Scott Listings For Older Booklets

For recent issues. Scott has issued different major numbers for sheets (full panes) and booklets if they can be determined to be different such as just being perfed or serp die cut on 2 or 3 sides. There are often other reasons (design size different, perf different, etc).

For older issues such as Scott 502. the complete booklet version is listed as 502b but no minor for the single. It is almost like the booklet single's primary use is to try to reperf if the major number is valuable. Scott and the market seem to ignore them except collecting as a full pane.

Maybe I have missed something but just wondering why...

Al

If more recent standards were followed, booklet pane singles would be considered to be collectible varieties. Singles from a few of the early booklets are not common. Almost all booklet pane stamps can be distinguished from normal sheet stamps by their dimensions (slightly wider and shorter). I have expertized a few AEF booklet pane singles on cover where, in addition to the expected cover markings, the stamp paper has horizontal grain and is fully perforated or imperforate top left, top right, top or bottom (formats not seen in normal booklet pane stamps). Early booklet pane stamps were watermarked, most with vertical watermarks with letters on their side instead of normal horizontal watermark where the letters are upright.

Almost all flat plate booklet pane stamps were printed on "special paper" with horizontal grain to better control shrinkage. When production switched to rotary press, the left over special paper was used to produce higher denomination fourth bureau stamps, some C11 Beacon airmail stamps, a few E13 special delivery stamps and the 1928 printing of the special handling stamps. Except for the earliest booklet pane stamps, booklet varieties can be distinguished by small differences in stamp dimensions. Rotary press booklet pane singles are imperforate on one or two sides while normal sheet stamps are perforated on all four sides.

In my opinion, these are all collectible varieties. The Scott catalog is not the final word on this. Specialists are quite aware of these varieties and are actively seeking out the scarcest examples.

Clark

Thanks. This is one area I was thinking about getting into rather than doing something like plate blocks. Is Durland the best source on this? I agree Scott should not tell us how to collect and maybe I have been asleep I have never seen an article discussing collecting these singles.

The Durland catalog is focused on plate numbers and lists plate numbers for booklet panes. Normally these are collected as complete booklets. I have encountered a few collectors who have attempted to reconstruct early First and Second Bureau booklet panes. This is not a simple as it seems. Although I have seen lots of used Second Bureau booklet pane singles, some are scarce and difficult to find unless a accumulation of 500 or more stamps from the same issue are available. I don't believe that used singles from the 2 cent Scott 301c are very common. Supplies of used 301 still exist and can be searched, if located. A few other issues like 583a may also be difficult.

The best source of information would be the "United States Specialist" from the United States Stamp Society. Membership is relatively inexpensive and all of the back issues of the Specialist are on-line.

Clark

Name me one simgle example of an issue where Scott has issued different major numbers for sheets (full panes) and booklets soley just because the booklet single were perfed or serp die cut on 2 or 3 sides and otherwise had no differences with their shhet cousins.

Even if it is the Scott policy to not distinguish booklet pane singles from sheet stamps based only on whether or not imperforate edges exist, the policy is still inconsistent. Size differences between flat plate booklet and sheet stamps are much easier to discern than the subtle height difference between the 8 cent Liberty Series Scott 1041 and 1041B. It is also the case that watermark orientation is different between most booklet and sheet stamps. The size test is especially important for distinguishing the 10 cent Lindbergh C10 airmail sheet stamps from booklet stamps. A few fakers have attempted to carefully trim around three carefully selected stamps with wide margins to replicate the appearance of a C10a booklet pane.

Clark

I would add press sheets as another example there are two versions (die cut and imperf) yet there is no apparent design difference.

Al