Stamps/change of info62 messages

It was known that collectors sometimes change items, different scan, different perforation, and that sometimes a completely new item is created.

but that this is also sometimes done by administrators was new for me.

I now have a customer who went completely crazy because I could not deliver an item.

and this is because after a year after introduction a watermark has changed ( see item 1717087 )

first it was stamp with watermark, and then suddenly no more.

without informing the adhering collectors.

pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, stop these changes.

Aart,

The aim is to keep / make the data correct. If you do not have the stamp in your hands, you have to rely on the (usually very brief) information provided by the first importer. If he already enters incorrect information, it all becomes a big gamble.

For example, it is often the case that the year and watermark are incorrect. It would then just read 1856 as the year of issue, and the elephant's head as the watermark (which was only introduced in 1865). Well, and then the big guesswork begins.

Usually the cause lies with the first importer, who simply takes the data from his printed catalog. He / she does not look further than his nose, in other words he / she takes over the data as shown in the first picture that he accidentally came across. Then a stamp first issued in green suddenly turns yellow and so on.

An administrator has to deal with such cases very frequently. It is impossible that, in addition to the many corrective work, they should also inform all adhering collectors. Earlier you would say that the supporters first have to analyze their stamps themselves, before they add a stamp to their collection or wish list with one click (only on the basis of a picture).

pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, put a little more effort to do that analysis, and the complaints will naturally diminish. Even a "dedicated administrator" cannot change this kind of thing. Unless you do away with all administrators, I'm afraid the event in question will keep repeating. But then it is better to do away with the entire catalog idea.

@aartinge

The change from watermark "Coat of arms" to "No watermark" was done correctly and does not change the other details of this item.

It was just an error from myself as an importer.

It's very simple: if this seal does not exist with Coat of Arms watermark, Tapir is right. If it does exist, then Aart is right and this stamp could have been changed indiscriminately after more than a year of never-never-never again.

Just say it ...

Ik laat aartinge aan het woord in zijn bericht naar mij op 24 april 2012:

"Beste tapir,Zover ik in de Yvert lees, heeft de serie van 1856 India geen watermerk, jij vermeld Wapenschild in deze serie.
ik zie alleen dat er vermeld wordt dat het papier een glace laag heeft.
Er wordt ook niet verwezen naar een ander jaartal dat deze serie bestaat zonder watermerk. ik heb er genoeg van deze serie, en nergens een watermerk te vinden.
kijk anders even je invoer van deze zegel na.
groetjes aart"

En ik heb hem dezelfde dag geantwoord:

"Beste aartinge,

Je hebt gelijk. De series 1855-1860 en 1856-1864 (Y&T nrs. 6 tot 17)werden zonder watermerk uitgegeven.
De aanpassingen zijn gebeurd.

Groetjes,
Tapir"

Much Ado About Nothing?

I let aartinge speak in his message to me on April 24, 2012:

" Dear tapir, As far as I read in the Yvert, the series of 1856 India has no watermark, you mention Coat of Arms in this series.
I only see that it is mentioned that the paper has a glaze layer.
There is also no reference to another year that this series exists without a watermark. I have enough of this series, and no watermark to be found anywhere.
otherwise check your entry of this stamp.
greetings aart "

And I answered him the same day:

"Dear Archangel,

You're right. The series 1855-1860 and 1856-1864 (Y&T nos. 6 to 17) were issued without a watermark.
The adjustments have been made.

Greetings,
Tapir "

Much Adore About Nothing?

@Tapir,  Ondanks dat het een fout was van jezelf, is het veranderen van een watermerk na een jaar onterecht, immers er zitten al mensen aan.

het word door de verandering wel degelijk een andere zegel, een zegel die nog niet eerder in de catalogus stond.

je had de datum kunnen veranderen, en je had die zegel opnieuw kunnen invoeren zonder watermerk of je had de mensen kunnen informeren indien je iets belangrijks ging veranderen.

foutjes kun je herstellen, maar dan wel tijdens de invoer, maar niet een jaar later zonder iets te zeggen.

@Arco, ze bestaan allebij, met en zonder watermerk.

@Tapir, Even though it was a mistake on your part, changing a watermark after a year is unjustified, after all, people are already using it.

because of the change it will indeed be a different stamp, a stamp that has not been in the catalog before.

you could have changed the date, and you could have reintroduced that seal without the watermark or you could have informed people if you were going to change something important.

mistakes can be corrected, but then during the import, but not a year later without saying anything.

@Arco, they both exist, with and without watermark.

@Tapir, this message you show has to do with the Half Anna item 1717081 and does not alter the fact that you should not inform other people that you are also suddenly applying a change to other items.

Apparently you changed the entire series after that, but you can not a year later without anyone knowing.

Classic problem.

Admins have the option to message associated users (all at once), but it's not always obvious that the change justifies that extra effort.

The fact that the change was simply approved (by another administrator) also indicates that administrators do not have the time to review all changes in the history, but that they only base their review on the correctness of the latest version.

There can be no misunderstanding in this case: the 1856 series has no watermark.

It's just a rectification of my mistake reported by aartinge.

It's a matter of peeling off, because you can't both be right. The stamps only exist without watermark or also with.

Why couldn't you deliver that stamp without watermark to your customer, Aart? Do you really have one with a watermark? According to Tapir, that is not possible. If you give a clear answer to this, the problem will be solved.

The situation is complex. As it stands in Catawiki at the moment, Tapir is right in my opinion. According to my Yvert, the stamp of 1 Anna was only issued without watermark in 1856. In addition, a comparable 1 Anna with watermark appeared in 1865-1873. This stamp is in another series, namely 1865 Queen Victoria. The aforementioned stamp is from the series: 1856 Queen Victoria. The appointment of a separate series 1865 KV is debatable. In many cases the series remains 1856 KV and only the year (1865 instead of 1856) is adjusted. Seen from Catawiki, I think Tapir's rectification is justified.

Seen from the buyer, I can imagine the doubt. He knows the series and within the series of 1856 an unknown stamp with watermark is suddenly issued, where until now only stamps without watermark are known. I can imagine the interest. This situation is more common. In Indonesia, many stamps without luminescence are offered, while almost all stamps after 1962 are fluorescent. It is in Catawiki, but I think the buyer should have done some more preliminary work and checking here. that is actually offered. However, the fact that things are changing is inherent to Catawiki's system. It is still being renovated and tinkered with. It would be nice if there was an automatic warning system for changes, but we already had that discussion recently. Incidentally, it is good if there is improvement. A buyer can also order a non-existent stamp from you and get angry if you cannot deliver it.

Again:

In this case there can be no misunderstanding: the series from 1856 has no watermark.

The only series with watermark "Coat of arms" is from 1854 and consists of imperforated stamps.

The series of 1865 is rightly mentioned separately for both Michel and Y & amp; T: all these stamps have the watermark "Elephant's head".

@ az60: as far as the buyer is concerned, he did not come across an unknown stamp with a watermark, but one without. Therefore my question to Aart how a misunderstanding could have arisen anyway. Why did that buyer go nuts when the item has been in Catawiki correctly for almost three years?

My Stanley Gibbons also confirms what Tapir says. The identification has therefore been correct since the beginning of 2012.

The problem for Aartinge and the customer remains. The buyer could (should?) Have taken the trouble to ask the seller if the offer matches what he / she wanted. The seller should have made sure that he was selling the right thing (what he was offering).

But if you look carefully, the cause of the conflict can be traced to the "wiki nature" the catalogue. After all, use is made of the data entered, without one (or rather two) persons considered to be competent in the matter who have checked it. That way you know in advance that things can go wrong.

There is no ready-made solution. The reason for this is the well-known song: manpower ........

There is no solution, but you could think of an automatic listing with the item in the shop as

"This item was offered on February 4, 2011. The last catalog change was on January 2, 2015 . "

The buyer can then see in the history with which information the item was placed in the shop. If it then turns out that the watermark is very important to that buyer and has been changed after the item has arrived in the shop, he can ask the seller a question and does not have to go wild.
The seller can do it as use a disclaimer for changes made outside his field of vision.

@kdamme: Same comment as the one I addressed to az60: the buyer did not want a watermarked stamp, because that field had already been adjusted three years ago. Aart's story just can't be right. Storm in a glass of water.

it is gone too deeply into it.

the stamps that were then in 2011 have been clicked by people, and I have done the same.

I have in different periods in 2011 clicked on stamps that I had.

also item 1717087 , which was then with a watermark.

later I have 2012 item 1717081 clicked, but it turned out that there was a watermark, this was not correct, and I mentioned that to Tapir.

however Tapir has changed all stamps equally . in itself that is good, but I say again that you can't just do that a year later without someone not knowing.

also item 1717087 he apparently changed. so changed from watermark to no watermark.

if a customer now so item 1717087 ordered, he expects to receive a stamp without watermark, but there may still be people who only have the stamp with watermark. as it used to be.

the essential aspects of a stamp such as perforations and watermarks cannot be changed after a year without people knowing. After all, you make very different stamps through those kinds of changes.

@Arco, the buyer went crazy, because I could not deliver the stamp as it is now stated because of that change.

that customer does not know about anything, he only sees that he can order that stamp without a watermark, and the seller also knows about nothing, he only sees that he suddenly cannot deliver that stamp because someone has changed the watermark .

That is nonsense, isn't it, Aart? That stamp does not exist with a watermark, so it was correctly in your shop. Be clear and concrete, please. I will not go into too much detail, but just report / ask for the simple facts.

@Arco, why can't it be true? Tapir nevertheless confirms that he has modified those stamps. either has changed.

I clicked on stamps in 2011 with the watermark mentioned. and not only I did that, but also other people.

a customer does not have to look in the history of a stamp, because it is in someone's shop, and just sees the stamp that wants to have.

and sees that that stamp has no watermark, and ordered.

he does not know that that stamp had a watermark before and that it was later changed to the stamp he is looking for.

Even a seller does not know that the stamp has been changed to another stamp.

and that is the point.

That stamp does exist with watermark, and was also correctly in my shop.

but if it is changed, then it is no longer correctly in my shop.

But not from that year and in that series. You are now going to tell us that you had a very wrong item from another year in your shop anyway?

@aartinge

but there may still be people who only have the stamp with watermark. as it was before.

We have established above that such a seal is unlikely to exist. If someone has such a stamp with a watermark and a cancellation from before 1865, then they have something unique (or probably a forgery) in their possession. So we prefer to state for the time being that that seal does not exist. And so no one can hang on to it. If they think they do have such a stamp, it is most likely the stamp from the series 1865 Queen Victoria: 1717109 and checked the wrong stamp. Incidentally, both stamps have been added to the catalog fifteen minutes after each other. And in the very early (or perhaps late) hours. There are quite a few night owls here at Catawiki, but the chance that someone ticked the stamp in that fifteen minutes and at that time is negligible.

What a story again guys

ik ben heel duidelijk, die zegel heb ik met watermerk, en zo stond die ook in de catalogus, en daarom had ik die aangeklikt.

Arco je mist waarom het gaat, je probeerd Tapir te verdedigen en dat hij goed heeft gedaan, en een ander heeft het mis.

en of dit nu een vervalsing is of een zegel uit misschien een ander jaar, dat doet niets af van het feit dat er van een zegel met watermerk na een jaar er een andere zegel van wordt gemaakt.

Als ik in de Gibbons kijk, dan is deze serie alleen vermeld in 1855 met of zonder watermerk, en komt 1865 niet voor.

en met dit gegeven dat elke catalogus een andere info geeft, plaatsen mensen hun zegels. of zelfs zonder catalogus.

en daarom kun je niet zomaar een belangrijk detail veranderen zonder mensen in te lichten.

I'm very clear, I have that stamp with a watermark, and that's how it was in the catalogue, and that's why I clicked on it.

Arco you miss the point, you try to defend Tapir and that he did right, and another is wrong.

and whether this be a forgery, or a seal of perhaps another year, that does not alter the fact that a watermarked seal is made into another seal after one year.

When I look in the Gibbons, this series is only mentioned in 1855 with or without watermark, and 1865 does not appear.

and with this given that each catalog gives a different info, people place their stamps. or even without a catalog.

and that's why you can't just change an important detail without telling people.

As you can see from my initial response, my question was very clear, and devoid of any emotion or prejudice. Despite that, try to cover things up by writing entire novels in response.

My final conclusion with the information that is now available is very brief: you start a topic with an accusation, while the relevant administrators have just done their job. There is only one catalog that counts for everyone here and that is Catawiki. You have offered a stamp from a year other than 1856 for sale as a stamp from 1856 and that is not allowed at Catawiki. So there has only been one wrong and that is yourself.

Might be useful to think of these things in the future before you start a topic.