The Meaning Of 'All Different'

Some older stamps are different only because of a tiny extension of one engraving line in the curlycues. Others are only different because of different perforation densities. This leads to a question because packet makers can include similar stamps in a packet of all different stamps, and catalogue publishers are expected to assign numbers to different stamps.

Consider plate number coils. One stamp has a figure 2 at the bottom, se-tenant with another that does not. Are these stamps not different? Are these not different from another with a figure 1 at the bottom?

Now consider booklets. A booklet stamp is different from a coil stamp that has parallel straight edges, and is different from a pane stamp with perforations all around. So why is a booklet stamp with a straight edge at the bottom, perforations left, top and right, not different from a booklet stamp with straight edges bottom and right, perforations left and top?

Every stamp, at some level, is unique. (Just ask the flyspeccers.) Is this the same as 'different'?
Don

The differences on engraved stamps (or other processes for that matter) are only of interest if the error or flaw is repeated from one sheet to another. As for the coil stamps, a coil stamp is a coil stamp. You can't do much more with a coil stamp. Likewise a booklet stamp is a booklet stamp, often with different perforations, but not always. As Don writes, what do you mean exactly by "all different"?

Catalogs are not consistent about listing or recognizing varieties with distinctive characteristics. Flat plate booklet pane stamps have slightly different dimensions than regular sheet stamps. One unfortunate aspect of the Scott catalog is use of minor numbers to recognize format differences (booklet pane) in addition to some varieties but not others. Plate numbers, including modern coil plate strips are fairly well covered in the catalog except for scarcity of specific plate numbers on sheet stamps. For that, a Durland catalog from the United States Stamp Society is needed.

Ultimately it comes down to what a person collects. If you're plating a particular stamp and want to find one of each position, then you're looking for 'different' stamps.

Some people collect booklet stamps in the "European Style", that is the whole pane and/or various pairs so that all flat edges are represented. This is typical of some Swedish stamp albums.

This is actually a timely topic for me; I have always been curious on how many stamps the US issues each year. (To be better informed for the often-heard discussion 'the PO is issuing too many labels'.)

But how does one measure this? One approach is to consider this by Scott Number. If 'by Scott Number' we mean every definitive/commemorative including major and minor Scott numbers, then we have this...



But just as Clark points out, there are many inconsistencies in how catalog numbers have been issued. I am still buffaloed on exactly how to calculate the number of stamps issued per year. I guess the chart above at least indicates an obvious trend for the argument that the USPS is profiteering. Given the recent issuing history, its hard to believe that there were a couple of times when the PO went 3 years straight without issuing any new stamps at all.
Don

Interesting , Don.

So I declare the beginning of the 'inflation' of US stamps as 1975. (For argument's sake.)

51studebaker: Don, you've stirred my curiosity. Did you include se-tenant blocks and/or booklet panes in your counts? Or just the individual stamps? Did you include error varieties (imperf pairs, tagging omitted errors, missing colors)? Modern no-die-cut varieties (now that they are receiving catalogue numbers)? Initially I assumed just the individual die-cut non-error stamps, then I decided it might be best to ask.
John

If you're selling, which is where this description would most often arise, it's appropriate to include the right caveats - eg mint and used, watermark or perf varieites etc of the same stamp defined as "different". Otehrwise, the reasonable expectation is that the basic images/values are all different.

Don, that is an interesting graph. By now I suppose it has to be made taller? Also, it would be real interesting to see this graph superimposed against one showing the actual cost of the stamps. By that I mean the face value of every issued Scott number.

Peter

John,
This is a count of most major/minor Scott Number through 2009. So if they gave a die-cut variety a number in 2009, then it is counted above. Se-tenants like the 1975 Banking and Commerce se-tenant counted as 6 catalog numbers; 1577, 1578, a, b, c, and d. I may have missed a minor number here and there but I am confident they are only a handful.

Good idea Peter!
I store the 'denomination' in the database too. Let me see the data type and if I can write a query to calculate face value and annual totals.
Don

When I assemble a packet, I only count major Scott numbers as being different. Realistically, even in a packet of 500 stamps, I probably include fewer than 2 or 3 "lookalike stamps" (if any at all), so this isn't a major issue, at least in my packets. I'd never include 10 duplicates and then try to claim that they were all perforated a few thousandths differently, for example. I also buy a lot of packets and rarely run into this. If I'm paying 2 or 3 cents a stamp or less, I figure I got my money's worth almost no matter what turns up.

Don: Since you include all Scott numbers (even errors), I think your counts are, for the normal collector, slightly "exaggerated". Even so, I find your graph extremely interesting. Thanks for sharing!
John

Here is the requested dollar total by year. It assumes a person bought one of each Scott number for that year (not really possible since some varieties were discovered at a later date) at face value. And of course the value of a dollar changes over time, so no adjustment for inflation.
Don

I can see that graph on the spines of my albums (Scott National Albums). Album 1 1847-1953. Album 2 1954-1986. Album 3 1986-1995. Album 4 1995-1999. Album 5 2000-2005. Album 6 2005-2012. Album 6 2013- 2016. Album 7 is back of the book.