What Would You Think Of An Electronic Scott Catalog?

That is a lot of fail. There's that continued pattern of single platforms presenting the same old same old pages, not pieces of data. Keeping Scott numbers basically proprietary as a cornerstone of the business? No vision there, not with tons of data available and more to be mined, then (properly) packaged and sold.

I have my doubts about Amos even having $50k+ for the necessary IT guy. There's always been too many chiefs and not enough indians there. True before Amos ownership and still true, it looks like. Scott in the old days always depended on "friends" to do free work. So, they really didn't have the staff to do the work needed then, with many fewer stamps around besides.

The "friends" also set the pricing, if you remember the times when one country was usually sold at X% of catalog, another Y%. Even more countries never changed Scott values ever. The step up into the 21st Century will take more than just providing the same old thing, the same old way. I'd also think common sense would say not to steal French Ballon montés listings for a general catalog, for example. But if someone needs to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, there's no stopping them.

Yes it is a major fail.

IT (information technology) isn't about the kid who runs around fixing user's printer problems. IT is about delivering content when and where a user wants or needs it. So in this day and age, publishing companies are information technology companies. Publishers no longer talk about their content, they talk about their technology. At the 2015 publishing 'Industry Preview' conference three panelists were asked,



Most answered stating that modern publishers must swim in the content and technology confluence. That good technology helps drive the content to become more creative and powerful. Troy Young (one of the panelists and President of Hearst Media) said



How have other major players in the publishing world met this challenge? Time Inc. has more than 1,000 full-time information technologists in their workforce of about 7,300. They have a dedicated information technology team which supports corporate applications, a product IT engineering team which oversees the products that the customers use (websites and mobile apps), and lastly they have brand-specific IT engineers that work on the company's individual titles.

Hearst Corp. has around 800 full-time IT engineers but has also concentrated on hiring and growing 'hybrid roles'; traditional publishing employees that also have a level of coding abilities. CTO (oh my, even a Chief Technology Officer) Phil Wiser said


Over at the Washington Post they employ a bit over 250 IT people, which is about 14 percent of their entire workforce. Our hobby's content suppliers, whether it is Amos or APS, do not have to listen to me or any other anonymous voice on a public forum; they only have to look at publishing industry leaders.

Frankly this train left the station about a dozen years ago, so this is not 'breaking news'. Delivering content when and where your customers want it is a core competency, not some 'add-on' job or cost overhead. Modern and relevant publishers clearly understand the need to embrace and enhance their digital technology staff and expertise.
Don

Edit: Look at the Time website https://www.timeinc.com/. Now look at Stamp Smarter website http://www.stampsmarter.com/. Compare these to Amos or APS websites. Stamp Smarter was totally developed by single person without any large budget (frankly without any budget at all). I wrote the code, I designed the databases, I made all the graphics, I do all the marketing, I do all the support. So if a single person can deliver 47,000 files of content by himself (while with horrific health issues) I do not understand how organizations like Amos and APS can spend hundreds of thousand of dollars to deliver what they currently have.

It is about vision and determination and not about cost.

I have often felt that catalog publishers need to narrow their focus on what they do best, and share their information with other catalog makers to use.

I think Scott should continue to focus on North America (US, Canada, Mexico), offer a US Specialized and general catalog of North America. But their German pages should be MICHEL pages. And MICHEL's US Pages should be Scott pages.

If I go to ebay right now, most of the German listings are using MICHEL numbers anyway.

Same with Britian. I don't see anyone selling British or Commonwealth stamps using anything other than Stanley Gibbons numbers.

I may believe using SG for British Commonwealth when Steiner organizes his pages by SG.

Rightly so. There are these great tools (computers, the web) to reach so many customers -- use them!

The San Francisco Chronicle is a Hearst paper, and I knew some of the librarians there. A real library is still maintained there, a holdover from Hearst Examiner days, not as good as before, the staff greatly reduced. The old independent Chronicle library was a bookcase, I kid you not. At last word, the librarians don't have anywhere near the computer skills called for, with only a couple of that group ever tabbed for any real computer training. The daily paper is not scanned in its entirety, picture files are given a very limited number of tags and are not all saved. Troy baby, if that's still so, that's not what I consider deep tech.

If Scott started using SG number for their Commonwealth stamp sections, then Bill Stein will start using them too. He bases everything off the Scott Catalog.

"I don't see anyone selling British or Commonwealth stamps using other than Stanley Gibbons numbers...."

Really? Occasionally, I will browse through some mid-late 2000s auction catalogs from former dealer Greg Manning. He always had some great British/Colonies stuff, but I seldom bought any. Why? Because he used Gibbons numbers most of the time. I had two issues with that. One, this is USA, not UK. We use Scott numbers here; for better or for worse; not Gibbons. Second, Gibbons numbers often differ in sequence from Scott and one would need a whole basket full of Gibbons catalogs to figure things out.

I own one Gibbons catalog; for British East Africa, which is a specialty area of mine. Couple years ago, I bought a KUT collection with Gibbons numbers. So.......... I have some other modest colonial collections and Scott is more than adequate for those if/when I add anything.

If you're selling British stamps and list them with Scott numbers, then I think you're going to lose the interest of every buyer in Great Britian. I used to see sites that listed stamps with SG and Scott numbers side by side. A lot of them got cease and desist letters from Amos legal.

Amos legal is very strict about the license for the use of their numbers. You can use for sales listings, but if you go a little too far, you basically cross the line in them thinking you're offering a catalog. The only reason Mystic gets away with it is because they spend a lot of advertising money with Amos.

This tells me he seems to cater to US collectors that use Scott. This also means he would be less likely to have SG oriented collectors so an expected result.

Since all of his pages are US Letter, I tend to thing you are correct.

Most likely Manning, like many US sellers with Commonwealth material, used Gibbons because the prices in the past were MUCH higher than Scott's. In the 1990s and earlier 2000's Scott wasn't even listing KGVI material MNH at all. When US dealers figured out that the UK dealers were quoting much higher SG catalog pricing and asking much higher retail prices, there was a gradual evolution towards using SG numbers and pricing. Manning was always an early adapter, and may also have had a following in the UK to cater to.

Of course, there were/are varieties list in SG not listed in Scott's, especially shades, chalky vs. ordinary paper, and even some perf varieties (eg. Swaziland KGVI defins where Scott still only lists the perfs associated with the later printings, Gold Coast line perfs, Bermuda perf 14 line, Jamaica 5/- perf 14 line, etc). So there are times when it would make sense to use SG numbers for instances when Scott does not list certain varieties.

However, when you see sellers who are perceived as mainly serving North American clients, using SG numbers for basic stamps and sets may be due to higher pricing using SG references.

I would assume people updating the APS website are on the APS payroll, so each word, image and video that ends up on the APS website comes with a cost that shows on the budget. Same story with Amos or any organization/business that has got hired staff. Getting paid for work is the difference between a 'hobby' and 'business'... 

-k-

apastuszak: with all due respect; if/when I decide to sell my British & colonial collections, I will find the US auction house that seems to be the best fit for a Scott numbered collection. I did that with my France & colonies material, which is at auction this month. Some stuff no longer wanted may be given away; as I did earlier this summer with my Spanish collection; as there wasn't enough value to interest an auction house.

I have no intent to haul albums to the UK; or pay humongous shipping; to sell via British dealers when there are adequate places in the US to sell same. Shermae makes a good point which I had forgotten. Historically, Gibbons values are higher than Scott. So, I can see where those who want to eke out the last dime when selling British material might go the Gibbons route.

They used a third party contractor to develop the website and I think they rely upon them to make coding changes to the site. Simple content changes are probably done internally but I do not know for sure.

To give you an idea how APS uses resources for their online APS Stamp Store content processes…




As you can see, much improvement could be made with some IT efficiencies.

The last time they released a redesigned website, responsive designs had been around for 2-3 years but they rolled out a non-responsive design. Hopefully this time around they have received some good IT input and have enough vision to develop the new site with tools that support some type of CMS. At least then they will be able to assign simple website updates to office personal and folks that don't need any coding background. My fear is that they are in a hole and are still digging.
Don

Honestly, my thinking was not about US auction houses. It was more about purchases on ebay and bidStart.

I started to collect Ireland a few years ago, and trying to buy Irish stamps on either of sites using Scott numbers is close to impossible. Even US sellers list things by Stanley Gibbons numbers. I ended up buying the Stanley Gibbons Ireland catalog.

Most Irish collectors tell me the Hibernian catalog is the way to go. It has more varieties of Irish stamps than any other catalog. But Hibernian numbers are not used online (at least on ebay or bidStart) to sell Irish stamps. Most listing are using SG numbers.

So, that necessitates my use of SG numbers in my Ireland collection. I'm sure US collectors in Ireland use Scott numbers when they do their purchasing. It's the path of least resistance.

On top of that, Scott numbering in incredibly inconsistent. US stamps with different microprint varieties get major scott catalog numbers. Non-US stamps get minor catalog numbers. This drove me a little nuts with my US collection.

I have seen Scott give a minor catalog number to perforation varieties of some foreign countries, when they would never do this for the US.

I know that Scott, at one point was using members of the UPNS to help them with their Ukraine section. When we pointed out that their descriptions were using Russian transliterations instead of Ukrainian transliterations, and asked that they correct this problem, they stopped using the UPNS as consultants for the Scott catalog.

I know at one point, I sent them an email pointing out a color variety of a Ukrainian stamp that would warranty a major catalog number had it been a US stamp. I sent them some websites and contact names of people that had both color varieties. They outright told me in an email that they are not interested.