Scott Catalogue Number Assignment

There has been several discussions on how Scott assigns catalog numbers to stamp issues, especially USPS stamp issues. It seems to me that there are many inconsistencies with the reasons given for NOT assigning numbers to certain issues or a variety within an issue. Some are even contradictory. Scott needs to get their act together and assign a catalog (either major or variety) to any USPS issue valid for postage. This is true of the press sheets issues and the more recent Circus pane/sheet issue.

Scott has seen fit to assign numbers to other USPS collectible items (souvenir pages being one) yet chooses to ignore valid postage issued in a limited run. During the 2006 International there were several USPS (& other countries) short run issues which sold from the Show dates to about 90 days after, all assigned major catalog numbers.

There is an active market for the recent imperforated stamps (from press sheets only) and there appears to be a growing market for the Circus Sheet, both press sheet imperforate and die cut pane from the year book. So what does it hurt to give them a number (not just a footnote)?

There are also inconsistencies in assignment of a number to a re-issue. The Purple Heart and Chippendale Chair versus the Breast Cancer issues are recent inconsistencies. The Purple Heart & Chair were given variety status, while the Breast Cancer Issue given major status.

The Scott has become a valuable tool to collectors & Dealers but if it continues to be inconsistent in its cataloging assignments (or lack of) it becomes less valuable.

I think all involved in the philatelic hobby would appreciate a cataloging system that serves the total hobby. There is not much effort needed in providing a variety assignment nor major. Scott wants to us to think it's their hobby?? I think not. It is OUR hobby. I went 45 years without a Scott catalog and only purchased a set to ballpark a value for my collection, (and learn about varieties and new majors of the same design).

If Scott continues to ignore legitimate country issues, especially US, then I can stick with a much less expensive reference form and devise a numbering system for those issues or varieties ignored by Scott.

We as hobbyists need to tell Scott they are not serving the hobby in our best interest (which would be theirs).

Maybe wt1 is correct. Scott will assign numbers & values at a later date so that it becomes a marketing tool for them to sell updated catalogs. Or maybe their ego has grown so large they no longer are in touch with the philatelic hobby needs and don't really care because they don't need to??

I agree completely. I use imperfs on all my philatelic mail, yet they aren't assigned a catalog number? I can understand not getting a major number, but not even an "a" number in the specialized catalog seems really incomplete.

My (limited) eerience with non-US imperforates is that Gibbons too refers to their existence, but doesn't assign a number. Not sure it's a problem as long as the reference is there. On the other hand, one could argue that, given the extraordinary levels of detail around earlier US issues, it's odd that Scott doesn't incorporats some realtively readily available material from the recent past.

I think Scott does a excellent job with their catalogs ,they are trying very hard to stay with the hobby . If new trends develop they watch and see first if it becomes popular with a strong following and how the dealers react and if pricelist start to appear. Then as prices and interest shows a good market for this new trend and then and only then do they look to establish a pricing and listing in their catalog -----SO IF YOU WANT SOMETHING IN THEIR CATALOG ,THEN MAKE A MARKET[ offer buy and sell prices] IN THAT SPECIALITY .

so there is a big market for souvenir pages, souvenir cards, and commemorative panels. I think the market for Bradford Plates is bigger. (I could be wrong)

As basically the catalog of record for US issues, the only questions Scott should ask is whether it's an official government issued stamp and if it's valid for postage. All collectible varieties of stamps meeting those criteria should be given at least a minor catalog number. The editors are basically letting their personal opinions (i.e. they don't like what the USPS is doing) affect their decision on whether to assign numbers or not. How and why the stamp came to exist shouldn't really matter. That fact that it exists and is valid for postage should be the only things that matter in terms of assigning a catalog number.

All collectors who have similar concerns should get together and put together a letter and/or a petition that should be directed to the Scott calalogue editor with all of their signatures on it. Also, try contacting some philatelic writers and/or philatelic specialists in the area of interest that may be able to also shed some light and give some weight on the matter in your direction.

While a petition wouldn't hurt anything, I'm pretty sure that Scott knows that their listing "policy" with regards to certain recent US issues is a hot topic. It wasn't too long ago that Don Sundman from Mystic Stamp Co. had a letter to the editor at Linn's giving his opinion that Scott should assign numbers to modern imperfs. Now, Sundman might have an ulterior motive (assigning numbers will increase demand, allowing him to raise prices on those issues), but Mystic is Amos's biggest advertiser, probably by a million miles, and I'm sure his opinion gets more consideration than most. I'd imagine most other dealers would prefer that Scott assign catalog numbers as well. I'd be pretty surprised if we're still having this debate in 5 years because I'd assume that Scott will finally break down and assign numbers before then.

While I personally would like to see Scott assign catalogue numbers to all stamps, after reading point "6" under Catalogue Listing Policy in my 2014 Scott US Specialized, I must admit out that they are definitely adhering to their stated policy. I suspect, though, that noone ever expected the US to join the list of countries deliberately violating this policy.

Under Scott's rules, most of the souvenir sheets issued in the 1930s and 40s that were issued at a stamp show and were not available for public sale should not have Scott Catalog numbers. The Bill Pickett sheet sold by mail order only, and the Looney Tunes imperfs should also be struck from the catalog also.