Jaywild;
I must say that you are indeed a master at word minipulation, so let's try to stay with some facts;
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that you are correct, that the 1c #23 is indeed reperfed at the bottom - even though Ken Srail seems to demonstrate that it might not be - so here you are, years after the fact, putting down Mercer because the cert. bears his signature as the Administrator of the committee? I seriously doubt that he actually expertized the stamp. That's generally not how it works. The stamp is sent out to individual examiners, like me, and after I give my opinion by noting on a preprinted work sheet what I find (by checking off boxes for each fault that I find as well as adding any notes), the item and workshet are returned to APS, who then normally sends it out to the next expertizer, who does the same examination. It is true that the chairman or administrator of the committee is also the "finalizer" in terms of deciding the exact description that will appear on the certificate, but he rarely will personally examine the stamp unless there are differences of opinion between the examiners. In the case of your 1c, if each examiner basically agreed on the description, there is no good reason for him to expertize it himself, and it is a real stretch on your part to attempt to hold him liable for your perceived misdescription.
By the way, you may not realize it, but Mercer was a professional auction describer for Matthew Bennett Auctions before coming to APS, so he is no slouch when it comes to expertizing.
I agree with those who say that expertizers should be willing to discuss and justify opinions they have made. Unfortunately, no current expert committees operate that way. Only the old PSE system was such that the examiner's names would appear on the certificates, and I have always felt that system was by far the best. Unfortunately, when Collector's Universe bought PSE, they eventually abandoned that method, which is a shame.
As I think I have said here before, common sense dictates that until there is some computerized method for identifying shades/colors of stamps, some stamp colors will always be contentious, and different expertizers will identify shades differently. It happens all the time. There is no solution to this. These are opinions formed by human beings based on their experience combined with their visual perception of what they are looking at. It is not an exact science.
In another part of one of your posts you claim that items were pulled off of eBay at Mercer's instigation, which I would say is absolutely not true. At no time did Mercer (to my knowledge) ever have anything "hands-on" to do with the eBay stampwatch committee and the APS involvement in it. It is well known that the Society representative in that program was Frank Sente, not Mercer Bristow, so it would not have been Mercer who was involved, so I think you are just blowing wind again.
And speaking of blowing wind, I am going to end this long post (my apology, but you give lots of reasons for making me want to post opposing views) with an offer to you to give you the opportunity to put up or shut up by backing up what you claim about that 3c stamp on cover with your money. I propose to you that you and I go in partners and buy that 3c stamp cut out on cover with the APEX cert. which you claim is wrong, and we will then submit it to the other committee of YOUR choice (PSE, PF or PSAG) and if the committee you choose identifies that stamp as a #65, I will pay for the cost of the stamp (giving you back your 50%) AND I will pay for the cost of the certificate. On the other hand, if they do identify it as a #64, then YOU must give me back my 50% and YOU must pay for the certificate.
Just say the word that you agree, and I will even be a good guy and put up the initial purchase price and contact the seller to arrange the transaction. Just say the word.................................
|
button below
Must use Buy It Now and PayPal.