I *really* Hate The Way PSE Words Their Certificates!

This thread is an example of experienced members more interested in fighting the grammar structure of the reply instead of the issue at hand.

This is now a typical structure for replies to topics in SCF. Think about it!

My apologies to the members that are replying with replies on topic with no personal attack.

OK, how about:

It is a genuine used R36c, with the perforations TRIMMED off, not a R36a

"It is NOT an R36a as submitted. It is a used R36c, with perforations TRIMMED off."

either one works for me

Having read this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that:

1 - Certs should show the original intent of the submitter (i.e., Submitted as an R36a)
2 - Certs should clearly show whether the original intent is met (i.e., This is NOT an R36a)

Anything else is additional information that would be useful for the submitter or for a potential buyer of such an item, but is not mandatory for the Cert to show. BUT, I also see a need for the submitter or potential buyer to understand what it actually IS. That being the case, it would also be nice to see

3 - Certs should show what the item actually is (i.e., Our opinion is that this is an R36c that has been intentionally or non-intentionally trimmed / modified / cut / torn / soaked / chemically altered / re-gummed / etc.)

I would not even re-state what the item would now appear to mimic (R36a), as that would open a Pandora's box for the submitter to accidentally "lose" the Cert, and then sell it as the item suggested by the Cert.

Just my thoughts, as I have never had any item that warranted a submission.

We can debate the pro and cons of different certifications. The item in question is or it is not. The certificate should say what it is and if altered or damaged. On the other hand no certificate should be issued in any form if counterfeit. The stamp authenticators should take a guide from coin authenticators. It would make it more direct and making opinions that could be mistaken. We hobby did not like the encapsulated stamp unlike coin collectors so it has mostly fell to the wasteside.

I don't think I can be convinced that it matters what stamp (or variety) the submitter thinks it might be. I care only what the expertizer considers it to be, and in what way it may be different that a prototype of that stamp (trimmed, repaired, regummed, etc). Joe Sixpack can submit a thousand Warren G. Harding stamps calling them all Sc US 613, I only care about the ones an expertizer actually thinks are 613. Why should I care about the submitter's original opinion? If I cared, I wouldn't be interested in the expert certificate to begin with.

I think it was Don that pointed out, from a database standpoint, much information can be gleaned by knowing historical quantities of "submitted as" and "actually is".

For example, in an ideal world, if someone tries to query or submit a 613, the PF web site could say, "99 % of all supposed 613's are actually 610's. Are you sure you want to submit this?" Or, "68% of <bluish paper> submissions are actually not bluish paper. Or "88% of presumed 355 flat plate coil submissions are actually fake".

I have seen some certificates for otherwise ugly and very common stamps and wonder why on earth did they pay for a certificate for this? It would be informative if the certificate would say "submitted as <xxx ribbed paper>" or silk paper or double transfer or unlisted color shade or <insert unusual variety here>" instead of only reporting what the stamp actually is.



I'm not sure I understand. I have certificates for some genuine counterfeits (listed in Scott) and I appreciate that they certify them (in many cases the classic postal counterfeits are worth more than the genuine stamps, especially properly used in period). Can you elaborate or clarify your point?

While you are totally free to have your opinion, I suspect you are in a distinct minority about this.

I disagree with this 1000%. Certs most certainly should be issued if an item is a counterfeit (faked, forged, altered, reprinted, fantasy, etc., i.e., "not what it was submitted as") as long as the cert is clear at a glance that it was a negative opinion (different color paper than a clean cert, heavily overprinted in contrasting color the way the PF used to do it).

Negative opinions have as much value as reference material as clean certs. Having the bad items "certified" and available to come up in searches is a very important research tool.

How does the submitter's opinion, of what the stamp might be, factor into the cert service's fee? Isn't the real reason for accepting the submitter's opinion to allow calculating the fee paid with the application? And once the cert service has received that data, is it really best for the service to "bury" that data by omitting it from the cert?

Another way to view the submitter's opinion, and references to it in the final cert is that they serve an educational purpose by showing future readers what people try to do with stamps. After all, PF is a nonprofit educational organization. While the data may be irrelevant to some buyers, it educates others.

I think rlsny's example of his 1b/1d submission is a perfect example of confusion/wording that I hate to see on a cert. I think it should be listed with what the item ACTUALLY is up top, with any notes such as "submitted as in the text at the bottom. If the stamp is forged/faked, I like the big diagonal "WARNING" stamp some agencies use.

Certs and databases do not have to include all the same info. If you want to search a DB for "submitted as X", fine, doesn't mean that also has to go on the cert.

Cert data HAS to be at least a subset of the cert database. But it is true that a cert database can have additional data that is not on a cert.
Don

The fee (at least for the PF) is based on either the cat value or retail value of the item in question. So whatever the item turns out to be is what the cost will be based on. So it might be higher or lower then what the submitter thinks it is.