Two Scott Listed Colors 320 Carmine And 320B Scarlet In One Block Of Four

I saw this in yesterday's Paradise Valley auction and after scratching my head I thought about what a folly collecting color varieties can be (is?).



The description was:






They describe this as two different colors with a PF cert that also assigns two catalog numbers, 320 and 320b. BUT, the cert goes on to state:






So, this is not about two different batches of ink, or an ink mixed incorrectly, or the wrong ink used. It is poor printing. That gives this a distinct color listing in Scott?

What are your thoughts? Do two different colors actually exist that were each printed in their own sheets? Siegel has sold many 320's and 320b's separately. Were they really different colors or just more of the type of printing issue shown in the Paradise block?

A perfect example of where certifying organizations should cert an item for what it IS, rather than stating what it was submitted as, then making the correction in their comments. This would also greatly improve the search value. And I know there are those here with very strong opinions to the contrary to everything I have said in this post.

As the cert says, it is under-inked. It is NOT two separate shades on the same block. It is either an accidental misreading of the cert, or...........

Yes, because it is an illogical approach. It HAS to be done this way because when the item first shows up at the PF, there is NO EXPERT OPINION AS YET. So it must be entered into the system as what it is submitted as. At which time it is given a cert number and scanned. So when that expert opinion is rendered, the system then generates a cert based on that number with the original information it has been given.
So you are asking for double work to change all of the original information simply because some people cannot or choose not to read carefully. Which would also add more time for everyone to wait for certs. And proper searching in the comments section will usually bring up any listings not brought up under the basic catalog number.

revcollector,
We have all heard your opinions before. They have been discussed here before and are not reflective of the way any competent database designer would build a modern database. There is no reason why the "submitted as" field has to remain the primary "reporting field" at the point of issuing a certificate. A competent design would *not* take more time. Period. I know you have connections to the PF and are williing to die on this hill. I am done with this discussion unless others wish to ask. Happy holidays.

Then volunteer to build a new database. Or get someone to do so, or pay for one, which is expensive. Especially for a non profit.

That PF cert is clear as mud and apparently Paradise thought so as well. The top of the cert assigns two catalog numbers, but both have "carmine" next to them. It then goes on to describe two different colors for the top and bottom pairs. THEN it has wiggle words about "appearance" and "underinked". In my old field of construction management and engineering that is what is known as a "trainwreck". The submitter is asking for an opinion. Fine. When you issue the cert why not just state what you found it to be or have a field for "submitted as". It makes zero sense to me.

You do realize that this cert is 26 years old, right? None of the people involved are working there at this point. So complaining about it seems like a bit of a waste of time.

Has it changed?

I certainly think it has. Of course I sign on some of them.

@John Becker -100%! I cannot stand certs that have the incorrect "submitted-as" number. Modern PSE certs have the "correct" number. the PF will provide a "correct cert" if you ask when you submit. This has nothing to do with databases or technology. It is a policy - not anything to do with what is possible. This problem along with dealers and auction houses who describe damaged/altered stamps as "expertly" regummed/reperfed are my top pet peeves in stamp collecting.

Sorry, this is as nonsensical as the revenue multiple cert stating some stamps are silk and some are not. Makes zero sense as it is one piece of paper that is either silk, or is not.

As Rogdcam points out, the ink is the same on all 4 stamps.




Simply put, they got it wrong.

As for database issues... In the dBase III+ days, this was a 5 minute fix.

The ink is the same, but apparently at some point the bottom pair probably got exposed to a light source that the top pair did not, which affected the color. Something we have all seen at one time or another.
Silk paper multiples are described that way to prevent people from breaking it up and selling silk paper stamps that have no threads. Which would open up a major can of worms that is better left closed. How long does anyone think it would take for stamps without threads but with 1870 or later cancels to start coming in for certs? And how loud would the screams be when they were not certified?

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

The block was submitted as silk, and it is 100% silk at the time of submission.

It is really that simple.

If I submit an R55d pair for a cert, and one has obvious silk fibers and one does not, do I get a cert with "one R55c and one R55d"? Does that equal a 25SCV of $450, or $200.60?

[q][The block was submitted as silk, and it is 100% silk at the time of submission.

It is really that simple./q]

You are free to think so as long as it is not broken up. But the cert will say otherwise, whether you think it cuts it or not. It is the only way to prevent a serious and obvious problem. And you would not have to deal with that problem. Many years ago the people who did have to deal with the problem decided that this was the way to solve it. Can't please everyone every time. The PF creates more than 10,000 certs a year, and occasionally decisions on some types of material have to be made.

PF has certainly been wrong before, and will continue to contradict themselves and others on like items for future submissions. It is also not blasphemy to call them out for it. They should reconsider and reissue certs when appropriate.

I get they have to draw a line sometimes, but it is difficult to justify some of these decisions simply based on what might happen in the future.

The silk block is 100% silk, regardless of what may or may not happen in the future.

The OP can't be two shades of color either. It could be cut apart and now we have a situation just like the silk. They shouldn't have issued the cert because they can't guarantee it will stay intact.

One of the two cert decisions contradicts the other thought process.

Or am I missing something?