Credibility Counts – one persons view using a few examples

Do I make mistakes?  Yes.   I read something wrong or I make a typo.  I guess we all do. The last time I did it was 1992.  Bad error.   No, only  joking 😊    I  make quite a few  every day  if I am honest but  because I proof read very carefully when I am listing stamps to our store I usually pick up the errors.  Yes, occasionally they slip through  but as I often see errors from others it has taught me to be more careful.

And, I learn from the mistakes of others. In fact when I see an error I wonder if I have made the same mistake.  I will usually check a listing if the same or similar stamps are involved.

Here are two examples – perhaps good examples to learn from.  Images exactly as shown in a listing somewhere…….

The first surprises me but I think it can easily be made because when one is listing this period of Bahrain there are usually no or not many images of the stamps in the catalogue as the stamps were from India, as in this example, and the images are found under India.   It takes time to check but it can be worth the time as Credibility Counts.

Simple mistake although in my view not one that should have crept through to a listing from a responsible, let’s say credible, seller.   In fact, just an additional comment here, this is not a one off example of this actual mistake.  A seller who knew their stamps might I suggest not make this error in listing.  

Two stamps with the same Scott listing yet they are different stamps, which surely is easy to see.  The left stamp shows the inscription India Postage, the right stamp shows the inscription India Postage and Revenue. The left stamp is Scott 19 with a catalogue value of $10 while the right stamp is correct as Scott 6 and has a catalogue value of $20. Accuracy of identification is very important, and especially when there are such catalogued price differences.

Here is another example. This one could be the wrong image loaded.  It could be except for the fact the stamp is described in the listing as  “Used”.

Credibility Counts. There are four rather interesting aspects to this listing.

The first was very obvious. It was listed with a buy it now price of USD $43.20.     This is based on a catalogue price of $67.50 as stated in the listing. This is where one could say a simple error as the Mint price was used by accident in stead of the used catalogue price, which is $10

The second point, reading the listing detail more closely one sees there are 2 copies for sale as stated in the “quantities”  section of the listing.  I wonder if I purchased such a stamp what I would actually get?

The third point – well to me  anyway –  and remember Credibility Counts – there is no scan of the reverse of the stamp.  Perhaps there wouldn’t be given there are 2 for sale.  But, even for a $10 stamp I think I would be showing a scan of the reverse. Credibility and all that!


And the fourth point. This one intrigues me.

If you study the image carefully you will see there is a colour distinction between the black background to the right and left (also applies to the top and bottom perforation margins but we do not fully see this as the listing does not show a wider margin of colour) and the black area around the perforations of the stamp.

How can this happen? There is only one answer I can think of. The stamp image has been cropped from another image and then presented again on another black background.

Now one simple error, an oversight ok. Like I say, we can all make a mistake and miss finding it even during a proof read.  But these four together?

Something is wrong, danger Will Robinson!

Credibility counts.  As a collector and buyer do pay attention to the details in the image of the stamp shown for sale and also, what is written, or in many cases, not written, in the description field.  For sellers, please  check and do not make these and similar mistakes. You will lose credibility with your audience, your prospective customers.

Michael Dodd  Michael can be reached at for feedback

Reproduced with permission from  Michael Dodd – this was first published in the UK Philatelic Exporter magazine.