At What Point Does A Country's Postage Stamps Just Become Stickers?

Good morning all,

Proposed definition of a postage stamp: A postage stamp is a prepaid label made available to patrons of a governmental agency that is affixed to a mailable item to give evidence that the appropriate fee has been paid for the service of said governmental agency delivering an item from its sender to its addressee.

Nonsense! And with that I mean: why should it be a governmental agency?
PostNL is not a governmental agency. PostNL has almost a monopoly on letter mail delivery.

In 1897, the Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal said the Canada's 1897 Queen Victoria Diamond Jubilee issue of 16 values was a "despicable issue." The next year, they called the US Trans-Mississippi issue "labels" and described them as nothing more than a "picture gallery". APS joined the rest of the philatelic press in condemning these 'frivolous' issues.
Don

So long as "frivolous" issues could actually be used to mail something they are still "real". The two are not mutually exclusive.

We disparage the Sand Dunes. In the 60's and 70's when they started cranking out issues, they REALLY got a bad name. BUT.... many of these issues were actually available to be used on mail. There is a collector on SCF (sorry. can't remember who it is...) who collects these issues POSTALLY used. He has posted a number of postally used covers (NOT philatelic, in nature) just to prove their validity. When I was young, I would get packets of these for 5c-10c (well, maybe 50c or 75c) from the major approval companies. They were pretty, and unlike stamps of the USA that I was used to. I even got the 3D stamps from Bhutan - now THEY were cool! Although many of us like to brush with a broad stroke that these are garbage, at least some were really used. Many of these entities had tiny populations, so there wasn't too much mail to go around, but many of these issues do exist postally used.

So.... in the definition of valid stamps (as opposed to stickers) do we need some indication of rarity of valid postal use compared to CTO? I think not. We don't do it for, say, Germany (mostly East) who has been notorious for CTO at about this same period. It is up to the collector to be able to differentiate between CTO and postally used --- books have been written on this.

It is hard to draw a line between 'stamp' and 'sticker' because any demarcation is arbitrary. There is a spectrum from 'totally valid - no record of CTO - widely available to the general public' to 'its never been used to send a letter'. I would agree that "its never been used to send a letter" has very little place in philately. I think that pool of 'stamps' is smaller than a lot of us think, though. Also, ironically, a lot of these Sand Dunes have turned into full-fledged independent states, and whose current stamps are very collecible.

As to catalogs, I like the Michel approach - split the catalogs up along 'areas'. In the context of this topic, maybe Scott could create a separate catalog for Dunes and other 'questionable' issuing entities. Valuation would be tough - so many of these are essentially worthless to the collecting community. Unless, of course, they are postally used. Scott could try to put real values for postally used material, but with a warning about CTO.

I already like their Classic (1840-1940) Catalogue, and maybe they could come up with a follow-up - 1940-1965 or 1970, depending on thickness. Let's remember - Scott only makes $$$ if they sell catalogues - the more they sell, the more $$$ they make. I THINK they are of the mindset that a set of 6/8/10/12 catalogs going A to Z is their most profitable way of going. I also think their Classic is something they do a bit begrudgingly - at the demand of collectors. I think they think if someone can't get a classic, that they would actually go out and buy a whole set from A to Z. The more they offer 'custom' volumes, I suspect they think they are losing out on sales of their A-to-Z catalogues.

I can't recall seeing a genuinely postally used cover (as opposed to very dodgy philatelic creation) of the uncatalogued Trucial States stamps on here.

All of the other catalogue publishers work on a regional basis (although Gibbons does its world simplified too), so perhaps Scott will eventually follow suit.

I suspect that the editors don't have the data to add all of the old Trucial States material to a current Scott catalogue? If that's the case, they'd have to "rely" on other catalogues, with all of the risk that accompanies that. Or maybe get access to a complete-ish collection.

I don't know if Mountweazels live in other major catalogues, but just the risk of being tripped up by perpetuating an actual error is pretty significant (I'd think). I'll be surprised if it happens.

As an aside, they also have to know, or suspect, that they'd fail to convert any significant percentage of purchasers of the Classic Specialized into buyers of the full set, if they dropped the Classic. I, for one, imagine I'd be done with them.

Some thoughts on a publisher like Scott cutting off dates for printed (not digital) catalogs.

The labor and added printing costs (non-inflation related) for the content in each year's new edition comes almost entirely from listing new issues. Everything before that with the exception of edits/corrections/additions has been accounted for already and is "mailed in" (no pun intended). Given that the lion's share of the information has been incorporated in decades of prior editions we can assume that the cost of creating it has long been recovered through sales.

What does the above mean for Scott? Well, we cannot read their minds, but do they believe that in order to make purchasing a new edition attractive it has to have substantive additions i.e., new issues? Wouldn't it be more profitable for Scott to simply sell the same edition year after year with the usual editorial updates and small-scale additions? Or would that tactic mean that they sell far fewer catalogs simply because there would be little to incentivize upgrading?

I like to believe that they have studied the topic and data shows that they are better off with their current product model.

All of this will become moot in the not-too-distant future as increasing costs to publish hard copy catalogs forces the decision to go all digital. I said above, and firmly believe that digital will be the only way for these publishers to survive. they would be foolish not to offer ala carte choices such as a Country, region, area, date range, front of book/back of book etc. This approach would also allow them to see what really sells and what doesn't. The downside is that the costs associated with new issue labor would no longer be allocated across an entire edition. The new issues would need to stand on their own financially, stickers and all.

blcjr - at minimum they should also be available for use by the citizens of the country

Scott is going to have to make a decision , their 12 volume A to Z is getting to be to much . Mine sits in a milk crate on the floor under my desk,I prefer my 2015 set in 6 volumes for daily use .

Where can they go from here ? The one volume 1840 to 1940 Classic is a winner for them . They can expand this idea to a 3 volume set that covers 1941 to 1970 [ or 1980 ] and start making that a specialized catalog too . That gives them a 4 volume set to sell each year . Everything after 1970 or 1980 can be on a CD or on line access .

It's my understanding that Stanley Gibbons has always distinguished between stamps which were legitimately used for mail and 'labels' which were not. Most of the Trucial States issues are not in the catalogue (except as a reference list) because their postal use could not be confirmed.

eyeonwall,

I think that was implicit in what I was trying to say, if not very clear about it.

There has always been a story about a lady in London who was so taken by the Penny Black that she bought whole sheets to use them as wall paper.

When most water-soluble adhesive (gum) stamps are replaced by self-stick adhesive (sticker) stamps.