Looking For 1869-S Without Grill?

I think the Scott catalog values coincide well with XF stamps almost perfectly, not VF stamps which Scott claims it's values are for...VF stamps go for generally 50 percent less than Scott... this is my general rule of thumb when bidding but there are plenty of exceptions and outliers. If you can get a classic sound,XF US stamp at Scott catalog you got a fair price. But if your bidding on a VF sound stamp and pay Scott catalog you got a pretty bad deal! Just my opinion and observations. Sky is the limit when bidding on XF-superb or better stamps.

Fascinating conversation on the free market/capitalism at work!

We have all the pieces in place: advanced/complex products; expert buyers, sellers, catalog publishers, and certification services.

Everything is known by all parties, and all issues/rules stated up front.

What could possibly be the problem?! This is how it is supposed to work!

(I didn't look at the stamps yet. I assume, from the discussion thus far, that they are nice, but not superb copies..)

Yes - the cat prices are silly. 10% realization sounds about right. Not diverging into another discussion about Scott & their practices...

Sellers agreed to the prices - so they were either anxious to unload & get something or they are very disappointed today. Or perhaps both! I'll shed no tears for the sellers or Siegel - that's what *yesterday's* market would bear...

Buyers got what they wanted. Paid big $. Now sitting on rare stamps - with huge (!) cat values. They must be happy?! If they can afford it, then rock & roll - congrats!

PF publishes their prices up front. Don't like them? Go elsewhere! Try PSE; APEX; Joe's Bar & Expert Stamp ID Shop! (Can't say the same - don't have the same choices - for cat values!) They get to charge what they want. You - the 'cert consumer' - get to decide whether it is worth it.

Overall, a nice small peek at the state of one narrow slice of the high-end/scarce US classic market. Clearly not as big as one would've thought from reading the cat values, but then everyone knows the cv is not real. My view is the stamps went for big $, although not quite what one would've thought. Demand obviously lower than expectations...

I have never understood why certification services have pricing based upon catalog value. As a service, should not the pricing be based upon the amount of time/material it takes to provide the service? When they use catalog value the justification appears to be, "our prices are based upon how much we think we can squeeze from the hobbyist, if the stamp is worth more than the hobbyists will be willing to pay more".

So a for-profit certification company loses money on stamps which consumes a lot of the experts time but have lower catalog values? And profit margins on the high catalog stamps which take very little time are astronomical? If the cert cost reflected the actual amount of time/material invested in providing the service the good point that Winston makes would no longer be an issue.
Don

Insurance rates are not based on the time spent, but on the catalog values. And there are many stamps worth thousands that can be looked at in a few minutes, and stamps worth $50-$200 that can take a lot longer, such as vending coils.

Looking at the RPSL's prices, they're a basic £35, rising to 2.5% of SG CV between £1,400 and £14,000. The experts give their time and expertise free. Any "profit" is ploughed back into the RPSL. Think of it as akin to progressive taxation.

The PF is a non profit. PSE is for profit.

So if I owned PSE, I would be allowing some catalog publisher control over my pricing schedule? So if next week the catalog publisher decides to lower catalog values across the board by 15%, my margins also drop while my costs stay the same? (Business 101 is to never allow others to dictate your pricing. You should be aware of your market, you should be competitive, but always set your pricing on your costs and what you need to be profitable.) Conversely, if they raise their catalog values my profits go up.

The first thing I would be doing if I owned PSE is go wine and dine Amos. No, actually I would be gifting them vacations and golf junkets. Little wonder why we need special knowledge to calculate actual market value from catalog values.
Don

Don,

Your post is spot on!

A lot of interesting speculation and accusing going on here, but so far no one is addressing the questions, "If catalog values for these varieties are too high, then 1. how did they get that way and 2. how much 'too high' are they?"

Scott is a referential pricing guide, not a market guide per se. Scott places values on items as a measure of comparative rarity. In setting values the editors use prices actually paid for an item, though not necessarily prices in the present market. It suits Scott's purposes always to lag the market, not to lead it.

Back in the 1970s and early 80s the 1869s were a hot topic among collectors, and competition among students and exhibitors of the issue drove up prices to levels that set high benchmarks for the varieties of interest to specialists. This was profoundly important for pricing new discoveries. When that trend passed, few of those holding that material are willing to suffer the cost of decreased demand, so the referential price base didn't change. As owners pass away, or otherwise consign their collections, gradually the realizations will finally provide the basis for lower prices in the referential catalog.

I was just looking at the PF website and found this. I don't know how long it has been available, but it looks like they are trying to address the problem of exorbitant fees for expertizing overvalued stamps.


http://www.philatelicfoundation.org...arket-value/

1) Catalog prices will never drop "across the board". Individual stamps will go up or down as they always have.
2) PSE is a specialty service in a specialty hobby, so business 101 rules are not always exactly the same for it 100% of the time. Pricing rules in this case. The same for the PF and APEX.

essayk, if you are going to, using your own words from another thread, "impugn" somebody, it would be better to specifically address what you think is "interesting speculation" and "accusation" so that person or persons can actually defend their statements.

I also find it ironic that following your vague and dismissive snub, you call for explanation of phenonmena that may necessarily contain speculation and accusation. Or, are we supposed to just accept your generous explanation without debate?

@sinclair2010 - In your posts for the last couple of months I have sensed a gradually increasing pique against me for reasons I cannot imagine. Now you have put it out there. I hope we can set things to rest.


I don't know what your grievance is against me Winston, but my initial summary comment was not pointing at any one writer or post. It was merely a statement of how the general tenor of the thread impressed me. Even that was merely a setup for what I considered to be an omission in the group's consideration of the problem of catalog values that are out of synch with present market. As for your feeling snubbed by it, I am sorry to hear that. Let me assure you that it was not dismissive but it was intentionally vague. It served the purpose I intended, but had nothing to do with snubbing anyone, neither in particular, nor for the group as a whole. When have I ever been known here to "snub" anyone?

As for debate, let's face it, the demand for brevity means that forum posts may not always have the detail that pins a thought down or verifies a statement or explanation. So the door for debate will always be open. I struggle with the tension between brevity and clarity of thought, usually favoring the latter. I apologize if that makes me seem verbose or bombastic; it is not my intention to dominate the conversation by many words, but merely to be unambiguously clear in what I wish to say.