Will Scott Publishing Ever Fix Their US Catalogues?

The Scott US specialized catalogue has always bothered me because of the anacronisms and the inconsistency of issuing unique catalogue numbers for plate varieties in the 1850-1861 series vs forcing multiple items into one number (see Scott 85 for a headache). In addition to those is the removal of many scott cat numbers along the way (see scott 48-61, 66 to name a few).

So the question is: Does Scott publishing ever intend to fix this? I'd like to hear other collectors' ideas on how and what they would change about the US specialized catalogue.

Rileysan

I say leave it alone -- even if it is inconsistent.

If Amos renumbers the 1850-era stamps, think how much confusion would be created in thousands of catalogs, journals, published books, etc.

KirkS

I agree.

Is there an outlet for telling Scott about errors? I've found a couple on the WorldWide catalogue I have from 2007, so maybe they are fixed or not it would be helpful if they fix it.

I tend to agree with those that want to leave the numbering system as it is. I would not like to have my costly albums containing Scott numbers on each stamp position reflect incorrect numbers.

Assuming you're talking about errata, Yes. Scott Publishing is a division of Amos Press in Sidney Ohio.

This website contains the mailing address and an email address to the editorial staff for the Catalogues.
https://www.amosadvantage.com/scott...d_part_desc=

KirkS

I'd like to suggest to Stanley Gibbons,
Hey!
why not put the index at the front of the catalogue?

Instead we have to handle this huge brick of a thing,
bend it in half, just to read ***** see volume 3

I'm sad that my idea doesn't have much support. I understand how difficult it would be to convert for those who have been collecting for years untold. I, myself, would have an adjustment period. Surely, someone out there has more input!

I'll second the notion of putting the index in the front.

One thing I would do is to take all proofs and add them to the front of the book and group them with their corresponding scott # followed by 'p' and paper type. EG Scott 116p1, 116p2, etc. Do you know how many years I collected before I knew about proofs (or essays)? I'll post pix of some of my 1869 proofs when I return home Friday.

I look forward to it.

I've been pretty critical about a lot of things regarding the Scott catalog and the business practices of Amos Publishing.

As much as I dislike inconsistent Scott editorial policy regarding catalog numbering and when a stamp qualifies for a major Scott number (i.e., all numbers and capital letters), I'm afraid the solution is not as simple as one might think.

I could list out literally dozens of difficulties. In addition, there are in fact many many alternative numbering systems available (not all of which have died out). More recently, the 1847 website was given a cease and desist order (thank you Amos! -- for providing another great example of stupidity), and was forced to adopt an alternative numbering system. There have also been numerous grass-roots development of numbering systems (well before the openplatform/wikipedia age).

I can tell you the #1 reason why it is so difficult to successfully "change" the Scott numbering system or develop a new acceptable alternative --

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.

You just can't make everybody happy. Changing something might make one small group happy but then alienate a much larger group. Part of the beauty of this hobby is that there will be differences of opinion regarding how to collect. Often, the catalogs will run counter to what and how we collect. Therefore, from this perspective, I've always viewed the catalogs as an information database, rather than something that is authoritative or systematic. At least, that viewpoint helps me reduce the frustration of using the Scott catalogs, and also allows me to enjoy the many other catalogs as well.

Just my opinion. Certainly interested in reading the opinions of others!

I would also like to mention that Scott actually successfully did a major renumbering of the entire world-wide catalog in the early 20th Century. If you happen to see one of the early 20th Century catalogs, you will realize how significant the renumbering. I say it was successful because Scott is still in business today. So, it IS possible.

k