Looking Through the Stamp Catalogues (2)

1/9/2004 9:58 AM

Albumen wrote:

The catalog makers must require a certain amount of
validation, or a signed affidavit, before listing such an item as your Scott
2532.

Wow! Here we have serious Pie-in-the-Sky attitude! I bet you believe in the
tooth fairy, too.

I doubt that postal poobahs are the slightest bit interested in revealing
security lapses, unless they happen to apprehend the culprit or culprits and
retrieve the goods before they enter the philatelic markeptplace.

There is also this: How could any catalogue publisher could afford the
manpower and time necessary to verify every new error as "legitimate,"
*especially* when dealing with government bureaucracies, even more
especially when one considers the relatively huge number of EFOs that seem
to be generated by modern printing practices, as opposed to yesteryear.

I doubt as well that organizations like USPS or Canada Post or the Royal
Post Office have tasked any employees to deal with queries from stamp
catalogue publishers about EFOs. I can just imagine the conversation:

Catalogue publisher researcher: "I have information about the existance of
an imperforate coil pair of X, which also seems to have a color shift. Is
this a legitimate Canada Post release?

Canada Post employee: "Huh?"

Even if the manpower were available, think of the time it would take to
determine the "legitimacy" of stamps! I heard recently that something like
only one in 10 or 12 business calls are completed on the first attempt. (I
once tried to call the Western Canada manager for Kodak Canada. My call was
forwarded about six times, and the last time I got the first person I talked
with.)

Bob Ingraham

Rein, there is, and has *always* been, a market for errors. But, collector's
are only going to exhibit according to the boundaries established in the
catalog. The way our young collectors learn about the hobby is though the
catalog.

If printer's waste is being issued to the public (someone help me with a
modern example here) -- the Government (and their philatelic intermediaries)
should be called into accounting. But, if printer's waste is going out the
back door and ending up in the front of the catalog, we (collectively)
should call the editor(s) into question. In addition, some people, like
Victor, are outraged that the Government is not investigating the
mishandling of it's property. It is a crime, and not only that a philatelic
crime. Should it continues unchecked then the 'back' of the book will end up
growing faster than the 'front'. Not a very good prospect, like you say
Rein, for either our exhibits or our young collectors.

-a



"Rein Bakhuizen van den Brink" wrote in message
...

dear Victor,

of course it is not legitimate, but the Postal Authorities don't bother
/ can't be bothered since a legal prosecution would cost too much or take
too much time...

The catalogues deal with this material because we - 'the collector' -
want this stuff, because we - ' our honorable exhibition jurors' only want
to hand out 'gold medals' to the VIP collectors that show the most of this
rubbish as they don't want to be discontented since they'd paid for it.
And thus we teach our young, starting collectors - watching these displays
at
the exhibitions - that it pays off to have printers waste in your
collection
and so on....

gtx, Rein

On 9 Jan 2004 10:39:54 +, "Victor Manta" wrote:
My regard felt this time on the US 1991, Feb. 22, Switzerland 700th
Anniversary. One of the reasons for my interest is obvious, anther one is
that I have somewhere a joint issue FDC with the both US and CH (Sc. 888)
stamps.

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where
the
stamp has the No. 2532):

"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint - V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."

Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a

- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

TIA.

Victor Manta

"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...
1/9/2004 9:58 AM

Albumen wrote:

The catalog makers must require a certain amount of
validation, or a signed affidavit, before listing such an item as your
Scott
2532.

Wow! Here we have serious Pie-in-the-Sky attitude! I bet you believe in
the
tooth fairy, too.

I doubt that postal poobahs are the slightest bit interested in revealing
security lapses, unless they happen to apprehend the culprit or culprits
and
retrieve the goods before they enter the philatelic markeptplace.

There is also this: How could any catalogue publisher could afford the
manpower and time necessary to verify every new error as "legitimate,"
*especially* when dealing with government bureaucracies, even more
especially when one considers the relatively huge number of EFOs that seem
to be generated by modern printing practices, as opposed to yesteryear.

I doubt as well that organizations like USPS or Canada Post or the Royal
Post Office have tasked any employees to deal with queries from stamp
catalogue publishers about EFOs. I can just imagine the conversation:

Catalogue publisher researcher: "I have information about the existance of
an imperforate coil pair of X, which also seems to have a color shift. Is
this a legitimate Canada Post release?

Canada Post employee: "Huh?"

Even if the manpower were available, think of the time it would take to
determine the "legitimacy" of stamps! I heard recently that something like
only one in 10 or 12 business calls are completed on the first attempt. (I
once tried to call the Western Canada manager for Kodak Canada. My call
was
forwarded about six times, and the last time I got the first person I
talked
with.)

Bob Ingraham

Yes, I see your point Victor.

Printers waste is a euphemism of sorts. The government printing houses have
rules and security, and these are backed up by law. Unlike a mint, where
metal detectors prevent theft of any kind, it's much harder to put up a
blockade on paper.

This is a very good question, why don't government's peruse these matters?

Let me take a guess -- there's an ol' boy (or Oh' Boy!) network, and they
know just how far the envelope (pardon the pun) can be pushed.

-a

"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
"Albumen" wrote in message
...
A number of years ago a stamp dealer (as I recall reading) soaked a
24-cent
US stamp of the 1861 Issue off it's cover to reveal a somewhat shabby
printing on the reverse. Evidently, some of the printing waste was
reused,
for what reason we don't know.

The point I wish to make is: to be classed an error the stamp must be
released to the public. This is the only way it can/should make it into
the
'front' of the catalog.

If a stamp accidentally, or unknowingly, is sold to the public, then it
is
a
legitimate error. If it is a case where a printer or PO employee is
coaxed
into providing waste material to a stamp dealer, then your questions
(below)
have some validity. The catalog makers must require a certain amount of
validation, or a signed affidavit, before listing such an item as your
Scott
2532. So, either you trust the editors of the catalog, or you don't.
Before
raising these questions Victor, more information is needed.

-a

Agree, but I wonder why would one who knows more provide it?

What about the imperfs that appear many years after the stamps were
released? Nobody can apparently provide information anymore, many
collectors
hunt them, and finally the catalogue editors have to adapt to the reality
of
the market... It looks like a situation without a solution, as long as,
like
Rain wrote it down, "the Postal Authorities don't bother / can't be
bothered
since a legal prosecution would cost too much or take too much time".

Often only *one* legal prosecution is sufficient to stop such practices
(and
this is valid not only in this case, but also in the case of illegal
stamps).

Victor Manta

1/12/2004 3:30 PM

My only contribution to this discussion is if the catalog maker
(Scott) does not sell stamps -- then they should not be ethically
challenged in deciding what goes into the front of the book.

Stamp catalogues would not exist were it not for the commercial aspect of
the hobby. The new stamps and varieties and price changes that there are in
each annual edition are the fuel that makes the hobby go. By and large, we
collectors and dealers buy new catalogues simply because they do list new
stamps which will become the "collectible commodities" that they are. It
seems to be an accepted truth that the more new listings there are in each
new catalogue, the better things are. But beyond that link, which could
perhaps be challenged in court, is the question of whether people who are
indirectly involved in criminal or unethical activity should be concerned
about ethics.

Would it be ethical for me to publish a web site which gives precise
instructions on how to make a bomb out of stuff you can buy at the corner
store, even though I don't actually build and use such a bomb myself? I
don't think so. Is it ethical for a catalogue publisher to list stolen
stamps just because he is not directly profiting from them? I don't think
so.

But, your' right (as usual) Bob. The tooth fairy helps with my
stamp fund, and I would rather not look at the seamy
underside of our hobby for fear of finding out what really
goes on. If ignorance is bliss, then I'm your typical happy-go-lucky
collector. :-)) (Humm, where did I put those rose-colored eye shades?)

Unfortunately, there *is* a seamy underside. Theft from stamp shows (it does
happen, although I don't think that Edmonton is the epicentre of stamp theft
or anything else for that matter!), switching of approval stamps, fakery and
outright forgery, misrepresentation of stamps, it's all there. In about the
same proportion that dastardly deeds take place in any human activity. Which
means that the bulk of collectors and dealers are right nice people.

I once knew a dealer who let me take home for a week at a time approval
books worth as much as $8,000 retail. How's that for trust? At my stamp
club, people leave really expensive stamps laying around all the time while
they move about the room. I've never heard of a one of them going missing.
Once in the same evening I had both a U.S. #1 and a G.B. #1, both on cover,
in my hands, and without too much trouble could have caused them to "change
ownership."

A little caution is in order, of course. I have learned recently that I have
eight Japanese stamps that I bought on faith that they were genuine. I have
just learned that every one of them is a forgery. Fortunately, the cost was
minimal, and the dealer I am 100% confident did not himself know that they
were fakes. A lot of knowledge about stamps is very useful in this hobby!
Which is why this newsgroup is so good (most of the time).

Bob Ingraham









-a

"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...
1/9/2004 9:58 AM

Albumen wrote:

The catalog makers must require a certain amount of
validation, or a signed affidavit, before listing such an item as your
Scott
2532.

Wow! Here we have serious Pie-in-the-Sky attitude! I bet you believe in
the
tooth fairy, too.

I doubt that postal poobahs are the slightest bit interested in revealing
security lapses, unless they happen to apprehend the culprit or culprits
and
retrieve the goods before they enter the philatelic markeptplace.

There is also this: How could any catalogue publisher could afford the
manpower and time necessary to verify every new error as "legitimate,"
*especially* when dealing with government bureaucracies, even more
especially when one considers the relatively huge number of EFOs that seem
to be generated by modern printing practices, as opposed to yesteryear.

I doubt as well that organizations like USPS or Canada Post or the Royal
Post Office have tasked any employees to deal with queries from stamp
catalogue publishers about EFOs. I can just imagine the conversation:

Catalogue publisher researcher: "I have information about the existance of
an imperforate coil pair of X, which also seems to have a color shift. Is
this a legitimate Canada Post release?

Canada Post employee: "Huh?"

Even if the manpower were available, think of the time it would take to
determine the "legitimacy" of stamps! I heard recently that something like
only one in 10 or 12 business calls are completed on the first attempt. (I
once tried to call the Western Canada manager for Kodak Canada. My call
was
forwarded about six times, and the last time I got the first person I
talked
with.)

Bob Ingraham

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:20:33 GMT, Bob Ingraham
wrote:

1/12/2004 3:30 PM

My only contribution to this discussion is if the catalog maker
(Scott) does not sell stamps -- then they should not be ethically
challenged in deciding what goes into the front of the book.

Stamp catalogues would not exist were it not for the commercial aspect of
the hobby. The new stamps and varieties and price changes that there are in
each annual edition are the fuel that makes the hobby go. By and large, we
collectors and dealers buy new catalogues simply because they do list new
stamps which will become the "collectible commodities" that they are. It
seems to be an accepted truth that the more new listings there are in each
new catalogue, the better things are. But beyond that link, which could
perhaps be challenged in court, is the question of whether people who are
indirectly involved in criminal or unethical activity should be concerned
about ethics.

Would it be ethical for me to publish a web site which gives precise
instructions on how to make a bomb out of stuff you can buy at the corner
store, even though I don't actually build and use such a bomb myself? I
don't think so. Is it ethical for a catalogue publisher to list stolen
stamps just because he is not directly profiting from them? I don't think
so.

But, your' right (as usual) Bob. The tooth fairy helps with my
stamp fund, and I would rather not look at the seamy
underside of our hobby for fear of finding out what really
goes on. If ignorance is bliss, then I'm your typical happy-go-lucky
collector. :-)) (Humm, where did I put those rose-colored eye shades?)

Unfortunately, there *is* a seamy underside. Theft from stamp shows (it does
happen, although I don't think that Edmonton is the epicentre of stamp theft
or anything else for that matter!), switching of approval stamps, fakery and
outright forgery, misrepresentation of stamps, it's all there. In about the
same proportion that dastardly deeds take place in any human activity. Which
means that the bulk of collectors and dealers are right nice people.

I once knew a dealer who let me take home for a week at a time approval
books worth as much as $8,000 retail. How's that for trust? At my stamp
club, people leave really expensive stamps laying around all the time while
they move about the room. I've never heard of a one of them going missing.
Once in the same evening I had both a U.S. #1 and a G.B. #1, both on cover,
in my hands, and without too much trouble could have caused them to "change
ownership."

A little caution is in order, of course. I have learned recently that I have
eight Japanese stamps that I bought on faith that they were genuine. I have
just learned that every one of them is a forgery. Fortunately, the cost was
minimal, and the dealer I am 100% confident did not himself know that they
were fakes. A lot of knowledge about stamps is very useful in this hobby!
Which is why this newsgroup is so good (most of the time).

At least, rcsd is a good checks and balances source, when the balance
is working OK. :^)

Tracy Barber

My only contribution to this discussion is if the catalog maker
(Scott) does not sell stamps -- then they should not be ethically
challenged in deciding what goes into the front of the book.

But, your' right (as usual) Bob. The tooth fairy helps with my
stamp fund, and I would rather not look at the seamy
underside of our hobby for fear of finding out what really
goes on. If ignorance is bliss, then I'm your typical happy-go-lucky
collector. :-)) (Humm, where did I put those rose-colored eye shades?)

-a

"Bob Ingraham" wrote in message
...
1/9/2004 9:58 AM

Albumen wrote:

The catalog makers must require a certain amount of
validation, or a signed affidavit, before listing such an item as your
Scott
2532.

Wow! Here we have serious Pie-in-the-Sky attitude! I bet you believe in
the
tooth fairy, too.

I doubt that postal poobahs are the slightest bit interested in revealing
security lapses, unless they happen to apprehend the culprit or culprits
and
retrieve the goods before they enter the philatelic markeptplace.

There is also this: How could any catalogue publisher could afford the
manpower and time necessary to verify every new error as "legitimate,"
*especially* when dealing with government bureaucracies, even more
especially when one considers the relatively huge number of EFOs that seem
to be generated by modern printing practices, as opposed to yesteryear.

I doubt as well that organizations like USPS or Canada Post or the Royal
Post Office have tasked any employees to deal with queries from stamp
catalogue publishers about EFOs. I can just imagine the conversation:

Catalogue publisher researcher: "I have information about the existance of
an imperforate coil pair of X, which also seems to have a color shift. Is
this a legitimate Canada Post release?

Canada Post employee: "Huh?"

Even if the manpower were available, think of the time it would take to
determine the "legitimacy" of stamps! I heard recently that something like
only one in 10 or 12 business calls are completed on the first attempt. (I
once tried to call the Western Canada manager for Kodak Canada. My call
was
forwarded about six times, and the last time I got the first person I
talked
with.)

Bob Ingraham