New Unitrade Canada 2017 Catalogue

Is anyone getting the new Unitrade Canada 2017 catalogue? Some are saying that this catalogue may be split into 2 volumes in the future.

The number of pages for the binding format they are using has reached the maximum allowed pages in latest edition. They are going to have to make changes somewhere either more volumes or reduce content. They have some tough decisions to make.

Watermark, perhaps it is time to consider offering an e-version, as an option? (single catalogue in e version, and a split catalogue (1867 to 1999) and a new one (2000 to current) or something similar?

Binding has it's limitations...I can see splitting it into 2 books as some one close to the decisions of Unitrade has mentioned to me..

I can see back of the book becoming it's own book..

Also there has to be designed a smooth easy process to make aware of NEW possible constants, errors etc...This process should lay in the hands of Unitrade....Just saying.




If I can hack to get it for free...I am sure there are lots of people out there that could do the same...Unitrade will suffer.

Robert

Since it is the Elizabethan Period that is the biggest and is still expanding maybe it will be this part that will be separated into its own volume.

I wish they could make a pdf version that is protected somehow. I know the Scott 2009 tried it and failed to provide protection and it is now free all over the internet. I prefer the pdf rather than the cumbersome books. I would buy a pdf version and not likely buy the book. So they are loosing sales.

I would like to get a new Scott catalog in pdf but I am not interested in paying $300 for the book set. Until then, the stamps I see are worth a percentage of what my book shows. Value is so subjective in stamp collecting anyway. No one buys or sells at catalog value. So as a buyer, the stamps are worth whatever book I am using and my percentage of actual value.

I blame the fly-speccers!

And PDF is currently a dead end. They are not responsive by design; PDFs were intended to look the same on any platform. So when you try to view a PDF on a small screen (like a smart phone) it can only scale, making the fonts so small no one can read it. In today's responsive design, the content needs to 'collapse' to a column format. PDFs cannot do this.
Don

And I thought Unitrade Canada only listed constant varieties and not fly specks...

I have never tried to view pdf on a phone pad. But it has to be better than dragging 6 large volumes around with you to a show or something. But pdf format saves printing costs and should bring the cost down. Then they would sell a lot more. Everyone would be getting new copies every year instead of every 5-7 years.

jaxon,
Understood. But the context that a company is going to take is one of investment and return. (A company calculates the development cost divided into the number of potential users/sales it will see.) Last year the percentage of users accessing the internet on mobile devices passed 50% and is still exploding; desktop users are now in the minority.

This is a technology evolution, like self-driving cars, that we might not like but will have to live with moving forward.
Don

They should have it available on disk since it could fit much more information in this way.

The Unitrade BOB (back of the book) content could be sharply reduced.

I agree about the BOB content being reduced or split between volumes.
I am not sure that I am buying a catalog this year due to stamp budget.

My Unitrade is a 2016, will not buy another one for a while and hate e-versions of anything. I stopped reading APS e-monthly mag and requested a hard copy, which I am receiving. Its the formats I do not like.

Although it will become necessary, it is really tough to divide a catalogue.

If BOB is separate, what is considered BOB? Some consider airmail, war tax, Express, officials, Postage due, etc. I do not, and have always like the Gibbons way of including them with regular stamps by year. Of course re-numbering will never happen.

I would not want to see classic "BOB" in a separate volume as classic regular postage. Nor would I want to see the Provinces/Colonies in a separate volume.

I do not envy the editor.

I suggested REDUCING the BOB content. Not taking it out.