Scott To Assign Minor-Letter To Imperf Singles

At last...:
http://linns.com/news/stamp-market-...ted-by-Scott

I do not however understand as to why the "uninverted" Jenny also gets a minor-letter variety number.

Can listing entire Press Sheets (both with and without die cuts) be far behind?

The door is now open and the "footnote" approach for Press Sheets will soon become too cumbersome and will take up too much space in the catalog to continue that way as time goes on.

Of course, there is a marketing scheme to all of this. As Scott makes these sort of changes, it influences more collectors to buy updated catalogs that they might not normally acquire.

(Editing note) LOOKS LIKE I MIS-READ THIS - MY COMMENTS BELOW ARE OUT OF CONTEXT - SORRY!

The USPS printed and released for postal use two versions of this stamp - one intentionally inverted and one intentionally right-side up. I think one of two cases should be selected:

1) Give each stamp a major number, since they were both intentionally printed for released,

2) Give one stamp the major number and one the minor, since one is a variation of the other, with the design elements the same

In any case, I think that both should be at least listed, since they both were officially released... No matter how contrived anyone thinks they are.

It's not the first time that they have released stamps in a very different quantity. For example, look at the quantities issued of the Columbians and compare the high denominations with the low denominations. The un-inverted Jenny is more extreme, but still a similar example.

I'm glad that Scott/Amos is reversing course on this decision. Their original policy was wrongheaded.

Hell hath in fact frozen over.

The problem I have with the "univerted" Jenny is that it was more or less a lottery. These were not readily available. Period.

I have zero problem with the unvert getting a listing.

It's no different from stamps/varieties/sheets/booklets that were only available by attending certain philatelic events (seen more in European country listings than U.S.), yet those get listed.

"the "footnote" approach for Press Sheets will soon become too cumbersome and will take up too much space in the catalog"

How is a footnote in small print taking up more space than a listing in normal sized print?

Anyway, I am very disappointed they caved in listing these abominations.

if the postal service will accept imperfs for postage then they have to be listed in Scott.

I can understand why collectors and dealers would want to know the value of these stamps. It makes sense to include them at least in the US Specialized Catalog of Stamps and Covers. You won't hear me complaining that that catalog has too much information.

Using this theory would mean that that Scott will have to give the Circus Wagon Souvenir Sheet a Scott number, too. They haven't (at least not yet).

Frankly, I haven't seen an up-to-date catalog that lists the Press Sheets as footnotes. However, it occurs to me that any listing in footnote format would require more space than a one line letter-suffix listing. While it may not be a major space problem in the short-term, it seems to me that over time it could add considerable space to an otherwise large catalog to begin with.

Personally, I think the Press Sheets deserve some sort of listing. If not in the main catalog section, than perhaps in a sub-section, much as the Scott Catalog does with first day covers. It would be extremely helpful to have specific information on quantities printed and how some may have increased in value, which must be the case given that some have sold out while others have little interest to most collectors. If the Scott Catalog doesn't do it, someone else will take up the project even if they have to create their own catalog numbering scheme to avoid Scott copyright issues.

It's about time. In my opinion, if it's a valid, government-issued US stamp valid for postage, Scott should assign at least a minor letter number to every known collectible variety of that stamp. Stamp catalogs are supposed to be reference works, not editorials. They can "editorialize" via their album pages if they want. And now, if they want to sell album pages for just imperf singles, it becomes easier for them to do so.

Also, this from the Linn's article sums up my feelings perfectly. Scott is the catalog of record when it comes to US issues and, as they say below, listings should be as clear and complete as possible. I can't imagine Michel, for example, not listing known varieties of German stamps.

"I can understand why collectors and dealers would want to know the value of these stamps. It makes sense to include them at least in the US Specialized Catalog of Stamps and Covers"

That info was already in there in a footnote. The change is giving them a minor-letter.

"Frankly, I haven't seen an up-to-date catalog that lists the Press Sheets as footnotes. However, it occurs to me that any listing in footnote format would require more space than a one line letter-suffix listing. "

The current footnote doesn't just mention a single format, it mentions a whole bunch of them, so a change to put all that under a minor-letter listing will require multiple lines and take up more space.

All the footnote space talk seems to assume every issue entry in which there were press sheets there would be a footnote. I see that taking up plenty of space. But in theory, can't scott just make a blanket statement at the beginning that applies to all issues going forward? For example, after the MLB setenant issue.

Well I will need to buy the 2016 catalog either way.

Face it, this is about marketing and money. Getting people to buy a new catalog as often as possible. It should be understood that footnotes are often valuable for other information besides prices; this might be lost by just giving these a minor number.