"All Different" Stamps: What Counts

All of the above, postmarks, watermark orientation, margins, overprint varieties, tete beche pairs or blocks.

To me, it is "different enough" when I take the time to identify an item's own special characteristic and do something about it. Make a note, put it on a page, something.

Fit, Form and/or Function
Don

'All Different' I think this phrase is dependent upon the expertise of the collector. To a novice all different usually means country or design or value, or colors. To an intermediate it might mean the same, but the intermediate understands that there may be differences in perforation, or watermark for same design, value & color & investigate more (varieties). For me if I were to seek a WW packet, all different would mean one of two things, same country, different designs or values or all different countries. I would not consider all different to primarily be defined as inclusive of varieties (which would not be obvious without some measurements or magnifications). In reading the 'Kitchen Table Philately' column in Linn's I always see the phrase '100 different' as unique design or part of set, not usually varieties of an issue. All different should be all different not a couple different with varieties. jmo

It's case by case but it go often to «Same design, different color" ( not shade ) I have enough fun to make stamps forensic with US and Canada Small Queen stamps, I will not do it for the rest of the world, it's too demanding.

None of the above for me... For me it's entirely about different major catalog number. Depending on the country/editor who worked that catalog section, the above changes may warrant a major number (but most likely not)

shermae - thanks for starting another interesting thread!

keijo (scb) - that is a conservative strategy, which would be easy to automate in an inventory. However it gets frustrating when different watermarks or perforations in some cases warrant a new major number, whilst mostly this is listed as a minor number.... grrr. At least all my catalogs are inconsistent in that respect. If still counting only the major numbers, the count will be just as inconsistent as the catalogs...

I agree with Blaamand catalog are too inconsistant, but of course we come back to why make it hard when you can make it simple, just fallow the catalog .......

True. But very few things in life are perfect (which is why I use a number of different catalogs as my resources).

The reason I've gone down this route is that major catalog numbers provide a 'standard unit' in specific scope. And that's what really counts, not the accuracy of it (for example the standard metric units have been updated a good number of times since late 1700s).

And before somebody says 'what about the different catalogs, they will provide different counts'.... Well, we do have a good number of different measurement systems used all around the globe (such as kilometer in Europe, mile in US). Same story here, not such a big deal.

Any other options is basically the same as going back to dark ages.

-k-

SCB, we use kilometer in Canada, actually only 3 countries don't use it; Liberia, Myanmar and US, but we still use inches and feet in construction and for sell woods

Actually, despite forty years of Brussels, most people in the UK probably still use Imperial measurements! Some of those awful young people have gone metric, however.

Most folk in the UK wouldn't know a kilometre if it dropped on their toes. I've lived and worked abroad so long now that I have forgotten Imperial units. Gallons are for hats, stones are for removing from shoes and feet attract said stones.

However, back on topic I am a splitter rather than a lumper so I work to the "all of the above" principle in the original question. It can make for a lot more work (and expense) but adds a bit of extra spice to that next visit to the local dealer (see you Friday, Roy) or speculative buy from an auction site. It also makes sure that I can never stop this glorious hobby!

As a used stamps and postal history collector, I don't care for gum. As for the catalogs, for me they're just a reference, not The Bible! Although, when specializing on a country, I try to find the listed (afordable!) variations.

I remember, nearly 30 years ago, when I studied in the UK (Reading); teachers still talked about "those EEC mètric units". While admiting that most of British people knew how much a liter was, because cheap Portugese wine, went on 1 litre bottles.
Anyway, I have to admit that my knowledge (coming from Catalonia, mètric since 1869) of what a pint was, came from the pubs...