PSE Certs With Questionable Details

I am far from an expert on essays, but weren't some essays created on gummed paper? If so, I would interpret the language as saying that this particular essay was never created on gummed paper, so the lack of gum is not to be perceived as a negative.




Conversely, PSE has issued some horrifically inaccurate certs in the last decade when it comes to U.S. revenue stamps... so bad that under no circumstances would I ever send revenue stamps to PSE for a cert. They only use inhouse expertizers and do not consult experts like Eric Jackson, Richard Friedberg, and Ron Lesher, so based on PSE's track record, I do not trust any of their verdicts.

I also loathe their choice of wording on certs. Instead of labeling faked part perf revenues as what they were submitted as, they instead label them as "genuine" c's with perfs trimmed off. The use of the word "genuine" is highly misleading. The PF's method of putting a large red "WARNING" overprint across the cert and wording the stamps as what they were submitted as is infinitely better.

Example below. Instead of wording it as a "genuine R33c" it should be worded as a faked R33b IMO. If someone is looking at this stamp, they are looking at it as a possible R33b, not an R33c. The word "genuine" should not appear ANYWHERE on this cert.

A search of the PF database turned up no certificates for the above items.

rogdcam wrote:

Indeed, some were. But generally speaking, no. If we were talking about, say, the Bowlsby coupon essays which were gummed only on the stamp portion, missing gum would be a big deal. (See image.)


I hear you, but then I would ask "why mention gum at all?" It introduces what can be perceived as a variable when there is none to be considered. And in the case of the $2 essay, the second item I illustrated... "It's a model after all ", so screams my thoughts. So "issuance" and "gumming" bear no mention. So that's my cert-newbie/layman's reaction to the appearance of "NGAI" or "MNGAI" on that and similar archival items.

Just a note to say that the first two items posted by the OP are for the rare 1998 "H" nondenominational stamp.



It appears the wrong description and photo got attached to the wrong certificate.

I was able to find a past Shreves sale in 2005 of the Turner 21a and 36a examples above with no certificates at that time.





https://stampauctionnetwork.com/f/f7447.cfm

Truthfully, the only reason to get a cert on either of these essays is for condition. They are what they are, and as posted above, they are listed in Turner's book. Anyone collecting revenue essays would be expected to know about that book (anyone paying those prices would likely be a serious collector already). Since some essays do have gum, it's not terrible to mention that a particular one was issued without gum, although it really is not needed. Much more important to mention the gum on those items where it belongs.

I've been leery of PSE certs, based on misgivings I'd heard here and elsewhere. I actually enjoyed having a look at this one real example:



The strip in question, when one bothers to put a perforation gauge to the patient, is clearly not perf. 10, but perf. 8.5 which would make this a Sc. 412.

Admittedly, from 2001 when I gather they were having some real troubles, but still! Not sure how PSE could ever regain trust, at least my trust.

Yes, I do have some stamps with PSE certs, but very few are unsupported by PF certs, and in the few cases where I only have a PSE cert, it is for something that to me is pretty obvious.

1typesetter, thanks for the pic and explanation. Didn't know what you meant at first by the "hat" stamp.

Looked through at least 50 pages of their listings for US proofs. There were many identifications of shaved & perfed proofs — attempts at faking mint stamps from reprint card proofs. In all cases, "fake" was capitalized, so I think there's great value in those certs. Same when fake grills were noted.

Saw many items where I thought to myself, "good catch!" regarding faults and deceptive alterations.

To err is human, etc., but given the brevity of each opinion/description I have a hard time understanding how spelling errors could slip through. There's even one in revenuecollector's cert shown at the top of this page.

One item had me really scratching my head: a Trans-Missisippi small die proof described as "genuine small die proof on wove paper of unknown origin."

Learning how to see these is partially study and partially having a major expert take you under his wing. I have been extremely fortunate in that regard for many years, and wish that was true for more collectors.

I just ran across this while browsing Rupp listings. A 454 pair certified as a joint line pair by PSE and a regular pair by PF. No small difference given that the CV for a straight pair is $350 and $850 for a joint line pair.

It certainly looks drawn in from the photo.......

"Genuine" and "line drawn in" in the same sentence. I'd think that genuineness becomes a moot point given the forged joint line, no?

What kind of value would a forged joint line pair hold?

[edited to remove prior stupidity]

Right. Saw that. But would a straight pair with a forged joint line be worth $350? I'm thinking $.25 for the fun of it.

Sorry for misunderstanding the question essay_proof. IMO the pair that was altered is worth nothing now. It isn't like perfs were fixed. The stamp was actually defaced. That being said the pair is being offered for the price of the non-joint line pair catalog value and it will no doubt be purchased. Perhaps by someone that will "lose" the PF certificate.