Advice Sought On Expertizing Matter

I am not smearing anyone. I am stating a possibility, which no one today has any way of knowing. And there is no question that such things did happen in the past, whether one likes admitting it or not. And I am not saying that they did not know the characteristics of both. But it is speculation to assume that you know what they did to examine the stamp. No one knows whether they did comparisons, or did it from memory. But there are differences between them, and they are observable. And even if you got the names, what makes you think that you are automatically going to know whether the people involved have sufficient knowledge? Not everyone knowledgeable is famous in the hobby, or currently works for major players. Some people do not have to feed a big ego, or shout "look how good I am".

Rev: you implied that maybe Piller and Champagne reached their conclusion for less than the purest of reasons. Of course I don't know ho they reached their conclusions anymore than I can tell you why the PF reached the conclusion. That's the point isn't it. However unfortunately we can't ask P and C because they're deceased. But we can ask the PF, which I did and got stonewalled. What possible reason could they have for doing that? By the way, I was advised in my actions by people well known to everyone on this forum who certainly know more than me.

You are trying to act like you haven't been around the block which I know isn't true. Money may be the most common motivation to explain human actions, but it is not the only one.

40 years ago both expertising groups were using dealers for expertising. That's why certs from the time didn't show conditions or reperforated and regummed stamps in descriptions. Only if they were genuine. Which is why it is different now. And I still say that knowing the names only makes them vulnerable. Either to those angry at opinions or those who think that a little friendly bribery might help. And that is not a smear, just a fact of life.

funcitypapa, revcollector is not "smearing" anyone. He's putting forth the possibility that there may have been (not that there was) a conflict of interest. Philatelic history is rife with such incidents. I've personally encountered it with certain auction houses.

Conflict of interest is always a possibility and should be mentioned.

After the quoted post the thread took a hard turn towards people,not the stamp.

By returning the patient back to the APS' APEX for a new (second) look, as part of the submission is indication of other expertising by other service providers. If now with the newly, since the prior opinion was issued, technology results in a new outcome as not the112b as APEX first stated, you have a final answer. If they continue to support the 112b position then yes, you have a conflict. A conflict for which settlement is necessary to sell the item as what it is in fact.

I look forward to the demand that you get to choose who looks at it. Since you will want people who meet with your approval.

Parcel post guy: thank you for your suggestion.

Rev/Revenue: as I understand your position there is a "possibility" that APEX/Piller/Champagne may have been affected by conflict of interest but apparently no possibility that PF could be affected by—just a for instance, showing up the APS, a competitor, by overturning the original opinion.

Frankly, I don't think there is any evidence to support either contention but it still does not explain how the PF reached their decision. Were this to be a disagreement re condition I could understand two expertizing services in disagreement but it would seem that major expertizing services should be able to agree on the Scott # of a specimen.

Rev: I assume your last nasty comment is sarcastically directed to me which is interesting since all I have reported is facts and have never requested or demanded anything of any stamp expertizing organization.

You are the one who wants to know who the experts were who gave the opinion. And I doubt that anyone thought anything about a 20 year old opinion, other than that it was there. If someone handed me a revenue and asked my opinion, I would give it based on the stamp in hand, and not on a prior certificate. I would only look at a prior after I looked at the stamp in question. I might or might not agree with it, but it would only be after.

I agree with revcollector. Early certs were primarily concerned with id and not condition. As to the integrity of the experts involved only they knew if any conflict was involved. New ways of looking at items and standards for certs have evolved along with the equipment used. Certs are opinions, a snapshot of an item at the time of submission and things change over time.
"If someone handed me a revenue and asked my opinion, I would give it based on the stamp in hand, and not on a prior certificate. I would only look at a prior after I looked at the stamp in question. I might or might not agree with it," It is how I was taught to approach an item. As for changes of value or who owns an item it should not enter the equation.
This goes for any physical examination regardless of specific knowledge of it. Experience and how one looks and understands what they see are the keys to expertising. As for naming the experts involved I will leave that can of worms to wiser heads. As far as one-upsmanship goes I do not see any reason for that occurring, no group boasts that they overturned x number of their rivals opinions. Being an expert means knowing your limits.

not exactly the topic, but the following would indeed help in some cases to see other stamps certifed as genuine, just to look and learn:

so, talking about knowledge (hiding) and transparency, the first step for PF and PSE would be to show the back of the stamp in the database. Does a stamp only have one side? Even the smallest private stamp sellers show the back of the stamp. Of course this is not important to any stamp, but a simple rule could be to show the back for the classic stamps that have been certified as genuine above a certain catalogue value.

Not so difficult to make a scan :).

Exactly what purpose would that serve? Aside from the extra time involved, a scan of the reverse would usually show little that might help. It might show grills, and it might show damage, or it might not.

it would show the back of the stamp :). When buying a stamp, showing the back of the stamp is just common. Showing the back of the stamp is important and interesting.

I always wonder when I see all those extremely rare stamps in the certificate database (original gum, rare grills) and there was just "no time" to scan the back of the stamp :).

In this specific stamp of this topic it would be interesting to see how such a stamp without grill actually looks from the back, gum, paper, structure, setoff whatever. Same for the bluish W-F stamps - back of the stamps would be great!

I think that the purpose of the photo of the front of the stamp/cover is basically just to associate the certificate with the particular item. So that its clear that cert is for that stamp/cover.

I would stipulate that showing the back is irrelevant and probably a waste of time and resources that they already don't have.

Unfortunately, you would not be able to see the type of differences that exist that way. For that, the stamp needs to be backlit. Then the papers look different from one another. Even to see the difference in impression, a 123 would have to be scanned with a 112 or a 112b for those differences to be really noticeable. The difference in impression is very clear when observed in person.

Scanning the backs is not worth the effort IMO. Apex/PF/PSE aren't the parties selling the stamp. As mentioned, the purpose of the image on the cert is to associate the item with the opinion. That's it.