Advice Sought On Expertizing Matter

But ... over a span of years, my last scanner's bulb or detector deteriorated such that all scans had a definite yellow tint.

There is *NO* perfect substitue to direct in-person viewing.

sure, this is possible, so as said we are lucky when there is EXIF data showing e.g. that the scans were made with the same device in the same year (or little more). In addition it depends on the scanner and if it is perhaps even calibrated. Just wanted to say that online sources of course can sometimes be useful for size comparison (paper direction) and color comparison within its own system (same stamp colors and so on).

Images are good for looking at margins, and perfs, and cancel dates, and sometimes for shades that are so far off that they cause suspicion. But I would never use them as a replacement for actually seeing anything, and it would have to show something clearly factual in order to make a claim about it. A stamp issued in 1875 cannot have an 1865 cancel, etc.

Any collectible with significant value about which there is this much debate is not worth collecting. UNLESS scientific analysis of the paper and ink can be used to prove that "X" is "X". If the opinion is based upon George and Fred looking at the item and thumbs upping it after comparing it to another 150-year-old item that also has had no scientific analysis then that opinion is Charmin Ultrasoft.

Then why collect and study at all? In every collectible field, there are people acknowledged for their expertise. People who have spent decades studying and learning. The fact that some delight in pooh poohing that and are willing to keep posting about their reasons for disagreeing doesn't change others knowledge or experience in the field. I don't see them offering their services as experts. And I haven't heard any proof that those who are doing so are incompetent. All I have heard is a lot of talk about why two people who looked at a stamp 30 years ago could not possibly have been wrong, despite the fact that no one knows any details about how that opinion was formed. I knew both of them(one was the first person to pull me aside and show me a genuine Pigeon Blood Pink) and I have great respect for their knowledge, but I know that they were also capable of making mistakes. Being contrarian seems to be the real reason it has gone on for so long.

PBP has a purplish cast to the pink which is unmistakable once one has seen it. If I remember correctly, the PF has at least two. Carefully kept.

If you want to get an idea of the difference, try looking at PF certs 564450 and 585296 and comparing them to 566541, 564135,or 584183. The first two are 112, and the last three are 123. In fact, look at ALL the 123 certs. There are a LOT of them. And you will see how many look very similar even though they were created at different times on different equipment.

As an occasional PF customer watching this thread, I'm struck by how much a professional customer relations approach could help here. This thread could be a business school case study on how not to approach customer relations in the age of social media. The responses here are from two anonymous accounts that appear to benefit financially from, and/or have a formal role in PF, without directly stating those roles. While perhaps well-intentioned, the responses lack the professionalism one expects from an organization of PF's standing.

What would have worked better is a response from a named PF representative, acknowledging the customer's disappointment, clearly stating the organization's policy on non-disclosure of expertizer names and notes (with its rationale), and offering a professional point of contact for follow-up questions. The policy and rationale ought to be on a FAQ web page on the PF site.

Interestingly, while the web page https://www.philatelicfoundation.or...the-process/ describes "the process" in detail and has multiple references indicating the importance of "the worksheet," no reason is given about why the worksheet isn't delivered with the cert.

There may be sound business reasons underlying the policies, such as giving expertizers a greater sense of freedom by keeping them anonymous, or that the cost of dealing with a customer unhappy with the notes exceeds the fee earned for the opinion. Lacking any customer-focused response direct from PF, the impression left here is that PF, like similar organizations that handle sports cards, autographs, or coins, retains its authoritativeness by being mysterious and opaque. But a customer facing tens of thousands of dollars of lost value, given PF's market power, deserves more directly from the organization than a dismissal of their concerns. For an institution based in New York with access to excellent PR professionals and the means to hire them, this seems like a missed opportunity to strengthen rather than strain customer confidence.

We're I the original poster,after getting a certificate such as that one, I would think that I would call the PF and discuss it with the executive director. However, the original poster is not the one who has been making all the recent comments. Those are being made by a new poster with no stake in the item. He has cast aspersions on the entire process, and I have attempted to point out the correct way that things have been done for decades, and why they are done that way.

He did, on at least one topic. First post:


I stand by my post. While you are well intentioned, you are not writing as an official of PF. No matter who is posting with concerns, PF could do better in how it addresses this.

Assuming that they are even aware of it.

And that they care about reputational conversations. Readers in the organization usually tip off nonprofit hobby organization leadership about forum threads like this within a few days, so one would think that they know. I have had it happen many times as a hobby organization leader. And setting automated alerts for open posts that use your organization's name is standard practice among those customer-focused organizations that have a CR officer or use an outside PR-CR firm. Alas, the organization has to care.

I doubt that the PF has anything or anyone even remotely interested in doing this. From a tech or tech-adoption perspective, the PF is firmly entrenched in the 1980s, in my experience. I say that not as an insult, but an observation.

Have not read the entire 9 page thread.....but I did come across a few items with recent certs...from the PF.....submitted by Larry Lyons and authenticated by him....I do find that completely unethical....is it just me??

He could have processed them on behalf of a client. Same way that many certs will have the auction house's name on the cert rather than the person who consigned or won the item, if on extension. You can't assume these are his personal items; it may simply be a paperwork/processing convention.

EDIT: More likely, his name is signed on every cert as he runs the PF. That doesn't mean he is the expertizer of record.