Back Of Book Oganization Question

Having mounted more stamps than anyone should over Christmas break, I've formed some opinions on how I would like things organized. I am not a fan of "back of book" sections.

I'm thinking I would prefer the standard back of book stuff, like semi-postals and air mail in their own sections under they year they came out.

So, for example, my sheet would say United Stated 1992, and in it there would be sections for Commemorative, Definitive, Air Mail, Semi-Postal, Special Delivery, etc.

My Mystic album doesn't do that, but I believe Harris does.

What are other people's opinions on Back of Back layouts? How do other albums handle it? What's your preference?

I like your approach, in part because it keeps together sets that include general and airmail issues.

I'm a fan of that organization as well.

I reorganized over the holidays too, and that is how mine is organized, well, sort of ......

I use 3-ring binders for my first (main) U.S. collection and Mystic Heirloom albums for my second collection.

My main collection is organized by decades or groups thereof, my groups being: The 1800's, the 1900's-1920's, the 1930's-1940's, the 1950's-1960's, and then each decade after that. Each group is further organized as to definitive and commemorative stamp issues, air mail, postage due, etc. This is the first collection any postal item is considered for. So the first collection is a mixture of mint and used. The second collection (Heirloom albums) is strictly a used collection. The exception is that all of my Hawaii-related is in a special Hawaiian Post History collection. I organized this way because I do keep some of my postal covers within the decade collection. My revenues are in a group all by themselves.
I also do not like the term "back of book". It sounds like a second-class designation whereas those item play or played an important part of the postal history.

I create my own pages for my US and Canadian collections. They go into half size 7 ring accounting binders (got them from my Dad when when I collected as a kid, and I love them!) whose pages are half a letter sheet. So can organize how I like. I generally go chronologically and by Scott #s. The back of book stuff ends up at the back of the book, but is more loosely organized than Scott's. Still chronological, but then it's generally airmail, postage due, excise/revenue etc, then territories (US) and provinces (Canada).
The rest of my other collections sit in a binder in vario pages until it can be decided where they belong.

I do have another group which I call my "In the Beginning ..." which is an album I show to kiddy and other groups. Basically it starts with stampless covers, and migrates into the use of postal stamps. My recently aquired penny black from an SCF member has become a very important center piece of this collection!

Why are they separated? Is it because Scott separates them?

I think that is exactly why people organize collections like they do! In my opinion, the Scott "organization" is just a numbering scheme, albeit, not a bad one. There are cases where my organization doesn't quite following my own definition such as if a definitive set crosses from one decade into the next.

My understanding was that Harris doesn't break things up like that, and Harris also has descriptions on the pages. I wonder if I should have gone with a Harris album instead of the Mystic.

Moot point now. I have remounted too many stamps to go back.

apastuszak I have both Harris and Mystic Heirloom. The Harris doesn't use Scott's numbers. Harris has it's own numbering system and catalog. What a pain in the ##**# Arse. I wish I had never bought a Harris but I was only 14 at that time and DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER 1959. Perhaps at that time the Harris was the best on the market 1959 ??? I love my new American Heirloom Albums but like everyone else I don't quite like the Back of Book way it is set up. I too wish they would have just incorporated them, all the stamps, into the years they were issued like they have done the rest of the album pages.

I think of my back of the book stamps as "specialized sets".

Print my own pages to show the sets off the way they appeal to me, rather than conform to the scott catalogue.

Harris has its own numbering system? Well, that's frustrating. How long before some Internet standard comes along for numbering stamps that everyone can use and suddenly these catalogs will fall out of favor?

Scott's did come along and it's the best. Harris did there own numbering system, I think, just so you would have to buy a Harris Catalog. It's frustrating when your trying to work with both albums. Soon I will just put my Harris Album away as a keepsake.