How Far Back Did Certificates Not Consider Reperforation?

Recently bought a 1920's US MNH stamp online, great looking, came with a clean 1991 certificate from one of the highly regarded expertizing services, no faults noted. Received it today and happened to notice that it was in a black background sleeve with a white label on it. I recognized the label as one from one of the other commonly known expertizing services and saw it had the same Scott number as the stamp received. Decided to do an online lookup of the certificate number from the label and it came up as the same stamp, with image to confirm. The certificate was dated July 2024 and indicated the stamp was reperforated on one side.

Seller made no mention of the new certificate in the online description. Description noted they are an APS member. It is a dealer that's been around a while, but I'm not here to 'out' them. I find it hard to believe this was a mistake, so I'll be sure not to buy from them ever again.

I plan to return for a refund, but it got me wondering if there is a general consensus with certificates that maybe before a certain year, the chances of there being issues are higher? Most of the items I'm missing in my US collection are above $100 each now, so I prefer items expertized to ensure I'm buying sound stamps. The item mentioned above was $300. It seems like any certificates older than 25 years are subject to inconsistencies with current expertizing.

Anything could have occurred since 1991 which is why valuable stamps are often "recerted". Also a cert is an opinion, and opinions can be incomplete or in error.In the case of reperforating I tend to think it was subsequently done after the initial certification.
Which does not excuse anyone in the chain of possession from revealing the true nature of the patient.
When I first started collecting seriously, last 10 years or so, I tended to trust everyone. Now I am cynical and skeptical, and trust no one, within reason. (I trust Mr. Crowe).
When it comes to money,it has been my experience that the error is always on the side of profit. "Love of money is the root of all evil" St. Paul, 2000 years ago.True then,true now.

Any serious dealer would check a certificate, and if evidence existed of a subsequent cert. would investigate that too.


Out them.
Cheers mark

Regarding age of certs, Siegel Auctions has this in their Terms & Conditions -




So they are using a 5 year scale for cert-aging, if that's any help.

Thanks for the reply. In the case of very old certs, there are sometimes no images, but the 1991 cert has a very clear color image and it is exactly the same as the image of the most recent cert that I discovered.





Thanks for the reminder on that, had thought about asking them.

Interesting follow-up to this post. I returned the item and received a full refund, no problem with seller. They chose not to acknowledge or discuss the recent cert noting re-perf.

Happened to notice the item relisted online recently. The seller resubmitted to the same expertizing company that had issued the 1991 certificate with no faults. This company certified the stamp as MNH with grade XF-90, no faults, no mention of re-perf. This company is the most highly regarded in regards to certification.

Of course, the price is double for the item now. :-(

Could you reveal which expertizing company issued the 1991 and most current cert, and which had issued the July 2024 cert noting the reperf? Given that the stamp has been relisted, apparently again without reference to the July 2024 cert, would you be willing to reveal the name of the seller?

General question for all - is it possible that the July 2024 cert is actually the one in error and there was no reperf? What do folks think when two different expertizing entities have different opinions - should one always believe the one that notes a fault?

I agree with the direction Oracle takes ... this thread is absolutely useless without naming names and making exact references to the stamp in question. Vague "facts" known only to the OP accomplish nothing. It's time this thread had FACTS to dig into or it might as well disappear. Caspian, have some courage.

I thought we weren't allowed to mention expertizing companies here?

My original question had to do with how far back we can trust certificates in regards to re-perf. This is not really an issue with the seller so much as it is with the expertizing companies. With all the supposed technology improvements and modern equipment for expertizing, how can 2 of the top firms disagree on something like re-perf in 2024? Especially for a 20th century USA item?

I'm not aware of any rule or understanding that we cannot mention expertizing companies on this forum, or sellers for that matter. Although your original question is an interesting one, the specific example you cite is also of interest, given the details you have provided so far.

Ok, I suppose it will be removed if the admins don't like it. The original cert from 1991 was issued by PF. The July 2024 one noting re-perf was PSE and the October 2024 for graded XF-90 no faults was PF.

Given the fact that PF is generally regarded pretty highly, as you note, perhaps more highly than PSE, I am still curious whether in fact PF is correct and PSE was incorrect in calling out the reperf. For those more intimately familiar with the workings of PF, would PF be aware of certs issued previously by other expertizers and, if so, would the knowledge of the July 2024 PSE cert have affected its analysis of this stamp?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Seriously, discussing a reperf without images of the stamp and the certs is more than pointless...

PF has an online certificate query/validation like PSE. I'm not sure if PF checks for previously issued certs when examining every stamp, but when I query the new certificate number, it has the old one listed in the history. There is even the picture of the stamp from the 1991 cert.

I'm not asking for the opinion of the group on whether or not the stamp is re-perforated. My original question had to do with how far back can certs be trusted in regards to re-perf. Based on this example, it feels like none can be trusted.

Maybe I should contact PF directly to discuss the matter.

YOU may have a question, but WE have asked repeatedly for the specifics of this item
Sometime we need to shout:
QUIT PLAYING GAMES WITH US AND POST THE CERTIFICATE NUMBERS!!!

I do not think is a simple answer since each expertizing event can be independent of all others given human involvement.