Advice Sought On Expertizing Matter

Except that you don't actually know that.

sure, the exif show it.

I debated about giving my 2c on this size issue. I decided that I should because of my experience with Siegel images. I can pull up any Siegel image from the last 40 years and they appear to be using the same dpi. If it is a single, pair, strip or block of 4, I scale the image 170% to bring it to 1200 dpi. If it is a cover, I scale at 340% for 1200 dpi. I found these numbers from hundreds of images that have been going through. I take a measurement from a 1200 dpi stamp and that the measurement from another stamp and divide the numbers to get the percentage. I used to measure each stamp, but the numbers never changed. So, the answer is Siegel uses the same dpi for the past 40 years.

(I should add one additional piece of information that seems relevant. A respected dealer, aware of the circumstances as well as the competency of Piller and Champagne offered the opinion that at the PF, only Lewis Kauffman would be of sufficient knowledge and stature to surmount the APS opinion. This suggestion was persued and it turns out that Kauffman was not involved in the PF evaluation.)

I would like to get in touch with Funcitypapa with respect to his 112b problem. Please advise. Thank you.
Lewis Kaufman

I just sent you an email. Please keep us informed. Thanks

Surely if the dimensions of the printed area are known you could?

Or is it dependent on other factors?

Please enlighten me rogdcam

Dootone 348: I tried to send you an email via this forum and response was that you don't want to receive emails. Makes it kind of hard to contact you.

I myself would love to know who the "respected dealer" is that thinks that only LK(who I know and have great respect for) could possibly be the only person to overturn the APS certificate.

Yeah, that has all the validity of "anonymous sources say..." when it comes to the news IMO.

@funcitypapa, Dootone348 has only 4 posts.




It might be that you cannot send a personal message because of this rule, not because this member does not want to receive emails.

Revcollector: I'm sure you would like me to "name names" on a public forum but that is not going to happen. Suffice it to say that the source is very well known and respected and known to anyone collecting classic US over the past 40 years or so. But this was private advice given that was greatly respected/appreciated and I will not betray confidences to you anymore than I will reveal the identity of the expert at the PF who was the central character in the Scott 67/blank worksheet incident 30 years or so ago. The issue here is not to "out" or embarrass anyone but to try and understand the evidence and reasoning behind overturned opinions and the issue of transparency in the expertizing process.

Revenue collector: your sarcasm noted. Since you don't know a thing about me or my background, I can regard it as someone feeling the need to just spout off without any basis for challenging what I have reported. If you think by baiting me you will get any additional information, you are mistaken.

Finally, as you can see by the recent threads, Mr Kaufman has reached out to me. Sorry to disappoint you both: whatever the content of our communication turns out to be, this will also remain private and confidential.

That's fine. Respected is always in the eyes of the observer. And I know that if Lewis told you it really is a 112b, you would not be in such a hurry to keep it confidential. If it is a 123.........

I think the evidence and reasoning are pretty obvious here. Whoever looked at the item would have done direct comparisons to a known 123 and known 112's. That is pretty standard today for anyone expertising almost any item; I cannot imagine that it would not have been done here given the situation. And unless the APS cert specifically names the experts who examined it, no one at the PF would have known who they were, so they would not have even thought about it. We have no way of knowing what was done 30 years ago, but it was commonplace at the time to bring a group of items to be looked at to a major show where a number of experts were certain to be at one time. However, that does not automatically mean that the reference items needed to be certain were available. Especially since they probably were looked at after the show closed for the day. So as expert as they were........

Bobby de la rue,
Did you ever get a chance to look at the .PDF I sent you?

I sent a stamp to the PF for the first time this year and the experience didn't exactly inspire confidence.

Had some questions about the process (first time) and called them up; the woman sounded rather unsure when answering my questions. When they mailed the stamp and the cert back, they put a typo in my street address making it a nonexistent address. I was able to see this on the FedEx website and arranged to have the envelope re-routed to a FedEx shipping center for pickup, but when rare stamps are involved it's not a good thing to have to do.