheap. Perhaps all the people who think it so terrible will pitch in and donate enough for a new one.

I put 85C in the Catalog number equals and got 291 certs. When I put it in "begins with" I got 297 certs. When I put 85C in the final comments I got 75 certs. No system is perfect, as I said it is older and I am sure the PF would love to get those donations.

I have previously offered to take a look at their DB and if I feel it is feasible, I volunteered to redo it for them.
Don

Well, then you have to talk to Larry Lyons about it. He is the Executive Director.

I see 2 parts to the poor communication relating to PF certificates - the certificate wording as well as the database.