Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Last spring I purchased a Bermuda King George VI Key Plate, known as the Lemon Yellow variety. (SG120d ) from MurrayPayne, a well-known seller of KGVI material. At £525, this was not an inexpensive stamp. Given its value, I decided to have it “expertizedâ€.
I live in New York City, so my inclination was to take to the Philatelic Foundation. After the usual three month wait, they returned the stamp along with the verdict that it was not a SG120d Lemon Yellow, but rather a rather pedestrian SG120a – worth about $50.
I contacted the seller, who to their credit told me to return it them and they would either refund the purchase price or would have it reappraised by the Royal Philatelic Society of London, at their expense. Not being in any particular hurry and liking the appearance of the stamp quite a bit, I opted to have it reexpertized.
After another three months, I received the good news that the RPS has found the stamp to be a genuine Bermuda King George VI Key Plate, known as the Lemon Yellow variety(SG120d ).
So here’s the thing I now have a stamp with two different certificates stating two different opinions. Does one trump the other, or is a third certificate needed to break the tie?
David
Login to Like
this post
As it is a Commonwealth & British Empire issue, I personally would rely on the RPSL certificate.
On the other hand, if I had a stamp from, say, the US that needed expertising, I would not send it to the RPSL: I would instead direct it to a society which should have the most expertise on US material: the Philatelic Foundation, for example.
Horses for courses!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
David
Unfortunately Expert Opinions are just that "opinions".
In other fields of operation other than philately, I have looked into the backgrounds and qualifications of the "experts" in question, who funds them and are they more expert in other fields. ie Don't ask an expert in British Commonwealth to comment on say a South American stamp or vice versa.
As a British subject the RPS would be the first and only place I would go to. In all my years of Stamp Collecting I have never come across the Philatelic Foundation. It may be the equivalent to RPS I do not know.
In my Gibbons Catalogue 120a is classified as Grey and brownish orange (shades) and 120d as Grey and yellow (the Lemon shade).
Looking at an old Gibbons colour chart the differences are distinctive.
However even Gibbons have admitted in the past "Our catalogue lists have been compiled from time to time by different expert philatelists, who have not always been in agreement
in the matter of colour description."
Which is it that you think it is? Do you have a copy of 120a to compare it against?
The answer may be to get Gibbons colour charts from 1938 and 1947 to compare it against.
Login to Like
this post
Is this the stamp in question?
Seller added this description:
Colours on screen may not accurately depict colours as seen in good daylight.
1982 BPA certificate shows the old SG number (i.e.SG120B)
Login to Like
this post
I would definitely go with the RPSL opinion over the PF one on this stamp.
Login to Like
this post
Unfortunately one must also keep in mind that the opinion rendered may depend to some degree upon the reputation of the person or firm submitting the item. It happens.
Login to Like
this post
I 'm going to rely on the RPSL certificate, but keep the PF certificate on file.
Thanks for you feedback
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
03:35:15am
" .... Unfortunately Expert Opinions are just that "opinions".
...."
I submitted what looked like a great Danzig issue to three German "experts" these stamps had been in a lot I won a few years earlier. One expert responded that it looked right, but he was not absolutely sure, The other stated flatly that it was bogus..The third sent it back with "no opinion".
If there was any simple telltale marker he first two should have rendered an opinion citing the reason.
So I sent a letter and asked what made it bogus. That answer annoys me to this day, it was "because I have no such example in my reference collection."
In logic we have a rubric "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." which can be structured Absence of proof, one way or the other, does not prove it is false.
I just gave up and eided to just keep it in my album for mu pleasure.
I have ben underwhelmed by so-called experts ever since.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
What I did is create an exhibit to document the variability:
I will probably send it off to APEX at some point to see what they say, but I already have a 351 with normal margins and a cert in my collection so I'm in no hurry.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Is the PSE cert the opinion of just one expert, or does the stamp get seen by one or more other pair of eyes, for corroboration of the 1st opinion?
Login to Like
this post
I don't know.
Login to Like
this post
Q/ What is the cause of the 'flair'?
{2c}
In a genuine stamp, it would be from stretching of the paper during perf separation.
This should be easy to duplicate with cheap coil stamps, and strikes me as unlikely, as there would be tell-tale stretching at the last perf, too.
In a forgery, it would be from a shearing effect, either at the start of the cut or at the very end of the cut.
This would be more likely with scissors than with a straight edge, and should be easy to replicate with cheap coil stamps (or any other piece of paper).
I'll vote forgery, for what my vote is worth.
{/2c}
Aye, Bill, we miss you.
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
"... flairs -> flares ..."
Homophoned, again!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Bill was contending the perforations were cut off of the sides to create a coil and not that the top/bottom perfs were faked.
Login to Like
this post
Note the 'also':
"... The perforations also don't look correct to me ..."
"... Bill didn't comment on the perfs, but he may have thought the other issues were enough ..."
Login to Like
this post
"The perforations also don't look correct to me. An interesting additional graphical analysis would be to draw perfectly straight lines through the center of the top perf holes and see if they line up with the bottom; they look slightly off with me but I believe in the flat plate process they should be precisely aligned."
I don't think that is correct. The perfs on the 350 below aren't lined up and it would really be hard to fake a plate line single that gets a clean cert. It's easy to see that more than one of the perf 8.5 stamps don't have perfs that line up, and I doubt they were faked.
"Gauging on the Kisulas gauge also is important. As PF has written, expertizing flat plate coils "... requires examination of the perforation holes using a perforation gauge and looking closely for holes that run off the spacing shown on the gauge. One must look very carefully because many fraudulent coil stamps closely approximate the correct gauge. It also requires comparison against known genuine examples to assess the size of the holes, as well as the examination of both sides of the stamp to see if the holes have been tampered with by scrapping. The holes for a genuine coil should have “pressure ridges†made by the original government perforating machine.""
That would be true if you are looking for an imperforate stamp with perforations added (or a coil stamp with altered perforation holes, but that's not possible in this case). It's possible someone could take an imperf 347 and add perfs to fake a 351. 347 MH is $27.50 and 351 MH is $140. The sheet version (335) is $50 MH, so it would be tempting to assume fakers would use the imperf, but the equipment necessary to add convincing fake perfs would be cost prohibitive. Most fakes of this issue are used, because a 335 catalogs for $2.50 used and a 351 catalogs for $300 used. Most mint fakes are cut down sheet stamps because of the simplicity (and removing a cancel / re-gumming is also possible).
If a faker went to the trouble to add perforations to an imperf issue, they would certainly cut the side margins wide enough to not be on the narrow end of the range.
Sorry, I don't buy the possibility that this is a reperfed imperf.
"I strongly disagree with the statement that PSE is "perhaps the most prestigious expertizing agency today". That would be PF, for this issue."
Maybe so, that's why I used "perhaps". My point wasn't to pass judgment but to indicate that neither Bill Weiss nor PSE were opinions that should be taken lightly. I will re-word it when I get around to submitting the stamp to PF.
Thanks for the feedback!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
With the KG6 stamp the clincher for me is that Murray Payne is THE acknowledged expert dealer in King George VI material, with an excellent reputation ( and probably knows more than the RPSL anyway !)
While I would never say "never" about anything, it is most unlikely that he would knowingly misdescribe any item within his speciality.
If you read his articles in the philatelic press on KG6 they often go beyond the standard Gibbons shades and includes ( and illustrates) intermediate shades identified to the relevant printing date.
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
Malcolm,
Murray Payne's reputation is exactly why I went to them in the first place. I have to say, once again, that they have acted professionally and courteously every since I brought this discrepancy to their attention.
In fact, the very first thing they asked me when I brought this to their attention was "Would you like a refund?".
David
Login to Like
this post
Well here’s an interesting problem that I’d like to share and have some feedback on.
Last spring I purchased a Bermuda King George VI Key Plate, known as the Lemon Yellow variety. (SG120d ) from MurrayPayne, a well-known seller of KGVI material. At £525, this was not an inexpensive stamp. Given its value, I decided to have it “expertizedâ€.
I live in New York City, so my inclination was to take to the Philatelic Foundation. After the usual three month wait, they returned the stamp along with the verdict that it was not a SG120d Lemon Yellow, but rather a rather pedestrian SG120a – worth about $50.
I contacted the seller, who to their credit told me to return it them and they would either refund the purchase price or would have it reappraised by the Royal Philatelic Society of London, at their expense. Not being in any particular hurry and liking the appearance of the stamp quite a bit, I opted to have it reexpertized.
After another three months, I received the good news that the RPS has found the stamp to be a genuine Bermuda King George VI Key Plate, known as the Lemon Yellow variety(SG120d ).
So here’s the thing I now have a stamp with two different certificates stating two different opinions. Does one trump the other, or is a third certificate needed to break the tie?
David
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
As it is a Commonwealth & British Empire issue, I personally would rely on the RPSL certificate.
On the other hand, if I had a stamp from, say, the US that needed expertising, I would not send it to the RPSL: I would instead direct it to a society which should have the most expertise on US material: the Philatelic Foundation, for example.
Horses for courses!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Auctions - Approvals
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
David
Unfortunately Expert Opinions are just that "opinions".
In other fields of operation other than philately, I have looked into the backgrounds and qualifications of the "experts" in question, who funds them and are they more expert in other fields. ie Don't ask an expert in British Commonwealth to comment on say a South American stamp or vice versa.
As a British subject the RPS would be the first and only place I would go to. In all my years of Stamp Collecting I have never come across the Philatelic Foundation. It may be the equivalent to RPS I do not know.
In my Gibbons Catalogue 120a is classified as Grey and brownish orange (shades) and 120d as Grey and yellow (the Lemon shade).
Looking at an old Gibbons colour chart the differences are distinctive.
However even Gibbons have admitted in the past "Our catalogue lists have been compiled from time to time by different expert philatelists, who have not always been in agreement
in the matter of colour description."
Which is it that you think it is? Do you have a copy of 120a to compare it against?
The answer may be to get Gibbons colour charts from 1938 and 1947 to compare it against.
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
Is this the stamp in question?
Seller added this description:
Colours on screen may not accurately depict colours as seen in good daylight.
1982 BPA certificate shows the old SG number (i.e.SG120B)
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
I would definitely go with the RPSL opinion over the PF one on this stamp.
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
Unfortunately one must also keep in mind that the opinion rendered may depend to some degree upon the reputation of the person or firm submitting the item. It happens.
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
I 'm going to rely on the RPSL certificate, but keep the PF certificate on file.
Thanks for you feedback
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
13 Nov 2016
03:35:15am
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
" .... Unfortunately Expert Opinions are just that "opinions".
...."
I submitted what looked like a great Danzig issue to three German "experts" these stamps had been in a lot I won a few years earlier. One expert responded that it looked right, but he was not absolutely sure, The other stated flatly that it was bogus..The third sent it back with "no opinion".
If there was any simple telltale marker he first two should have rendered an opinion citing the reason.
So I sent a letter and asked what made it bogus. That answer annoys me to this day, it was "because I have no such example in my reference collection."
In logic we have a rubric "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." which can be structured Absence of proof, one way or the other, does not prove it is false.
I just gave up and eided to just keep it in my album for mu pleasure.
I have ben underwhelmed by so-called experts ever since.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
What I did is create an exhibit to document the variability:
I will probably send it off to APEX at some point to see what they say, but I already have a 351 with normal margins and a cert in my collection so I'm in no hurry.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
Is the PSE cert the opinion of just one expert, or does the stamp get seen by one or more other pair of eyes, for corroboration of the 1st opinion?
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
I don't know.
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
Q/ What is the cause of the 'flair'?
{2c}
In a genuine stamp, it would be from stretching of the paper during perf separation.
This should be easy to duplicate with cheap coil stamps, and strikes me as unlikely, as there would be tell-tale stretching at the last perf, too.
In a forgery, it would be from a shearing effect, either at the start of the cut or at the very end of the cut.
This would be more likely with scissors than with a straight edge, and should be easy to replicate with cheap coil stamps (or any other piece of paper).
I'll vote forgery, for what my vote is worth.
{/2c}
Aye, Bill, we miss you.
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
"... flairs -> flares ..."
Homophoned, again!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
Bill was contending the perforations were cut off of the sides to create a coil and not that the top/bottom perfs were faked.
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
Note the 'also':
"... The perforations also don't look correct to me ..."
"... Bill didn't comment on the perfs, but he may have thought the other issues were enough ..."
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
"The perforations also don't look correct to me. An interesting additional graphical analysis would be to draw perfectly straight lines through the center of the top perf holes and see if they line up with the bottom; they look slightly off with me but I believe in the flat plate process they should be precisely aligned."
I don't think that is correct. The perfs on the 350 below aren't lined up and it would really be hard to fake a plate line single that gets a clean cert. It's easy to see that more than one of the perf 8.5 stamps don't have perfs that line up, and I doubt they were faked.
"Gauging on the Kisulas gauge also is important. As PF has written, expertizing flat plate coils "... requires examination of the perforation holes using a perforation gauge and looking closely for holes that run off the spacing shown on the gauge. One must look very carefully because many fraudulent coil stamps closely approximate the correct gauge. It also requires comparison against known genuine examples to assess the size of the holes, as well as the examination of both sides of the stamp to see if the holes have been tampered with by scrapping. The holes for a genuine coil should have “pressure ridges†made by the original government perforating machine.""
That would be true if you are looking for an imperforate stamp with perforations added (or a coil stamp with altered perforation holes, but that's not possible in this case). It's possible someone could take an imperf 347 and add perfs to fake a 351. 347 MH is $27.50 and 351 MH is $140. The sheet version (335) is $50 MH, so it would be tempting to assume fakers would use the imperf, but the equipment necessary to add convincing fake perfs would be cost prohibitive. Most fakes of this issue are used, because a 335 catalogs for $2.50 used and a 351 catalogs for $300 used. Most mint fakes are cut down sheet stamps because of the simplicity (and removing a cancel / re-gumming is also possible).
If a faker went to the trouble to add perforations to an imperf issue, they would certainly cut the side margins wide enough to not be on the narrow end of the range.
Sorry, I don't buy the possibility that this is a reperfed imperf.
"I strongly disagree with the statement that PSE is "perhaps the most prestigious expertizing agency today". That would be PF, for this issue."
Maybe so, that's why I used "perhaps". My point wasn't to pass judgment but to indicate that neither Bill Weiss nor PSE were opinions that should be taken lightly. I will re-word it when I get around to submitting the stamp to PF.
Thanks for the feedback!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
07:07:04am
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
With the KG6 stamp the clincher for me is that Murray Payne is THE acknowledged expert dealer in King George VI material, with an excellent reputation ( and probably knows more than the RPSL anyway !)
While I would never say "never" about anything, it is most unlikely that he would knowingly misdescribe any item within his speciality.
If you read his articles in the philatelic press on KG6 they often go beyond the standard Gibbons shades and includes ( and illustrates) intermediate shades identified to the relevant printing date.
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
re: What does One do with Differing "Expert" Opinions?
Malcolm,
Murray Payne's reputation is exactly why I went to them in the first place. I have to say, once again, that they have acted professionally and courteously every since I brought this discrepancy to their attention.
In fact, the very first thing they asked me when I brought this to their attention was "Would you like a refund?".
David
Login to Like
this post