Theory Of Postage Stamp Catalogue Numbers Revisioned

Hey, Everyone I always wondered about why some stamps have been assigned whole numbers to some stamps then others are listed as variations.

A postage stamp is an image with a assigned value. If you take this on face value as the basic concept, a starting point of a postage stamp then we are in agreement. Then it can be propose that if that same image on a stamp would breakdown in variations of color, paper & perforation including imperforation, overprints, gum/ungummed, dimensions and errors and even manufacture.

So should the stamp & image be designated with it's own number, of course, yes! Then should the variations be noted & assigned fractions of the original image ie 357, 357a, 357b etc. or be assigned additional whole numbers? In general I would say, yes!

I would make a exception for manufacture of the stamp image between format, process & processor. Processes like Flat Plat, Rotary Press, Lithograph should be assigned their own whole numbers. Images from formats like standard sheets, coils, booklets & souvenir sheets should also received their own whole number. Processors are the companies and or government organizations the are contracted or ordered to produce these stamp images, again should have their own whole number.

That brings me back to souvenir sheets. Now as described in the previous paragraph I was referring to a stamp image on the SS not the entire sheet. A SS in general is sheet of multiple stamp images that maybe the same or maybe several different images. So should a SS be assigned a whole number as Scott does with US SS then ignores SSs issued by other nations entirely. I would argue that SS should not be listed as a standard whole number but listed separately like SS1 and so on as an example and that the image or images on the SS should be listed with whole numbers.

Another variation can be size, larger or smaller then the original image, but in all other aspects this would be the same image. This example I feel should also be assigned a whole number.

Color variations are complex but simple. Shades are, in an example: Green, light green, dark green, yellow green & so on, are variations of the original and were not intended to truly be different and should be assign as fractions, unless these variations occur on the same sheet. If a stamp image exists in clearly different colors red, green, blue, black & so on, those should be whole numbers.

Variations that also do not effect the stamp image are gum or not and paper type should be listed a fractions. With gum that includes the appearance of the gum, shinney, yellow, clear etc. Paper variations like watermarks, thick, thin, grill do not effect the stamp image but do play into the variation of the stamp image and should be noted as a fraction.

Overprints onto an existing stamp image I would agree should be listed as it's own whole number. But on occasion some overprints are listed as variations especially in the case of precancels.
Tagging like overprinting is applied to a stamp image after that fact.
Tagging is the adding of an illuminessent material to the original stamp image and is visible under UV light, so too should this be assigned it's own whole number, yes!

With errors these should usually be listed as fractions of stamp image, however, intentional errors should be listed in whole numbers.

Then with perforation or not (imperforated) these should be listed as fractions not whole numbers since it does not change the face of the stamp image.

Design changes no matter how small should be assigned whole numbers and not be fractionalized.

Well I'll leave it at that for now and see what some of you have too say.

It's been tried before (and books have been written on the subject) but it appears to have met with little success, as this website will explain:

http://www.psestamp.com/usd/index.chtml

When Scott began assigning catalog numbers to stamps in the 1800's, few envisioned that minor/major varieties and types of each issue and through the years the catalog evolved with the numbering system now in place for 21st century issues that (for the most part) address some of the whole number and/or upper or lower case letter suffixes that are currently in use.

Like it or not, people have adopted the Scott numbering system for US stamps and it would be impractical to change it a century and a half later, as some would and some would not embrace a new numbering system and the bottom line would lead to confusion within the hobby.

Wasn't there an attempt some years ago (by Minkus, I believe) to adopt a different numbering system so as to sidestep the Scott copyright, and then they had to publish a cross-check list for collectors to compare their catalog numbers with Scott? As I recall, it was not very well received, led to much confusion, and ultimately it fell by the wayside in deference to the Scott catalog numbers a few years later.

Bottom line is that it's been tried before but failed. Anyone can create a new numbering system, I suppose, but the trick is to have it adopted by the stamp collecting public to make the effort worthwhile and I don't believe that is very likely to happen. That's only my opinion, of course.

wt1, I agree that any wholesale changes in the Scott numbers (or SG, Michel, etc.) are unlikely. Most US collectors use Scott. I remember when the Minkus numbers came out that they made a distinction between definitives and commemoratives. It did create some confusion.

It would be very hard to change entrenched ideas and habits.

One way for this to happen would be if Scott's publishers (Amos?) are ever bought out by another catalogue publisher and the new guys decide to change everything to 'their way'.

If Stanley Gibbons could buy out and then publish their own US catalogue for example. I think even then they would need a big chunk of cash to keep up the effort while us old collectors, who are used to the old ways, hung onto our older catalogues and maybe changed after 10 years or so. Maybe.

Happened in Canada years ago. We had several different cataloges and numbering systems. Finally the mostest with the bestest, Unitrade, came along and sided with Scott and game over.

Of course we could win all kinds of lotteries and then argue for 5 years or so about whose system is the best and then publish our own and give them away to all the major players and overcome the opposition.

Sometimes also it comes down to how much time and effort you can afford to spend on making the catalogue really good. How many varieties do you include? How many pages? How much will it cost? Lots of fun.

Thanks for the link BAYERN1kreuzer - useful site for Estonia.

Michel does follow the idea of a separate numbering system for souvenir sheets - the "blocks" (as they call them) are numbered Block 1, Block 2, etc. It can be tricky sometimes to find them in the catalogue because there might be 20 years between block issues back in the days when souvenir sheets were in fact something rarely issued.

Some national catalogues make distinctions in their listings among the different "classes" of stamps, and I find them much more difficult to navigate. Chinese catalogues will clump stamps together in groupings that I often can make no sense of - definitives in one section, commemoratives in another section, some other class of commemoratives in another, yet another class of commemoratives in another, etc etc etc. One catalogue I grabbed out of the bookshelf has 8 different chapters of listings for various classes of commemoratives, and I have no idea where to find anything.

I do admit that I like the Scott method of separating listings out according to classes of usage - regular postage here, air mail there, semi-postals over there. I can usually find these back of the book issues much more quickly in Scott than I can in Michel, where for example the semi-postals are lumped in with all the other issues in the main section. That is, of course, as long as I can tell where I should find them - sometimes stamps can be cryptic as to what class they belong to, for example semi-postal stamps that don't specifically show the charity surcharge on the face value.

And specific to Scott listings of US stamps, there have often been complaints about their decisions to give issues major listing status (with upper case letter suffixes) as opposed to minor listings (those with lower-case letter suffixes). The people like Bill Gross who try to put together a collection of all the "major" issues end up searching for stamps where only one or two copies are known in existence - it's often a mystery how those ultra-rare stamps ended up with major listing status instead of being classed as a minor variety.

If I were to invent my own catalogue and listing methods, I'd probably go diametrically opposite from warrehouse. He wants different whole numbers for printing methods and many other variations on the same basic design. I would go the other direction - whole numbers for face different stamps, suffixes for all variations. Eg if a 3c definitive is given listing #300, the coil stamp could be 300a, the perf variety could be 300b, the colour shade 300c, the plate flaw 300d, etc etc.

Ultimately, though, I don't care much about the numbering system, as long as I can still find the thing somewhere in my catalogue (curses to the Chinese and their inscrutable listing methods). It's much more important to me to have the info in the catalogue. The catalogues I enjoy the most are the ones with the most detail to their listings - plate varieties and such are fascinating to me, there's lots of fun to be had looking through a pile of common stamps hoping to find the 1 out of 100 that has a lumpy shape somewhere! ha ha

Ryan

I agree with you, and I think I know the reason why.

Catalog numbers serve two purposes.

First, they help identify the stamp in question.

Second, and quite importantly, they help cross-reference stamp with its value. This is what has been overlooked, in my opinion. You cannot have a successful catalog of stamps without listing stamp values.

Scott provides (as do other catalog manufacturers in their respective countries) an independent opinion (to some degree) on the value of postage stamps which both dealers and collectors can agree upon.

Personally I don't like the way Scott lists Airmail and Semi-postals
separate from regular stamps.
Why? A stamp is a stamp is a stamp.
Michel includes a silhouette of an airplane for airmail issues, that's enough in my opinion.

Concerning Blocks/souvenir sheets I don't like the Michel system
which assigns blocks a number which as Ryan says makes them difficult to find.
But they do assign a whole number to each individual
stamp in the souvenir sheet.

In this instance I prefer Scott which assigns a whole number to
the Souvenir Sheet and a lower case letter to each individual stamp
on the sheet.

Then again that's not always the case either when it comes to
Souvenir Sheets with only one stamp as for instance Austria
Scott 1919. Scott lists it as

1919 A1123 €1.75 multi 5.25 5.25

Ok that's the price of a sheet. What's the price of the stamp



alone?

Well, Interesting thoughts!

I do not care for the separation of stamps by types like commemorative & definitive in general, but interesting as a possibility. But I do not see the need for air mail, parcel post, special delivery, certified mail, special handling & semi-postal. They all can be mixed with the so called regular issues finally allowing some sets of stamps to be complete.

My thought here is to combine the ideas by Scott & Minkus listing stamps in whole/fractions
[ie major/minor] to stamps but he images would be marked with a code.
Example: D1 = Definitive, C1 = Commemorative, SP1 = semi-postal, SD1 = special delivery, AM1 = air mail,
SH1 = special handling, CM1 = certified mail & PP1 = parcel post.
The best of both worlds, maybe!