PSE Certs With Questionable Details

In another thread on the topic of certs, I was led to the cert database on StampSmarter.
https://goscf.com/t/83158&whichpage=3#764919
My first search was for "essay" just to see what kinds of items collectors have submitted for certification. As a long-time collector and student of 19th-century US essays, I've come across very few fakes (save for some very obvious ones on ebay over the past 9 months or so). Given that most essays are immediately identifiable for what they are, I was curious to see what kinds of items collectors would think to (or need to) have certified.

Unfortunately, it didn't take long to find three certs with erroneous details. Below are images of three PSE certs and my explanations of what's wrong with them. I'm having a hard time understanding how the info on these certs could be so far off the mark, or how any specialist would get the details so wrong.

This first item has an issue date of 1998 (should be ca. 1870), denomination of "H (20c)" — whatever that means — when clearly it's a $1 denomination, and color "yellow & multi" when clearly it's blue and brown.


This next item has the same incorrect data, though in this case it's a $2 denomination, clearly written on the face of the item:


This last item isn't quite as badly described but still... A specialist would know that this item was produced sometime closer to 1863 than 1867. That aside, why would an essay ever be described as "no gum as issued"?


Any insights into the expertising process that may explain these descriptions would be most appreciated.

For a bit of context, were those three out of hundreds, or three out of dozens, or three out of a handful?

Hi Cjd, those were 3 out of no more than 7 essay certs I looked at, all PSE.

Have you contacted them and given them a chance to respond?
Don

Hi Don, no, not yet. I wanted to get some input/insights from collectors who are more familiar with expertizing conventions. After reading through the thread linked to in my post, I got the feeling that "cert-speak" cannot always be interpreted literally.

Understood.
Note that while I feel that transparency, access, and accuracy is always important, my fear here that I am asked to pull the entire database down.
Don

Edit: I know they are aware of errors in some of the older certs and this was why they did not want me to publish older certs.

Don, just to make my intentions clear, I posted this out of curiosity, not to upbraid PSE. But I can see how my post might be taken that way. If you feel it best to take down the post I'll totally understand. No problem. Meanwhile, I will reach out to them and ask.

I'm not wedded to it, either.

I hope all turns out well, these organization typically are not proficient with revisions to existing cert unless they are recently issued. I have an 10 year-old email chain regarding an incorrect PF cert where it was promised by PF that it would be revised/removed. Yet to this day it remains. I assume that these organizations do not have the resources (or tools) to handle older revisions.

I do wish that they all would put a big, bold note on their websites and certs that the certs have a 'shelf life'. While the above certs might not fit into the category, as time passes the knowledge base increases and more examples become available for comparison. For me, I have less and less confidence as a cert date gets older.
Don

I collect U. S. postage stamps 1847-1922 and over the years have found very few errors on PSE certs for postage stamps of that period. I also use the PSE cert database on StampSmarter provided by Lorry and Don and greatly appreciate the transparency it provides. I do not have any expertise in U. S. essays and proofs so cannot comment on the veracity of the mentioned certs but do think calling PSE about this would be a good idea.

I am not sure how PSE's software works, but the information on the first two certificates is for the unissued "HAT" stamp. As those two items do not have a Scott number they may have tried to use a default no Scott number entry. The third item most likely got the 1867 year date as it is associated with Scott 79 which was issued in 1867

I cleaned up the editorializing, so now we just have a clinical discussion about the errors.

Don, I took your lead and wrote to the PSE about two of the items (along with some of my background) and asked if they could clarify.

The first two items are listed in the Turner catalog of US essays & proofs for revenue stamps. I'll double-check my notes re a dating for the 3rd item (3¢ typographed). Still, I'm curious about why that essay would be described as (Mint No Gum) As Issued.

[edited for clarification]

51 wrote:



And in recent years, renewed scholarship has shed new light on many archival items.

Here's a little more insight into my interest into the certification process... I'm sure you're all aware of the immense amount of prior chatter about the proposed APS/ASDA merger. On the topics of buying with confidence online and expertising, one of the things Scott English wrote about was the "aging pool of experts" and how some of those shoes need to be filled. It made me wonder if there was something I could bring to the table in that regard. I'm aging, but not that quickly LOL! And while I am certainly not as qualified as someone like Jim Lee to expertise US essays, I wondered if maybe, just maybe, I might have enough experience to throw my hat into that ring. Niche? Yes. But if there's a shoe to fill in that regard, I'd be open to try and fill it while also being well-aware of my limitations.

So with that in mind, when I looked at those PSE certs, the "heck, I could do better than that!" thought popped into my head. But as I said at the outset, cert nomenclature may have its own rules that I'm simply unaware of, and which might explain (e.g.) why MNGAI is perfectly applicable to an essay. Have I stumbled upon a flaw in the way these things are described, or is it that I just not know any better? That is the question.

I would be curious if there are other non-essay certs from the 2013 period that have the same issue. And it would be interesting to see if the paper certs have the error or just the digital certs.

With incorrect certs, issued by any organization, you have to wonder about the people who are in procession of them. Of course, some owners do not have the depth of knowledge to know better. And some owners are probably satisfied with those certs which are incorrect but in their favor.

But after 10 or more years, you would think some of the owners would become aware of the issues and seek clarification/correction. So wonder if these specific examples have been re-certed by other organizations over the years?
Don