Philatelic Foundation Database And Submission Research

Yes, this PF-bashing has reached an uncomfortable level for me as well. I am extremely thankful that more than a decade ago several PF supporters funded the development of the PF certificate database, giving the U. S. stamp collector community its first access to any certificate history. It could definitely stand improvement and some PF practices need modernization, but many others and I have learned how to live with the limitations.

An example: if you sent in a stamp as a 482a, that's what it is considered to be until the experts decide it is not. So the PF insurance rates are based on that. That is it's assigned value if anything happens to it. It doesn't matter that it's really a 409.

No I haven't submitted anything to them. I'm pushing so hard because I honestly believe that if these problems are addressed, the hobby will see a whole new healTheir and happier type of collector.

I'm terrible at finding the right words to say without offending people!
So forget everything I said before and just acknowledge this:

This is what's said in their website-




Now, Look at yours and Don's websites compared to the PF's. The knowledge is expressed in detail with clear pictures and an obvious passion for the hobby. It's enjoyable to visit and benefits the community, immensely on both accounts. Anytime I'm inspecting revenues, your website is my #1 go-to.
Now look at the PF's database. It's limited to one-sided scans of mediocre quality, and nothing is explained except what they themselves deem as genuine or not.

As it stands, the database certainly doesn't help the submitter "become the professional", but it does ensure that the submitter's opinion is always inferior to the PF's.
The benefit of maintaining a reputation such as being the "Golden Standard" is that no one can speak ill against it.

This is a Catch-22.
"They do not need to adjust their website because they are the Golden Standard, and are considered as such because of a consensus that they alone establish as true."

Thank you for the clarification, Bart.
I think it's a reasonable observation for a typical company, but they're unique in that they assign the value of what's to be compensated. Correlate this with the contents of their ToS and they're protected on all fronts regardless of what happens.
Let me explain:

They're able to expertize something at any time, so if it's submitted as a 423b, they can declare it to be a 409 and use that for compensation.

If the submitter sends in a 482a as a 409 and it gets damaged, they legally aren't required to examine it because they "reserve the right to decline examination on any item at any time."

Also,
What constitutes 'damage'; total destruction or a micro-tear?
Will they be open about it or does the submitter have to file a claim?
If damage does occur, couldn't they just claim it was done by the mail carrier?

We have to pay additional money for insurance and yet there's no way to prove if it was even them or not. And not just any damage... They are cleared of liability from any damage caused by the PF whatsoever that wasn't an "act of gross negligence", which is completely subjective.

This again, is a Catch-22.
Legally speaking, they are not required to do anything if they choose not to, which is probably why they don't specify an actual reason.
(Indeed, other people on here have come to different conclusions as to what it's for).

At any time? Not in transit, not while it is being scanned and entered into the system. They can only view the item AFTER that has taken place.




I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether this is true or not. Or what the ramifications are in that event.

I had no idea that it was supposed to do so. I have always thought that the purpose of the website was to show every item that has been submitted, and to show every opinion rendered on those items. As for the scans, each one takes a certain amount of time. And time is money. How many scans of each item would satisfy you? 2? 10? Who is going to pay for the extra time to make many thousands of extra scans every year?

This is silly.

Please try to understand it as if you were completely new to the hobby with no feelings one way or the other:

The PF controls much of the consensus by being viewed as "the authority" by collectors en masse. This means that collectors have little choice but to take them at their word, or be mocked if they state otherwise (as we've clearly seen in this thread).

The amateur collector feels varying levels of pressure when sending their stamp in, because the money they enclose in a way is conflated with what they HOPE it to be. They certainly don't want to offend the Expert Committee by low-balling the price, but they also desperately want the Expert Committee to see what they may be seeing in their stamp.
The money submitted is the only way for the submitter to be honest in what they think they have, and simultaneously is also an expression of their expectations.

People often get upset at the treasure hunters on here, but a system like this essentially creates them. It forces the submitter to focus on and research the stamp's value in connection to it's type every single time. When submitters with substantially low levels of knowledge do this, they'll inadvertently be directed to all the various types it COULD be...

When the requirements of submission exist as they do, and the database isn't geared at helping you understand better, they can't be considered the "Golden Standard" because it naturally creates a form of gaslighting.
1+1=2

One of those two things must change in order for them to be considered 'genuinely' trustworthy.
And if both of them changed it would revolutionize the entire hobby.

This is not just my opinion but is the rudimentary truth of the matter.

Your version of the truth.




How do you know what they feel? They think they have a certain stamp, so they send it in for an opinion. If you want to blame someone, instead of blaming the PF website, which they probably don't even know about, blame the millions of matchbook covers, magazine and newspaper ads used as advertising which show a one cent Fourth Bureau and scream about the six figures it is worth. Without bothering to mention that there are 6 or 8 other stamps that will look exactly the same to beginners and non collectors. And forgetting to mention that several were issued in the billions and are worth nothing.

Bear in mind that the database is simply an add-on (and a generous one) to a core function. Out of interest, I glanced at the Royal Philatelic Society's website. The RPSL has issued around 230,000 certificates over the past 130 years. As far as I can tell, none of these is available via the web, and I can't imagine anyone there wishing to scan and upload them. So perhaps be grateful for what the PF's provided, gratis at that.

I just had a barley kale bowl with sweet potatoes and dried cranberries. Amazing!

That's deeply distressing. I'm cooking calf's liver, bacon, onion, chips and washing it down with a claret. Happy to send food parcels if times are hard.

Keep the food...send the claret, please.