Advice Sought On Expertizing Matter

I really do not understand why people continue to get hung up on "the process". Although technology improvements have made some identifications much easier, the basic "process" has not changed all these years. In 95% of the cases, when a stamp comes in, it gets compared with known examples of the same stamp, and with similar stamps if required. So for example, if a #1 comes in it would be checked with others of various shades to insure that it is a #1, and not a #1a, or #1b. There is also a lot of literature available on a very wide area of stamps and postal history. Obviously this is done by people with a great deal of experience and knowledge to begin with. The vast majority of items are things which have been seen many times before, and do not require a great deal of research to examine, but when required, that information is usually at hand. And items will be looked at by a few different people, so a consensus will be reached. Outside to the technology changes, none of this has changed for many decades.

I miss WT Crowe. I used him for about 10 years. I sent a 366 to him years ago, purchased from the old Harmer-Schau. His opinion stated "genuine previously hinged". The perforations across the top were suspect. He wrote in a side note, which I kept,"If you submit to PF there is a 50-50 chance they will state it is reperforate. I don't think the evidence supports this finding. WT Crowe".
Opinions can vary.
regards mark

They certainly can. But usually reasons are given for thinking perfs are genuine or fake, or gum is genuine or fake, etc. Bill Crowe used to run the PF. I wonder what the cert would have said then.......

I am sure his knowledge had grown/increased in the interim. May he Rest in Peace. But that is an interesting thought Revcolector.
Cheers, and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate.
m

How authoritative? I would wonder about your ability to know the answer to that question. Do you actually know well everyone who might possibly be knowledgeable enough? Since he never said what the results were from asking Lewis about that stamp, it is very possible that the PF opinion is the correct one. Made by people who you may or may not know.

Apologies if required for framing this post from a personal perspective; but this whole thread is troubling to me as a collector. The thing that bothers me most is the lack of transparency amongst certifying agencies. (And full disclosure I know Funcitypapa personally but our conversations about his particular stamp have dampened my spirits about diving back in my US collection big time as have others.) Also, the reason when we talk when he asks what I'm in to at the moment I usually say I'm having great enjoyment just mounting 1950's Lebanon stamps or Nicaraguan airmails as I don't have the worry about dealing with this sort of crud; I can just enjoy the process. Keeping certs out of the equation to me makes filling my endless Steiner pages enjoyable.

All that said, while there are competing agencies out there we all know and theoretically "trust" this one particular issue makes me absolutely not ever want to buy an expensive stamp again unless I can make a determination based on Scott/SG and so forth on my own and eliminating these so-called experts completely. A stamp is what it is; if two agencies or more can't come to the same conclusion, obviously one of them must be wrong. So why should I trust either? Shame, as I do have the means and would like to add to ye olde early US album, but why would I "invest" (I know I'll lose money; just to be clear) on an unused US 2 that I'd like in the album to have some buyer of my estate get a second opinion and tell my heirs that it was really a used/cleaned cancel? No thanks. No worksheet or back-up or rationale on why the determination was made on a pretty rare stamp, Simply going to pass.

I've never danced in the auction house world, but wonder why they (Auction houses) haven't they leaned on some of the usual suspects to maybe collaborate or at a minimum try to force some greater transparency? In theory this could be done behind the scenes although ego probably would not allow for that. Yes, I get it, no agency will ever want to admit they were wrong and theoretically lose credibility but not sharing or "blank" worksheets for customers who pay for a service? Wrong. Especially in the realm of what I'd call higher cat value stamps.

Apologies if this came off a rant; but I find it just sad that it makes me question what to add to my collection.

Exactly what "transparency" does everyone expect? The method is transparent, as I explained above, it has not changed in many decades except for changes in technology. I have also explained why knowing who all the experts are for specific items is not a good idea. Auction houses usually have a pretty good idea of who might be examining items already; they are much more in tune with the overall hobby generally. IMO, people are putting far too much faith in a 30 year old opinion that no one knows anything about how it was arrived at. But we have a very good idea about how this new one was arrived at. And as stated before, the difference is really obvious when one can do direct comparisons.

By decision, I mean that I did not sign on this certificate or have any input of any kind on it.

With regard to more transparency, just what are you looking for? You and others already said that the experts names should remain anonymous. Those who want open recognition let it be known in various ways. Most experts got there by hard work and peer recognition and will readily share with others.The basic reason for a certificate and the information indicated on it have evolved with the times to reflect what collectors want along with the means to provide it. As for reputations, trust is earned by result of actions. All groups at times make mistakes, the best try to correct them. Meany early certs have omissions that are today unacceptable, but met the standards when issued. I agree that education is up to the individual and not the job of expert committees, clubs and organizations exist for that in a wide range of interests.

Transparency: A situation in which activities are done in an open way without secrets, so that people can trust that they are fair and honest.

These opinions do not meet the definition in any way, shape or form.

Please explain what "secrets" are being hidden here. I have explained how stamps are examined, having done so on many occasions for many years now. I have also explained why it is better not to know exactly who is actually looking at these items, unless they choose to say so. Anyone is free to visit the PF and see the reference collection, as a non profit educational institution (although an appointment would be a good idea, I imagine). Apparently you will not feel satisfied unless you can actually stand over the shoulders of everyone while they are looking at every item, to insure that your idea of "transparency" is acquired.

I agree that more info is better. As for what is important, I also think you are seriously overestimating the quality of the scans of the reverse of a stamp; remember that there is no color to a grill, and the shadows normally used to view them would be missing. So you would end up in 99% of the cases with a perforated white square that would show nothing. So no, it is not worth the time and effort to produce an image of no value.

[q][Revcollector: I would personally love to know more about the differentiating characteristics of a 112b vs. a 123 /q]

I t was stated earlier in this thread, but the shade (darker), impression (very sharp, like a proof impression, they were printed from new plates), and physical size(due to the grain of the paper) are different. Side by side comparisons show all of this very clearly.

Re the 112b. Vs 123 education issue
The APS/ APRL in Bellefonte PA. Is one place to start. The R A Seigel auction site is another, the stampsmarter.com. website feature here might also offer info. The Smithsonian museum would be another place to inquire.
Re grills: I have never seen an image of the back of a grilled item that was not taken without the use of a great deal of care lighting and equipment. Most images will only confirm existence and not id.
As for any additional information provided with patients, it is evaluated and returned with the item upon completion of the process.

BTW, I am willing to bet that Mystic had the Z grill photo done professionally. I certainly would have.