Scott 1305ev

I cannot find Scott 1305Ev (Holmes coil, Type I, dull gum) in my Scott 2011 Specialized. There is a listing for the dull gum variety under 1305E, but is not designated as "v".

I assume catalog # 1305Ev exists because stamps are listed as this number in several online sales. Also, I have this number in a database of US stamps that I created some time ago, but I don't know how I knew to include it when I created the database.

Since Scott is the entity that assigns catalog numbers to stamps, (at least I think Scott does), how did 1305Ev get numbered but not end up listed as such in the catalog?

I checked my 2013 Scott Specialized Catalog and it's not listed by that suffix letter either. I suspect maybe the 2014 or 2015 Scott Specialized may have included it? Perhaps someone with the later catalog can confirm.

The assignment of 1305Ev doesn't seem consistent with other varieties of this issue that did receive a suffix letter designation, although perhaps that's explained in a later edition of the catalog.

My 2014 Scott specialized seems to agree with the 2011 & 2013 versions.
Scott doesn't assign separate catalogue numbers based only on gum type. So, as the catalog indicates, 1305E could refer either to a shiny gum or a dull gum stamp. But I have seen stamp dealers/sellers append a "v" to the Scott catalogue number to describe a variety that somehow differs from the initial Scott catalogue entry (in this instance type I, shiny gum). Perhaps this might explain your 1305Ev.

I looked in an older 2009 Scott Specialized and it too does not include the 1305Ev. ( Type I, shiny gum and type II, dull gum ) Nothing else. Hopefully someone has an answer, have me curious now!

I did see on an internet listing by a dealer for the 1305Ev with a discription :Scott 1305Ev — 15c Oliver Wendell Holmes Tagged Dull Gum, but that is not gospel as I can't confirm any accuracy.

people use "v" to donote a variety - it is not a real Scott number, but rather one the person made up.

Correct. "1305Ev" means "it's a variety of 1305E" and the "v" designation is not Scott recognized. If Type II is dull gum, then my 2014 Scott catalogue shows the correct designation as 1305Ei, or 1305Ej for an imperforate pair.

I think my question was answered inasmuch as the "v" suffix was probably added by someone other than Scott. Thanks for all the help.

cjpalermo1964 has raised another question in my mind about the varieties of 1305E: first, to clarify, the stamp I have listed as "1305Ev" is a type I, dull gum, which is listed under 1305E without a suffix, in the catalog. 1305Eh and 1305Ej are both designated imperforate, but 1305Ei is not. I own a line pair of Type II, dull gum, but they are not imperforate. I have identified this pair as 1305Ei, the only Type II, dull gum that I see listed that is not designated imperforate. Am I correct?

BTW, one reason I got interested in the varieties of this Holmes design is because I have a strip of 5, Type II, dull gum, with a joint line, that is a perforation error. It is perforated exactly half a stamp off, which puts the joint line exactly centered between two rows of perfs in the center of the strip; interesting to look at. I paid $15 for it nearly 30 years ago, which was a little steep then, but I just wanted it. Wonder if it's worth what I paid by now?

$15 is not unreasonable at all for a line strip of 5 with the perfs down the middle of the design