US Classic 2013 Scott Vs US Spesialised 2013 Scott

What are the differences between this two catalogues?


Thanks.

The Classic Specialized lists stamps and covers from 1840-1940.

The Specialized lists everything until the current date (whatever year you buy ex: 2013).

Hi McBarry,

I have both and find the Scott Specialized US Stamps and Covers much better than the Stanley Gibbons US catalogue. The Scott Classic Specialized Catalogue 1840-1940 details the stamps and covers of the world including the US and covers the period I am mainly interested in. So with these two catalogues I have a good first look resource. I am gradually adding other specific catalogues, but these two are the most useful to me.

Terry

U.S. Specialized: Available in softbound or electronic editions. U.S. and territories ONLY, in-depth coverage of material released up to the present time. Includes things like revenues, postal stationery, essays, proofs, locals, first-day covers, booklet panes, test coils, etc.

Classic Specialized (note: the term "U.S." is not in the title): Available in HARDBOUND or electronic editions. A worldwide catalog, covering 1840-1940, and up to 1952 for British Commonwealth. It has extended coverage beyond the normal Scott vol. 1-6 for the material in its time period, with pricing on cover, multiples, etc.


The two catalogs serve distinctly different purposes, but IMO are both critical acquisitions for the U.S. specialist or classic-era collector.

As a revenue specialist, I buy the U.S. Specialized every year. As a classic-era worldwide dabbler, I buy the Classic Specialized every other year. The normal worldwide Scott volumes 1-6 I buy once every 5 years or so, if that.

Can the Classic Specialized be used on a PC or only mobile devices?

Unfortunately, the electronic Scott catalogs are iPad only, not even Android devices.

The embedded PDFs are encrypted and password protected, and the brute force cracking applications I've tried indicate YEARS to try all the password combinations. So that's out.

What I've been doing as I've encountered countries that I want to either print out or use on other computers is to take screenshots of each page. On the newer iPad retina displays a catalog screenshot is 1536 x 2048 pixels, which is roughly 200dpi, which actually prints out pretty well and is perfectly usable onscreen, assuming you do not introduce compression artifacts when you convert the PNG files to PDF.

The only problem is that the files can end up pretty large.

Here is a single page of the 2014 catalog (screenshot PNG image, opened in Photoshop and cropped to remove advertisement at bottom, saved as PDF without compression, then opened in Acrobat and OCRed to make it searchable). Different quality/export settings affect both file size and image quality considerably.

Uncompressed (3.45MB in size)

ZIP Compression (2.06MB in size)

JPEG Compression (1.70MB in size)

JPEG 2000 Compression (493K in size)

Personally, I would either go with the first for best quality or last for most compression and skip the 2 middle options.

For areas where I would like more information, I prefer getting specialized catalogs for that particular country. I have not been very impressed with the Classic Specialized Catalog (at least it did not meet my expectations).

Good,

But this pictures from which edition of Scott is?


Thanks.

True. Michel is better for Germany, Maury for France, Facit for Scandinavia, etc.

However, for the worldwide collector of pre-WWII material, it is a phenominal single-volume reference. In fact, I don't believe that any other catalog publisher has an equivalent.

Amos could have simply incorporated the appropriate sections of Volumes 1-6 and it still would have been a worthwhile cost-effective option, but given that it has expanded coverage over the regular volumes, even if incomplete compared to other makers' country-specific catalogs, it's incomparable.

Expecting a single-volume worldwide catalog to have the same depth of coverage as country-specific specialized catalogs simply is not realistic. Moreover, if it were as detailed, it would (1) be more expensive, and more importantly (2) it would not be a single volume.

The Classic Specialized is actually the one thing that they're doing exceedingly well, IMO.

I assume you are referring to the PDFs? That page is from the regular 2014 Scott catalog Volume 2.

Ok , thanks.

I agree with revenuecollector regarding Scott Classic. I think it is essential for the WW classic-era collector, and I think it is the best thing Scott has going. And it keeps getting better.

Other specialist or country-specific catalogues are great to have, too, but if I could have only one, it would be Scott Classic, and if I could have only two, they would be Scott Classic and SG British Empire (for my interests...others' mileage may vary).

For what it is worth, Yvert puts out a classic catalogue from time to time that is very nice, too, and includes a few things that Scott does not (e.g., telephone/telegraphs), in addition to more details on some things. It runs about 80 Euros, and the most recent edition is 2010. Catalogue Des Timbres Classiques Du Monde, 1840-1940

Hi,
May I add a twist to the original question.............

I have a 1955 two volume edition of Scott's Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue. What is the difference between this and the Classic Catalogue?

The Scott Classic only goes up to 1940 (pre-QEII/1953 for British Commonwealth).

The Scott Standard is a world-wide catalog and is now a 6 volume set. It lists most of the main varieties of postage stamps of the world, as well as some minor varieties. In general, it does NOT list covers, postal stationery, revenues..., nor does it comprehensively list minor varieties. For most of those, you will have to go to specialty catalogs, or more detailed country/region catalogs published by other companies.

Mobilman44, as I know you are a Scott International collector, I find that catalogs contemporary with the earlier albums, especially Volume I (1840-1940), are still useful when Scott has changed numbers, colors, or added/deleted stamps in the current catalog. So while I find the Classic Catalogue essential, don't get rid of your 1955 (not that I think you were planning to)!

Yes, my expectations may not have been realistic.