US Circus Themed Sheetlet Only Available In Stamp Yearbook

"I don't think the USPS sales will hit anything near that figure since the Yearbook costs $64.95 which may be out of reach for most casual collectors"

Actually they are fairly popular with casual collectors.

The previously posted link for the Circus Posters Souvenir Sheet Press Sheet no longer works. It appears as though it has been removed from sale from the USPS Store's website, which suggests that possibly the entire print run of 10,000 Press Sheets has been sold out.

The FDC is still available, though.

I couldn't find it on USPS.com, either. I tried searching for it and just browsing listings, and apparently it's no longer there. With no limits on orders, I'd guess a lot of dealers and speculators bought them by the dozens or hundreds.

Linn's has now confirmed that the Circus Souvenir Sheet Press Sheets (quantity of 10,000) are now SOLD OUT -- a full six days before their December 10 issue date!

http://linns.com/news/us-stamps/105...-out-quickly

A sellout is a sellout. Raising the press run from 2.5K to 10K and then selling out will only encourage more of this sort of product in the future... which I don't mind in the least. Discussion and activity can only be a good thing for the hobby.

Change is hard for luddites...

P.S. Scott still needs to list this. The "greater than face value" argument doesn't hold water, or U.S. semipostals would not be listed. The "only available through limited/specific channels" argument doesn't work either, as there were European stamps in the 20s-40s only available in conjunction with events, yet they are listed. Are the Asian stamps that are only available through lotteries listed?

Its not "greater than face value", it is "stamps sold for far greater than face value" (direct quote from the Scott catalog.

And what exactly constitutes "far"? It's a vague distinction subject to interpretation, thus allowing them to include or exclude stemps they do or don't like.

In my opinion, on purely a percentage basis, the 32% cost over face ($0.34 postage + $0.11 = $0.45 selling price) of the original Heroes semipostal of 2001 is "far greater than face value". Yet it is listed.

In fact, I would posit that on a percentage basis, the premium for that stamp is MORE than the premium being paid for the Circus sheet in the yearbook. You can't just say that people are having to pay $65 (or whatever it s) for the Circus sheet. Subtract out the cost of the book, the mounts, and the other stamps included.

I would argue that the premium for the Circus sheet is nominal.

Thus the criteria being used to exclude the sheet is complete bunkum.

The Scott editors have an agenda and are using any random justification they can come up with to exclude this item, no matter how inconsistent.

"In fact, I would posit that on a percentage basis, the premium for that stamp is MORE than the premium being paid for the Circus sheet in the yearbook. You can't just say that people are having to pay $65 (or whatever it s) for the Circus sheet. Subtract out the cost of the book, the mounts, and the other stamps included."

Most sreious collectors (the type who want them to be complete) already have the other stamps and are not interested in the book, so effectively they are being asked to pay a huge amount over face to ge them.

Just because YOU don't need component X or Y out of a package doesn't mean those components don't have value. Yes, to you and certain other collectors, you would be buying the yearbook only for the sheet, so in your mind the entire cost is for the sheet, but that doesn't make it so. For your personal purposes that is the cost of the sheet, but in terms of the entire package, that is NOT the cost of the sheet.

At the very least, the other $40+ face value in postage that is included has value.

By way of analogy, most years the only pages of the Scott U.S. Specialized I use are the 100 or so pages devoted to U.S. revenues. Since paying the $80+ for those few pages in the Specialized is the only way I can obtain that content, am I therefore justified in decrying the fact that Scott chooses to only include those pages in the Specialized as opposed to selling them separately? Because I only consider the revenue pages to be of value TO ME, does that mean I am correct in saying the Specialized is ridiculously overpriced for including all those other pages I will not use?

Of course not. Just because I don't use those other pages doesn't mean they don't have value...

I agree with this 100%. The editors are old fashioned and they just plain don't like them and they don't think the USPS should be doing this or issuing imperf press sheets, etc, so they try to come up with whatever reasons they can to justify excluding them. They're valid for postage and will be used as postage and examples will exist on cover and will be bought and sold in the marketplace. But Scott barely acknowledges their existence. They're doing their customers (namely collectors and dealers) a disservice by playing games with what they'll assign numbers to or not. If it's a government issued US stamp that's valid for postage, all collectible varieties should be assigned at least a minor catalog number. The editors' personal opinions about how the stamp came to exist shouldn't come into play. The fact that they exist and are valid stamps should be all that matters. It's the editors' jobs to list, describe and value them in a clear and concise manner, not go to crazy lengths to tailor the catalog listings to their own personal tastes.

Why is the Scott listing (or lack thereof) important or relevant? I've yet to see any evidence that the value of any stamp item being materially affected by the action or inaction of Scott editors.

I guess if a stamp is listed then it has more exposure amongst collectors and that could effect price in some manner. The number also helps identify a stamp in everyone's language.

Major Scott numbers are very important because better albums will generally have a space for all major numbers. Since most collectors want to fill that space, having a major number listing instantly creates demand for that stamp. Most albums generally don't have spaces for minor numbers, but many collectors seek to collect them, anyway. This is why Scott is hesitant to list some issues. The editors personally don't like the issues and they know that if they give them a Scott number, that many collectors will feel "forced" to collect those stamps. So yes, assigning them a catalog number can and likely will influence the demand and thus pricing for those stamps.

Also, as has been menitioned, it helps with identification. I'm making these catalog numbers up, but "Scott# 5122d" is generally faster and more precise than "Scott# 5122, Rocky Mount imperf horizontal gutter pair". Listing and pricing them in footnotes as they do now unncessarily makes those listings awkward and clogs up the catalog somewhat.

I would be curious to note the inclusion of the Circus Souvenir Sheet in the 2015 US Postal Service Guide to US Stamps. Given that the guide list 99.9% of all Postage Issues (with some others BOB but not all) inclusive of stationary items, would that guide list the sheet sans the Scott #. Probably. I haven't purchased a guide since their 33rd edition (I am buying one in 2015) so I am wondering if the newer guides mention the press sheets (which Scott does not assign #s either, yes I understand there is a notation of the variety but no #.)???

Agree with theartfulhinger about collectors feeling forced to collect them if there are Scott catalog numbers assigned. Likely, the editors have carefully researched and appealed to their target market in that if you search through the banter, the negative aspects and complaints about these imdiecuts probably outweigh the positive by a factor of 10-20:1.

If Scott is in the business of selling catalogs you appeal to the market needs if there is reason to do so. Of course, if this reasoning were true it certainly would not be stated by the editors, for fear of seeming partial and subjective, and other objective reasons and logic would be applied. Some of that logic being anything but... given the evidences provided that refute the statements and reasons provided by the editors.

Of course, in a decade, after the dust and smoke and emotion have cleared these imdiecuts might be given Scott major numbers such as 5122A.