Color Variants And Scott Numbers

Just curious if anyone knows the history as to why Scott gave major numbers to some color variations, but not others. For example, the 5c Jefferson has 27-30A and the #64 (pink) is separated from #65 (carmine), but the shades of #70/78 and others are kept under the same major number heading.

Were some color variations just not known when Scott created the numbers? Or do the color variants given major numbers (e.g. 64/65, 27/28/29) reflect something else (such as the printers trying to create distinct colors) that Scott felt warranted a separate heading?

It's 4am, so hopefully my question makes sense.

Great question. Wondered same thing ... I just posted questions about #63 and had same thought process why dark blue or ultramarine, which catalog 2-5x value of blue, don't get own Scott number

My understanding, whether true or not, is that the regular major #'s were for known differences at issuance off the stamp. The others were realized later on and were given minor number.

Warehouse,
That makes sense!

Rg

That question is easy to answer ------there is no other answer ,to why Scott catalog chose the variety for listing . It is because stamp dealer price list identified them .Scott catalog is base on the DEALER PRICE LIST. Now that is no longer the case today

When was either of these statements the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

The Scott listings did start out as a list for the Scott Stamp & Coin Co., but certainly by the time of the introduction of the US Specialized about 1923 or so, the catalog had spun off with a life of its own as a Standard Catalog.

Dealers have always had input into the listings, and rightly so, inasmuch as they have direct contact with the widest array of material through their clients. But independent philatelic research has always had a powerful influence on the thinking of the cataloguers, and that is true to this day.

At its core, the hobby is more like a marketplace than a museum, and the catalog serves it by mediating the various claims of people in that marketplace. Reducing all of that to an imagined dominance by one sector above all others simply ignores the history of it all.

How Scott numbers stamps has always been puzzling to me They will create major numbers for classic material for details that often take a magnifying glass to see such as the die changes but then on modern issues they often relegate year date changes and other stuff to minor numbers. For example, in the Liberty series the wet/dry variations (intentional action) get minor status while something like 2c Lincoln on blue paper is a major number. Of course, if the followed the same rules for modern material as they do classic material, albums would swell since they typically provide spaces for mostly major catalogue numbers.

I do wish they had a difference numbering scheme for booklet panes. As I was inventorying some booklets, it can be anything depending on other minor assignments. Sheets do not get a minor but booklet sheets do. Vended booklets get BK...

Al

Scott explains there position on numbering stamps in the introductory section of the Specialized Catalogue, not that it necessarily clears up the issue.

Thanks for the answers. I don't mind design changes, even when subtle, because I can find online references and develop confidence in what I'm seeing. Colors however, are a different story. I don't have the money for reference copies of each variant (especially since most are pricey), so the color thing feels like a minefield. Maybe one of these days I'll get to fill those spots.