Hierarchy Of Stamp Expertizers 2025

Of all of the stamp expertisers for classic US, organizations o individuals, what is your impression of the rank order whose opinions you trust?

Ok I'll bite.
It may well vary on what area of Classic US is in question.
Of course, all are susceptible to making mistakes, as is the nature of this.

At a high level, in general, in order -

PF (Philatelic Foundation)
PSE
APS , Bill Crowe (maybe comparable. Bill may be better in some areas, less in others)
...
...
PSAG (I have been under impressed with these personally)

I have used the PF, PSE, and Doporto in recent years. I send unusual stuff to the PF. I send items I want graded to PSE. I send 1851-1857 1¢ Franklins to Doporto. For "normal" items where I just want a clean cert, PF and PSE are just as good.

PSE has been sloppy on several occasions: encapsulating stamps I did not ask to be encapsulated, mixing up descriptions/colors of U.S. possessions with the same U.S. Scott number. They have been quick to fix errors like this.

The PF has an annoying practice of listing the catalog number as you submitted it rather than the actual catalog number (rather their opinion on the catalog number). Say you send an item in as a 64 but they think it is a 64b, you get a cert that lists 64 as the catalog number and an opinion that "it is not a 64, but rather a 64b" - so you end up with certs you have to "correct."

Doporto is an expert in the 1¢ Franklin, and his certs are better and less expensive than the alternatives for that issue.

The PF has an annoying practice of listing the catalog number as you submitted it rather than the actual catalog number (rather their opinion on the catalog number).

That is pretty much what I expect from a cert. It states what the sender thinks it is and states what the actual Scott number is. In the best of worlds, the numbers are identical.

PSE has been sloppy on several occasions

The image above pretty much sums up my opinion of PSE. (PSE have been discussed in other threads and forums).

"That is pretty much what I expect from a cert. It states what the sender thinks it is and states what the actual Scott number is. In the best of worlds, the numbers are identical."

The purpose of a cert is for the cert agency to say what they think it is. The person who sent it in knows what they thought it was. When it comes time ti sell it, the buyer doesn't care what the seller though t was (unless they are well respected, and they still have the chance to argue their case). Submitted as does not belong on a cert, IMO.

But this is not what this thread is supposed to be about.

Getting back on topic, one case where the APS might be better is modern varieties.

IMO Txstamp has it exactly right.

So does Eyeonwall when it comes to our tangential discussion of catalog numbers on certs. The way the PF words their opinions when it comes to catalog numbers makes no sense and it REALLY messes up their database of certificates. The assumption of the customers needs when they submit should be that they know nothing about stamps and they are paying money for people that do to tell them what they have. What the submitter thought they have could actually be done away with save for the reason it is included, which is fee calculation.

No one organization is good at everything. It really depends on what needs a certificate.

Don't they all use the same pool of experts?

In large part, yes, they do.

It is my understanding that at one time this was true. Wayne Youngblood stated in the May 2023 "American Philatelist" that The PF and Apex "both utilize many of the same experts". In this forum, Mr. WT Crowe stated that he expertises for PF and Apex, but not the others.It is my understanding that PSE and PSAG expertise in house, although I don't know this for fact. Recently I have resubmitted a certificate, clearly in error to PSE that was originally issued this past January. I respect Apex and PF certs as well as WTCrowe certs.I am only experienced and discussing USA classic, prior to 1930.

Mr. Youngblood also made an interesting point in the same article, "no expertization service is better than its current group of experts. Those who study the history of our hobby have found that virtually all expertizers have gone through good periods and poor periods, and the relative accuracy of their certs reflect this.

Food for thought
I do not have the history that some in this forum have with expertising,which is both knowledge limiting as well as freeing. (not being bound).
regards m

I do not believe that it is "many". It might be "a few".

If GMC89's statements of attribution from Youngblood and Crowe are true and PF and APEX utilize the same experts, then why is APEX continually rank third in comparison to PF and PSE, if it is ranked at all?

How large is the group of potential qualified expertizers? Many and Few could be synonymous.

[qHow large is the group of potential qualified expertizers? Many and Few could be synonymous.][/q]

I don't know. My understanding is that the PF uses perhaps 8-10, depending on the item in question.

PSAG list of experts:



Looking at the names I have to believe they work for the other agencies as well.

Some, if not a lot of expertisation gets done by emailed out scans to the remote experts. For example, a lot of plating is performed this way.

On the subject of remote vs in-house expertising - one other thing maybe worth considering is the caliber of reference material that each place has. I know the PF has a lot, for example. And - with more and more expertising being done remotely (is that right?) are people relying more on remote experts reference material, or is the in-house reference material still well utilized, and, possibly providing some advantage for one service over another ?

edit: Also equipment, like VSCxxxx ?