Question About Scott Numbers (Us)

I notice in my 2007 Scott Specialized that they
use 2 different numbers to identify stamps. The
"Scott" number of course, but it appears as though
there is another number assigned to the overall
design of the stamp.

Am I correct in assuming that the 'number' assigned
that begins with "A" is for the basic art, then the
actual "Scott" number is assigned to the specific
version of the art? Therefore the "A" number is a
main designation, then the Scott number is the
subcategory for how that art was used... color, perfs,
paper, etc... Is all of this correct? Do you have
anything to add or clarify for me?

The reason I ask is because I feel like one could
use the "A" designation on the old (expensive) stamps
and make an album that covers those numbers, not the
extended subcat numbers Scott uses. This way you end
up with a "Type Set" to steal a term from coin collecting.
More affordable, more compact, easy to set up...

Make sense?
Ideas, comments?

I stole this image from one of my other replys...
are you talking about the A36 in the example below?

#125 is the exact/specific stamp ID # (aka the stamp you hold in your hand), some lists could be ###a, ####b ect depending on variations

the A36 is a general picture of a stamp and may be used again in later years and only pictured once in the catalog so you'll have to look back or even to a different section to find the reference image. you'll see this in Back of Book stamps.

to add to your confusion there are common issue stamps that are usually found in the front of the Scotts catalogs books

Or are you referencing something completely different?

To use your pic as a reference...
All 125s are A36s, but not all A36s are 125s.

What is that "A" number called? Is there a term for that number?

I would like to do an album starting with A1 and going to about 1930
with all the consecutive "A" numbers. That should make a nice 'Type set'.
Would only require about 1/3 the stamps as a complete Scott set, and would
be much more affordable... Still expensive, but far less than a Scott set.

You could spend your money on really nice 'type' examples of each "A" number.

what is the actual stamp number/page in the Specialized Scott catalog I'll scan it in and we can get some help in the discussion for ya I dont want to lead you down the wrong road

All the regular issue stamps in my 2007 have an "A" number assigned.

go to the front of your scotts book about page 17a

there is an illustration that describes the listing info...

the A# is the Illustration #

The A is simply a designator for the image.. occasionally you will find an image with a different number, it is simply to say that this stamp A6 is attached to this design. etc..

Ratio:

Not that you're clear on the "A" numbers, let me give you a little more to think about along the lines of collecting by "face" or "type"

Check out these two threads and see if they address some of your concerns and ideas.

First, a thread started by desertgem https://goscf.com/t/1921

Then, a second thread started by me https://goscf.com/t/4305

KirkS

[edit to fix typo]

I disagree that "A" simply denotes an illustration.
If that was the case, every illustration in the catalog
would have a number. The only ones with a specific "A"
number attached are illustrations of a complete stamp,
and the numbers or that stamp design aren't duplicated.

If an illustration is duplicated or part of a stamp is
shown in detail, those illustrations receive the same
"A" number as the stamp they detail. If these were simple
numbers assigned to reference an illustration, every
single illustration would have a different number.

I'll check those threads Kirk.

Thanks for the links Kirk...
This says it all:
"In many mid-19th century stamps, what most collectors would
consider a minor variety is elevated to whole number status,
leading to a lack of proportionality to the structure."

I agree.
I think this is a great idea for stamps between 1840s and 1930s.
After that, everything else is pretty simple and straight forward.
I blame Scotts for making albums so complicated by giving numbers
to small changes like shade, perfs, grill, etc... That stuff is
superfluous minutia.

I am kinda stuck with the way Dad set up his collection, but I am
definately looking into either starting a 'type set' or converting
his pre-1930 stamps to a 'type set'.

Kirk,
That PSE collection is exactly what I am talking about!
I looked at the sample layout and it is gorgeous!
To me this is the only sensible way to collect 1847-1947 stamps
and have half a chance of ending with a complete set before you die.

I don't know that it must go all the way to 47, but it's a nice
clean cut off if you were to call it a USPS Centenial Set...

Here is a link to the printable sample book...
http://www.psestamp.com/pdf/USDGuide.pdf

IMO this is the way Scott should have them listed,
and the way they should be in the albums. Then all
the minor changes could be subcats, and those whom
are gluttons for punishment could order albums that
have all the subcats if they so choose.