Baseball Players Imperf

Ok, does anyone know if there is a difference between the individual player stamps and the se-tenant? If I take a se-tenant and slice it up, will the stamps be the same as the individuals?

I'm guessing the answer is that we won't know till Scott lists it, and we won't see that until probably the October monthly issue.

I looked through several hundred listings of MLB stamps on ebay, and three things surprised me: (1) how relatively cheap the se-tenants are, considering the printing quantity, (2) how few se-tenants are listed, in comparison to the single-design panes, and (3) how many panes have been chopped up to make cross-gutter pairs and blocks. Comment?

I was intrigued by doug2222's note since all I had noted was extremely high prices of the imperf blocks on ebay (in the $90 to $140 range). What I saw going back this second time was that under the category "1941-now unused" the prices for the most part were as I saw them the first time - very high. Just for curiosity, I then checked the "plate block" category. Doug was exactly right. Prices there averaged around $17 for a block with all four ball players. Don't quite understand this difference, but that's the way it is.

I have not yet acquired the varieties (intentionally) until the market settles down. However, I have read that there is no distinct difference in the stamps.

Though some have claimed that certain stamps have a brighter yellow used in the text than on the others, the difference is so minor it is highly unlikely it would be identified as a variety by the catalog publishers.

In Linn's September 2012, the Scott New Issues Update provides some information including prices for the MLB All-Stars imperfs. They are as follows: "Values: sheet of 120, $120; cross gutter blocks of 8 (from sheet containing all four stamps), $10; cross gutter block of four (from sheets containing identical stamps), $8; vert. pairs with horiz. gutter, each $2.50; horiz pair with vert. gutter, $2. See note after No. 2868." This all makes sense to me except for this final statement. I thought perhaps there was some note after Scott #2868 in Scott Specialized, but saw nothing there in my 2008 copy. Anybody know what Scott is talking about here?

So these imperforate stamps were not given unique Scott major numbers or even Scott minor numbers?! What the heck is up with that? And no value listed for a standard se-tenant block of 4? What the heck is Scott thinking here? Are they going to go back and edit the 90s now and remove the Looney Tunes imperfs?

What the hell, Amos?

The article in Linn's did not provide any Scott numbers for the imperf varieties just the perforated ones - #4694-4697 and #4697a for a horizontal strip of four or block of four with all four players.

Did Linn's specify if the Scott Numbers identifying the MLB Player Stamps are in the order of Williams (4694), Doby (4695), Stargell (4696) and DiMaggio (4697) in that exact order?

Did Linn's designate a Scott Number or suffix for the individual player stamps pane of 20?

wt1, you have the Scott #s matched with the ball players' names in perfect order for the perforated variety. As I indicated, Scott provided no numbers or suffixes for the imperf varieties. Now about the perforated pane, all it reads is "Pane of 20, 5 each #4694-4697 18.00" with no suffix. Hope this helps, but the imperfs still seem to be up in the air as to what they'll eventually be designated. And I'm still wondering what that "See note after No. 2868" means.

My first thought was that perhaps we'll have to wait till October, since the stamps technically did not get released until the end of August. But then I realized they did give values for the whole sheet and cross gutter pairs, but they didn't refer to the sheet, or the gutter pairs by any Scott number when they did so.

It seems that the Scott catalog people, much like the rest of the Philatelic community, doesn't know what to make of these imperf sheets.

I wonder if we can anticipate the same slow response from Scott on the other scheduled imperfs?

Thinking about this a little more,I think the best thing that could happen is for these to NOT get a Scott listing. Perhaps then, philatelists will lose interest in them and the USPS will stop these imperf press sheet abominations.

My understanding is that all the imperfs press sheets except for the baseball se-tenant are available for sale. I think the baseball se-tenant sheet sold out because there were only supposed to be a thousand of them. When they cranked the number up to 2500, I think the fact that the original 1000 were sold out caused a feeding frenzy. I think if they announced 2500 of these, like the other 4, then there would probably still be available for sale.

Andy ... Perhaps a feeding frenzy but I think the driver is the 4-player sheet is simply more attractive. I was in the process of ordering one when the 1000 ran out. Got one from the adjusted limit run. Seeing the resale prices, kind of wish I'd gotten two! I'm ordering 1812 imperfs because I intend to make a few FDCs with imperfs. I can make a pane available if you're interested. I will prob also get the PH imperfs for the same reason. I've made a PH FDC for every PH issue with a cachet of my dad in WW-II uniform ... he had a PH from a wound in Anzio.

ebay sold a press sheet of the 4 player imperf baseball for $610.00 on Sept 3rd. Not that outrageous since the individual panes have sold for over $100. Scott catalog not listing these imperfs I predict will only be temporary, simply because they need to follow one rule on listing stamps and can't list 3535 (porky pig) and not list the baseball players.
If one puts an imperf baseball stamp on an envelope, will it be returned for postage? No! it will be delivered.
Scott seems to think it can surpress the price rise of these by ignoring them. There is way too much interest in these STAMPS for them not to eventually be listed as previous listings.

In looking at the posting today on VSC, they have suggested that Scott is NOT going to list the imperf varieties with anything more than a footnote based on this comment:




To quote Clause 6 in the Scott Catalogue Listing Policy:




Whether we agree or disagree with these statements, it certainly looks as if "footnotes" will be the way Scott will reference these imperfs, along with other imperf press sheets that may be issued in the future.

ok fine - How does this explain Scott's listing of all the looney toones imperfs? Either they should be deleted or the baseball imperf stamps should be listed