A Little Story About A Collector And A Dealer

There is a collector who buys a set from a country he has a special connection with. The design was used for three sets. At an auction, the collector buys the original set that used the design. Now, the one quite expensive set is missing from his collection.

The collector has bought a couple of nice sets from a dealer that is an expertiser for a highly-regarded foreign organisation for the country that issued the stamps. He is a dealer in that same country. The stamps are excellent. Rather than taking down a listing when the item has been sold, the dealer substitutes "sold" for "available."

The collector had noticed the dealer advertised the third set in a very well-centred "luxury" quality. This set, however, is much more expensive than the other ones but it would complete the collection. So, it will take some time to find the funds.

After some time, the collector finds the necessary funds. Unlike many other expensive sets, this one is not offered with a certificate. At the price of the set, however, the dealer offers to arrange a certificate at no extra charge. The collector orders the set and asks for a certificate. The dealer is submitting stamps for certification with one of two established national expertising committees, the next day.

About a week later, the collector receives his stamps with a certificate dated 2021. Scanning the stamps, the key value (circa 60% of the set's catalogue value) has imperfections). The second key value (circa 20% of the set's catalogue value) has quite some toned perforations back and front. And some quite severely. A few other stamps are not to good either.

The five-year old certificate states the set was in a good condition when examined. The collector wonders how a new certificate can be dated five years earlier and why the picture on the website did not show those spots. The certificate shows the set the collector received. One or two of the tone spots, barely, are visible on the certificate.

Confused, the collector checks the website. But the listing has been taken down. Sets he bought a year ago, still, are there and shown as sold. To his relief, the collector had saved a screen print of the listing.

The collector writes the dealer. The reply from the dealer is that the expertising committee had not convened because one member had been ill. As the dealer did not want the collector to have to wait, he had sent another beautiful set. This was not how it should have been. The imperfections on the key stamp, however, were due to the quality of the papers used during those years.

Meanwhile, the expertising committee had issued the certificate. The dealer would send the set bought. The collector could examine it and return the other set, or even both against a full refund. The cost of registration for the return sending would be refunded. And of course, the dealer apologised for the errors made.

After some time, the collector receives the set with the new certificate (including a typo). This set is fine. The "substitute" set will be returned. Looking at listed varieties on the dealer's website, the collector notices the listing of the set has now popped up again, noticing it had been sold.

If I was said collector, I would not be feeling warm, fuzzy thoughts about said dealer.

Is there a question, or are you asking for opinions in general?

At first glance, it appears that the seller sent a set other than what was purchased without revealing such. If I were cynical (which I am), I would opine that they were hoping the buyer wouldn't notice.

Unethical IMO.

No question, but I do wonder how people would look at this occurrence. And yes, I do belong to the cynical part of the population. I do wonder what would have happened if this collector would not have made a screen print of the listing.

Maybe, also, there is a lesson to be learned here: make screen prints when you are spending a considerable sum of money.

Your story got a bit long, but I think I understand.

There is no excuse today to make "stock" photos of an ideal set and substitute a lesser quality item for sale. But, it is still common practice.

It would be my first and last transaction with said dealer. I could never trust them again. They will be unloaded to a future unsuspecting buyer.

Had this happen with Cherrystone once. To their they replaced the set immediately but it left a very bad taste.

Signed:

Occupation: Professional Philatelist

It was not a stock photo. The set originally posted on the website, as has been the case previously, was the set offered. It, also, is the one now showing as sold on the website. Sometimes, this dealer uses stock photos for cheap, mostly used, sets. If he does, he notes the set offered is similar to the one shown.

This particular set did not have a certificate - the alternative set did have one - and a new certificate was agreed upon. The collector received that set with the new certificate, after contacting the dealer. The alternative set will be on its way to the dealer.

Maybe, the dealer was careless and did think he was doing the collector a favour by not letting him wait. As I wrote before, I am among the more cynical of mankind.

This.

Will the collector go for that other set he is interested in? The dealer has good stock of a fringe area. Will the collector check for new additions?

I would not and in fact I never bought from them again. In my case it was an auction lot of the most expensive set of Russian airmail stamps. The lot had a picture and a description of "post office fresh" never hinged gum and "none of the common gum wrinkles". What arrived was the opposite because Cherrystone obviously pulled from stock a lesser set. IMO they did it to see if they could get away with it and that for me is a huge red flag. It was deliberate because the moment I called them out they apologized and replaced.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I've had the opposite happen. Bought a stamp on ebay, and they said that it was sold to someone else. So they sent me the same stamp of a higher grade for the same price.

no complaints for that kind of treatment.

Quite literally the opposite.

This isn't 1938, where a dealer has to mail a set to a collector on St. Helena. An email could have presented the issue and a proposed solution. Bad form, at a minimum, and likely an intent to deceive.

"The reply from the dealer is that the expertising committee had not convened because one member had been ill. As the dealer did not want the collector to have to wait, he had sent another beautiful set."

If I were on the jury, this is the fact that would convince me of this dealer's intent to deceive his customer.

We no longer live in the 19th century the last time I looked. A simple email to the buyer explaining the so-called problem with expertization -- which I do not believe since there are other expertizers -- and asking the buyer if they'd like a different set of stamps would have taken the dealer only a few minutes. Why didn't he do that? Because he hoped to get rid of a cheaper set and hoped the customer would not notice or would not notice if he did object.