Scott Catalog 2018 Edition To Be 12 Volumes

Really are you serious a 12 volume catalog for stamp collectors . I been a catalog buyer since it was a one volume reference book .
Now they plan to have 12 books , really ! More later ,after I calm down.

*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

I think they will run one-two cycles with this format, see that it is not improving sales any, and lead them to move from alphabetical arrangements to regional catalogs which, while perhaps being even more catalogs in terms of numbers of separate volumes, would be more likely to sell since the vast majority of collectors collect by country/region.

Hopefully it will also result in Scott finally developing a web-based catalog that is functional and user-friendly. Though I won't hold my breath.

Take a note from Gibbons and Michel, Scott. Very few collectors are going to buy full catalog sets each year. Regional and online are the way forward.

The proposed breakdown was published in an old thread from last fall:

https://goscf.com/t/51127

Apparently still treated as six "volumes", each of which is printed in two parts and sold bundled together.

They're basically selling them like in the past, but think of it as each of the six volumes being split into 2 separate bindings, if that makes any sense.

The reason for the split is that the ever-increasing page count due to new issues means running up against the maximum binding width that their printer can produce. Of course, in typical fashion, Amos screwed the pooch when coming up with a solution.

Switch to regional model? Nope.
Swicth to chronological model? Nope.
Sell the volumes separately, thus offering the customer more options? Nope.

Just same exact content in 2 books, but at a higher price.

Similar failures as with their so-called electronic version, which suffers from any number of usability problems, especially with the horrible new interface.

It's a company firmly entrenched in the 1970s, both in mindset and technology.

HI

A few years ago, I wrote Scott (Amos Press) about the idea of regional catalogs. I stated that now that the Catalogs were computerized, why not print regional catalogs as do other foreign catalogs? Scott's answer: "Too many collectors buy full catalog sets". As I said in another forum, what a dumb answer.

Jerry B

Hello
Years ago I bought Scott cat. 2007 on cd. I know Amos published 2009 on cd as well. They stop probably because some made copies of them and sold them. I still use the 2007 as for values comparison in my listings. I still go to the public library to burrow a cat when needed but I also buy from Scott online. When they quit the cd I wonder why it was not online and they finally did it. It's amazing!With the search engine I save time and as I still refuse to wear glasses it's convenient on screen. Maybe in the future the Scott cat. will be only available online. Better for the environment to save trees. Daniel

Reading online vs. reading on paper is one of those debates that will never be resolved, but according to a number of articles about the subject, people tend to prefer flipping real pages. I do, at least. So I prefer paper catalogues. I have no problem if there's an online version, as well, much like newspapers which publish in both formats.

As for Scott's "new" 12-volume format, they clearly are a very conservative company which has difficulty thinking outside their old-fashioned mindset. Maybe if they'd stayed in New York City, things might be different? Who knows? In any case, regional catalogues is the only way to go. Stanley Gibbons and Michel figured this out long ago. Buying two split volumes of each of six volumes just makes no sense. It's certainly not a real "revision" at all when you print in the same exact thing in two, instead of one, volumes. It's like remodeling an overly crowded house by dividing all the rooms in half. Who does that?

If some collectors do want the whole catalogue -- and I'd doubt it's anywhere near most of them -- they'll buy it no matter how many volumes it is. In my lifetime, they've gone from one to (now) twelve volumes simply by adding more pages.

Since most collectors do not collect the entire world, and most certainly do not collect the world from 1840 to the present, Scott needs to rethink its model. Many collectors would buy selected volumes of regional catalogues every year or two for the areas they specialize in. I own at least eight Stanly Gibbons regional and country catalogues. I rarely buy Scott catalogues, updating every 5-10 years at most. I have a set of the six volume Scott catalogue which consists of three 2006 volumes and three 2009 volumes. Who are these people who buy an entirely new set every year? It costs hundreds of dollars, far more than most collectors can possibly afford. Scott is living in a dream world. Do a real redesign. Create regional volumes.

I've known some stamp dealers who own shops who buy entire sets every year to update their inventory and prices. At the end of the year after they have gotten their "use" out of the catalogs, they will sell that set at reduced prices.

I still question if Scott actually reflects dealer price or the other way around. The market should set the price. If Scott raised the minimum and a dutiful dealer followed this, then I would say Scott is setting prices not the dealer.

For minimum value stamps, the dealer can determine their own cost to handle a stamp with minimal value. Scott is guessing on considerations.

Gibbons Stamps of the World - which I take to be less detailed than Scott - is still six volumes, and is also alphabetical. I think that Gibbons was thinking of shifting to an online-only approach for this, but presumably decided that thee was enough interest in the printed version for it to continue. This may well change as the collecting demographic changes. I suspect that, if you're going to buy this once or every so often, you're more likely to do so for general interest. Regionalising it probably wouldn't affect sales - the Gibbons regional catalogues already exist for that market. I have a 2010 five-volume edition, and I find it serves the purpose of providing quick, non-specialised information to a range of countries and periods in which I often have only a slight interest.

This does not have to be a binary decision for publishers, it does not have to be "either hard copy or digital". In fact if done properly, the digital version comes 'free' to the publisher since the data already exists and then the only additional costs are establishing the online delivery process and code.

So the issue for each publisher has to be one of two things; either they are not developing the foundational catalog content correctly or they do not want to make the business decision to go digital.
Don

Don

I wonder if Gibbons's thinking was "This is a lot of effort for a marginal profit, but ... if we go all digital, our demographic means we may get insufficient sales to cover our development etc costs". Gibbons does have an online catalgue subscription offer, as does Yvert, although SG's appears to be based on the 2012 edition.

Geoff

Hi Geoff,
Possibly, but one of us would have to be on the 'inside' to understand each publishers reasoning and justifications. The SG 'only-2012' availability sounds more like a marketing/business decision than any technical reasoning. From what I have seen, SG is probably the most likely philatelic publisher to navigate this 'brave new world' and push on into the future. The other publishers are still very questionable in my mind.
Don

Well, it may do, if it can get its business model and operation right first! Management has been all over the place for some time - I really hope that the new-ish team can restore some coherent thinking and delivery.

SG had their catalogue online over 10 years. It was free initially but looks like now you can access it for £29.95 for 12 months. I never did subscribe since I purchased the SG regional catalogue.