Scott Catalog 2015 Digital Plans

I agree 100%! I would be an early adopter of that system.

The problem is that there is too much inertia in the hobby. It seems unlikely that most people who have spent years of collecting with everything arranged by an existing catalog numbering system are going to change.

So the process continues as the hobby slips further and further into technological oblivion. As was stated previously, young collectors aren't going to spend $$ and time flipping through a paper catalog. If it isn't online, fageddaboudit.

Dan

Well, they'll be forced to when the company they use for numnbering goes under.

Heck if you go to stampworld.com now, they use their own numbering system. And you buy and sell on their based on their catalog numbers.

Why can't we start our own numbering system. Put it in the public domain. My first thought was 1A, 1B, 1C... 2A, 2B... based on design. Then I looked at stampworld and it's almost exactly what they do. So one problem would be any existing copyrighted numbering system.

EDIT: How about types? Does anyone "own" the 5 1 cent Franklin types, for example? Would we have to call them something else? I know Scotts uses that information, but weren't the types developed over the years by philatelists?

You could use this numbering system...

https://goscf.com/t/4305

I like it, but it doesn't go far enough. It looks like stampworld expanded on this concept. I wonder if either version is free to use...

Using a numbering system other than the one that is firmly entrenched in the U.S. philatelic market would be fighting a huge uphill battle. Without mass adoption, in my opinion, it would go nowhere.

Collectors would need incentive. What if there was an app they could use offline but no Scotts numbers? What would it take for anyone here to learn a new numbering system? I really like the systems based on design. For a beginner it would cetainly be less confusing.

Remember the Minkus-Krause numbering system? It was used by a few supporters of their products and they finally relented to releasing a cross-reference with the Scott numbering system because of the confusion it caused the general stamp collecting population. So in a word, it "failed".

Let's face it, if we can't accept the Scott digital formats with all its shortcomings, who is going to accept a brand new numbering system that would have such a learning curve it wouldn't be practical--even if it went digital?

It seems to me the whole point of Scott offering on-line products with few user-friendly features is so they can keep control over their copyright license to the numbering system and they don't want to make the offerings "too good" that no one will buy another catalog.

After all, the stamp collecting community as a whole is in a general decline and the typical Scott catalog purchasers are typically older adults that may not be as computer literate as some might think. Speaking for myself, I would much rather peruse a catalog than an online listing when it comes to stamps as there are just too many varieties that are easily missed if you put all your faith in a computer display rather than a bound catalog.

Besides, Scott catalogs are the primary product that keeps Amos in business. With editing, printing and production cost escalating all the time, not to mention shipping costs, along with the the hundreds of new stamps issued each year by most every country around the world, the catalogs keep getting larger and larger and increase not only in cost but in size (number of volumes as well as number of pages).

The cost is always being scrutinized by not only the average collector (who would rather spend their money on stamps and settle on using older catalogs), but also by libraries and institutions as well, as new book acquisitions for libraries are typically the first to be cut from a city/town budget and my guess is the use that Scott catalogs receive on a library shelf is not great enough to justify the expense of buying new worldwide catalogs every year.

To summarize: Amos's current publishing model is unsustainable. Fewer collectors + larger volumes + rising production costs = inevitable collapse.

This eBook product with no offline access and disabled printing functionality is not the answer.

I agree ... even though Amos (quite naturally) puts a different spin on it!

http://linns.com/news/editorial-ins...-digital-age

And don't forget to read this article (from paragraph #4 forward) that makes it sound like they are a long way from true on-line catalog editing that most of us would expect:

http://linns.com/news/editorial-ins...ized-catalog

This is why people need to dual list. Give the Scott number AND the number from the public domain system you're trying to ingrain.

That may be true for the Scott Publishing arm of Amos, but I guarantee you that their coin collecting products and guides probably make a hell of a lot more money than their stamp division does. Heck, their craft guides and automotive magazines probably do better than the Scott division. With the advent of the Internet, stamp collecting is going to move past printed catalogues and Linn's Stamp News.

And how exactly would you get people to "need" to do this, especially when 99.99% of collectors and dealers won't even be aware of this second numbering system?

Looking up a stamp in 2 different catalogs is a pain; people will just say "the heck with this" and stick with the accepted numbering system.

I'm not saying an alternative numbering system is necessarily a bad idea, but the major hurdle is adoption. Unless you are also publishing a full-blown catalog system, album supplements, etc. tied to the new numbering system, it won't go anywhere.

IMO, that's why Scott has no competitor in the U.S. or Canadian markets. The amount of time, labor, and money it would take is VERY substantial.

The Scott numbering system is really nothing more than a sequential numbering system starting with 1 and increasing numerically by one digit for major stamp varieties. Then we hit the snag where Scott removed a huge block of stamps and made them minor varieties of other stamps. And then we have stamps that were missed for whatever reason, and end up with an capital A or B after them. So, at some point, the Scott numbers are skewed and no longer sequential. So, I can see people getting confused by an alternative numbering system that just lists numbers. Any alternative numbering system needs to be more than just a base 10 number.

There are a couple of good ones out there.

Wikibooks came up with a half decent numbering system here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/World_...ering_System

It's a bit complicated, but it's definitely unique. I like the fact that the year and country are in the catalog number.

Why limit the numbering system to simply stamps? If you are going to invest in a new numbering system should it not encompass and accommodate all things philatelic? Why not include covers, images, links, books and articles?

Develop a open source, standardized specification that can be applied to any kind of philatelic data. This might sounds familiar to those of you who watched my failed attempt at this a few years ago (PIN – Philatelic Information Network). After promoting this idea for a while and even moving forward in actually building an example spec, SQL database, and website front end; I found virtually zero support for this idea.

So I agree with the naysayers, for various reasons (and many are valid ones) the philatelic community is very entrenched in its existing ways and does not look upon change favorably.

We still have folks telling new hobbyists to 'go to the library' to use printed catalogs. Might as well tell a young person to swing by the barn if he is looking for a ride into town.
Don