Scott Catalog 2015 Digital Plans

What is the value of the numbering system, in truth? It is a quick identifier that allows a collector and dealer to communicate about the same stamp. But is it the VALUE of the Scott catalog? Or is is the data associated with each and every Scott number?

As a catalog, there is a very limited audience that will give Amos money. I have a full set of Scott Catalogs - 2007. Amos did not get a penny from me. Instead, I bought them from a library, on ebay, for $35. I'm not alone. So in terms of catalogs I am not an Amos customer. But they COULD get me easily enough.

This week, I spent a couple hours updating my inventory in Excel before a stamp show. Give me access, with the ability to search by description, and to export data, print data, create my own collection inventory with just a few clicks, and I'll gladly pay a reasonable fee per month. Now the collector can affordably use the database, and they are selling to more people on both sides of the coin. Use that numbering system to create a business inventory and POS system for dealers...cha ching.

They won't have to license ... they can sell it themselves.

Amos, in terms of their philatelic revenue streams, seems to have three. Scott Catalogs (including licensing), Linn's Stamp News and associated publishing products, and the philatelic supplies. A strong database system that is subscriber-based could give them tremendous recurring revenue. And hey, when you buy a whatchamadoodle album, you get 30 days access FREE!

The framework already exists in dozens of other industries. I think it boils down to they don't have to because there is nobody in the States to take them on. So innovation that could dramatically improve the lives of collectors and the businesses of dealers stalls. We continue to be an archaic hobby that is viewed as a dying hobby (though I don't think it is in nearly the state of decline as some folks might believe).

When I was in publishing, I'd have killed to have the data they have.

A point raised in a earlier post suggested that a new numbering system be created with a cross reference to the Scott Catalog numbers. Such an endeavor would still require a license from Scott for use of their numbers in the cross-reference, which would pretty much clash with any efforts for a new catalog numbering system.

Although I wouldn't ever plan to create a stamp numbering system, here's a hypothetical question:

If YOU decided to create your own catalog numbering system for US Stamps today, what would you do with back of the book stamps (i.e. air mail, special delivery, postage due, parcel post, etc.)?

Remember, back in the early days of the Scott Catalog they began to list all of these stamps in the general listings and only later on were they renumbered into separate sections. Fast forward to today and since we are virtually assured that no further air mail, special delivery, postage due or parcel post stamps will ever be issued again, would you re-insert those listings into a general catalog numbering system or would you keep them as separate sections?

Don't worry, I have no interest in renumbering anything, I was just curious how the average stamp collector would respond to that question.

I would do this:

First commemorative of 2013: 2013.0101
First definitive of 2013: 2013.0201
First airmail of 2013: 2013.0301
First semi-postal of 2013: 2013.0401

If I HAD to,that's probably how I would do it. I don't really believe in back of book. Stamps should be numbered sequentially in the order they are released. regardless of type. I find it silly that definitives and commemoratives are treated and numbered the same, but airmail, special delivery and semi-postals are relegated to the back of the album and have their own unique system.

And I believe the USPS still issues airmail stamps every year.

I have a few of the albums that don't separate them. It's interesting to see what regular postage was issued about the same time.

However, I think I would separate them. It's easier to find what you're looking for.

In my opinion airmails and semi-postals should be included in the normal listing. Many countries have series with air mail and semi postal stamps in them. Breaking them up like Scott (and therefore also Steiner) does is very annoying.

Michel - which are superior to Scott in many ways - already include them in the general listing.

Agreed. The most annoying thing to me about Scott catalogs is that they list stamp series according to stamp type (air mail, semi-postal, etc.) and not in chronological order. I personally don't understand the value of identifying stamps by catalog number only (especially when considering a global population of collectors) and can quite easily suffice with the year identifier suggested above.

Does any other hobby use catalog numbers to such an extent as stamp collectors?

The first major decision in any numbering system is whether to make it an 'intelligent' numbering system or not. An intelligent numbering system usually includes a numbering system with some kind of delimiters to divide the number into logical segments. This might be a -, . etc so the numbers come out looking something like this; 1234-567-890A or 1234.567.890A. Each segment would represent a specific meaning which humans could understand. So for example the first segment might designate the type of philatelic item; S = stamp, C = cover, B = book, etc.

There is a lot to be said for a intelligent numbering system and how humans interact with them but it is a double edge sword. On the one hand it allows a person to simply look at a number and determine what the item is without referring to a catalog or database. But the down side is that humans make mistakes and when it comes to a identification numbering system this can be costly. So the 'other camp' is that intelligent numbers are a risk that in this day and age it is far better to get users to reference a tool/resource and limit humans from making assumptions from a number. They say that a number is simply a number and requiring verification via use of a catalog or database, while time consuming, ensures fewer mistakes and problems.

The next concern is to support maximum flexibility within the numbering system. Obviously a simple incremental system fails since new varieties are often found after the original numbering is well established. This is another reason to seriously consider a segmented number as outlined above. And of course the numbering system has to be flexible enough to handle an ever growing number of items.

There are many other additional concerns when developing a numbering system but what is outlined above is usually the first things that must be decided.

A few folks have mentioned 'value' as being the second part of 'IP' (intellectual property) that Amos provides and this is indeed true. But in my opinion this has been greatly diminished over the last 10-15 years as the catalog value becomes more and more of an abstraction of true market value. In todays internet age it is fairly easy to simply calculate a real-time market value rather than state some value which requires users to have special knowledge to determine market value (usually some percentage of CV based upon condition or other factors). So my opinion about 'catalog value' is that this is not 'IP' in the way it used to be but rather only a field in a database to be calculated.
Don

And the numbering models proposed above would serve to do one important thing: confuse and alienate the beginning or casual collector.

Simplicity is an important criteria lacking in both. Use the KISS principle.

As much as people here don't like Scott's numbering system, at its core it is simple and recognizable: if the catalog listing starts with a number, it is a postage stamp; if it starts with a C it is airmail, J means postage due, etc.

It's easy to tell at a glance what kind of stamp is being referred to, and the number doesn't consist of a half dozen parts.

When you start getting into complexities like "when parsing the tertiary segment of the catalog number..." you have already lost the adoption battle before you even start.

Regarding listing solely in chronological order, lumping all issues into the same numbering stream, this then becomes problematic for series (usually definitives) where different denominations are released in different years. Scott's system, while not as "logical" as those proposed, usually keeps those sets together, which is easier for the collector and makes for a more aesthetically pleasing album page.

Scattering stamps from the same set or series across 20 album pages doesn't have the same presentation. That's one aspect of using Safe, Lindner, or other European album pages that organize things strictly chronologically, that is actually quite annoying from a presentation perspective.

I realize that at this point this whole thing is merely an intellectual exercise, but one needs to make sure that the cure here isn't worse than the disease.

I would kind of like the more chronological approach, I THINK. The vast majority of Haitian regular issues also have semi-postals, and it seems counterintuitive to separate those, though separating other back of the book items, like airmails, doesn't bother me as much.

The intelligent system suggested, similar to the Dewey Decimal System, might work quite effectively, but like the Dewey Decimal System, I wonder how many people would actually take the time to learn it.

I prefer my pages to chronological. I appreciate grouping series together, but that's not the way I like to present to lay out my pages. I prefer to look at stamps by year.

I would prefer that airmails and semipostals be listed along with regular postage, keeping sets and series listed together. I'd still list officials, postage dues and most other BOB issues separately. I collect most of the countries in Europe and many of them have almost as many semipostals as regular issues, and it can get quite annoying paging back and forth for stamps that were issued in the same general era. Not to mention the album pages I use (Steiner) also have them on separate pages, which results in stamps from the same series being on a different page or even a different binder.

I suppose I could buy Michel catalogs and albums based on Michel, but then there's the cost and language barrier. Not to mention Michel is chronological to a fault, which results in listings for some definitive series being scattered all over the catalog, which I don't like, either. No system is perfect, and none of them are about to change, so it is what it is.

Confirmation email from Scott. You must be online to use the catalog on any platform.

So, now I am debating asking for a refund. But I did buy the catalog without asking the question, so it could be a buyer beware situation.

But then again, the older app had offline access, so why should I assume the new one would not.

And, my last comment. I think that Amos should talk to the guys that run rpgnow.com. It's pretty much the industry standard for distribution of role playing games in PDF format. You buy what you want and it downloads a PDF with a watermark in the corner of the page with your name and order number. Other than that, the file is yours to do with as you please. Dump it in any PDF reader of your choice on any platform.

If you're going to sell a static catalog in digital format, this is the way to go.

The problem is that Amos is so paranoid about PDFs being circulated that they've instead decided to offer a crippled semi-useless product.

They just don't understand digital publishing at all.

Well, I can understand their paranoia to some extent. The average customer is not very tech savvy. Heck, the owner of the forum down under constantly complains how people can't even figure out how to upload an image to photobucket and post it.

So, I'm thinking a lot of people got duped into buying pirated copies of Scott 2009 on CD or DVD on ebay.

But, those same people bought a copy on CD because it was there for $50 or $100. I guarantee you, there is no way they're going to buy the Scott Catalog on CD/DVD for the actual price it probably sold for when it was available for sale. So, in my opinion, they didn't lose any customers.

Does anyone know what the 2009 CDs sold for when they were new?