The Samovar

Signature question - E. WIERNIK on Poland #1, 1860

Warsaw_Collector - 4/15/2008 at 05:32

As you know, this is Poland #1a, 1860 10 Kopeck blue and rose, used on piece cancelled with numeral 1 of Warsaw. But I could not identify this signature in lower, left corner. I think it is in Russian, Cyrillic alphabet: E. BEPHИK (?) = E. Vernik. I don't know any expert, who has this name. So, who was it? Collector? Stamp dealer?
Could you help me?
Many thanks in advance!

Alep - 4/15/2008 at 12:16

E. Vernik is (or was?) a prominent collector in Moscow. However, I doubt if he has official right for expertizing.

Gary - 4/15/2008 at 16:27

Alep, we have a lot of people declaring themselves experts these days. What or how does one get this "official right for expertizing" added to their resume?:starhit:

ameis33 - 4/15/2008 at 16:45

Without any polemic, but how's considered the role of an "expert" in the US? In Italy it's considered a profession, but there's no examination to become expert, so every one can simply go to the commerce chamber and register himself as philatelic expert... the expertisation, in Italy, are "in my opinion", without any assumption of responsability by the expert.
The polish philatelic union (if i don't mistake), like the BPP (again, if i don't mistake), are a little bit more serious. An expert in Poland must qualify himself throught an exam as expert for a specific area, and he's responsible for the certificates produced.
In Germany it should be the same with BPP, not sure of it...

Lacplesis - 4/15/2008 at 19:23

Originally posted by ameis33
In Germany it should be the same with BPP, not sure of it...

It is...

Anyhow a collectors mark is not an expert mark. This stamp is just ex-Vernik and not expertized.

Unhinged - 4/15/2008 at 22:17

Some time ago, when I asked about expertising marks, I was given this link:

I looked there and did not see this one under Poland or Russia. If it truly isn't there, perhaps the finder could pass it on to the site manager, to consider adding it to the site? It looks like they accept and appreciate news.

GregMirsky - 4/16/2008 at 09:50

In this specific case - I guess - it is the case where collector or dealer marked some philatelic item to indicate that it belongs to him or went through his hands. "Stolow" marks probably one of the best examples. I've seen a lot of those.

Now, it brings another interesting question for US and may be some other countries (I don't know). There are established expertizing services (APS for example) and it is their responsibility to find philatelists who can do expertization, but at the end of the day - it is APS-signed Certificate. In this case answer to a question "why certain person is an expert?" is irrelevant - it is whoever APS is choosing or asking to do it. At the end or the day - it is APS reputation on the line.

On other side - EVERYBODY HAS AN OPINION!!!. So anybody - literally ANYBODY can take piece of paper, write their opinion about certain philatelic item and sign it. Iíve see number of those too. There is nothing wrong with it. It is up to me as a collector "trust or not trust" what is written on this piece of paper. As simple as that. In this case - anybody can call himself "an expert " (consider it "right of free speech"), but is is collector/buyer judgement to agree with this opinion or not.

At the end of the day - be your own expert, look at a lot of material, have your reference material, read as much as you can and you will be OK.

If you think about it - people request certificates when they don't trust themselves or need to convince somebody else (buyer?) that this is a good item. If buyer does not trust seller or seller does not know what he/she is selling - it is very different issue. Can not help there :)