I'm A Slave To My Album

I make my own pages when needed.

Same here. I'm now putting together a page for U.S. computer vended postage--the same stamp, but different denominations.

Robert

howell1018,

Your complaint about having to collect se-tenants singularly and as blocks reminds me of why I migrated from my HE Harris USA albums. Not a good thing to be enslaved to the book.

Jack Kelley

Climber Steve noted he prefers his BOB stamps in the BOB section of his album. I thought it might be useful to at least a few collectors to know why I do it a different way. So, here's my thinking about why I organize my Scott albums my own way. I'll call this

MY RATIONALE FOR REORGANIZING MY SCOTT ALBUM PAGES IN A MORE LOGICAL WAY

I use mainly Scott albums. Since Scott's catalogues segregate different types of stamps into different sections of the catalogue, Scott organizes its albums the same way. Airmails are kept at the back of the album along with semi-postals, away from all the other stamps. To me, that makes no sense. Chronological organization is far more logical. Scott would be better off doing it that way. That is, after all, the way most other catalogues (and albums) are organized.

Not distinguishing among "types" is generally more logical. Segregation does make sense if you're dealing with something like postage dues. After all, postage dues aren't really postal stamps in the same sense as other stamps. Customers don't buy them at the post office. They're added by the post office iself, not the customer. You could mail letters for your entire life and never see a single postage due. They can go in the back with revenues or tax stamps which aren't "postage" stamps, either. That makes sense. But Airs and Semis are postage stamps bought and used by postal customers.

I collect stamps by when they were issued chronologically. Chronological organization shows changes in the development of a country's stamps, the different topics stamps addressed, the different artistic styles used on stamps and how those styles changed over time. That's why nearly all stamp albums are organized chronologically. It just makes sense.

Does whether a stamp is a regular or a commemorative stamp require me to mount it in separate sections of my albums? No. So why should I mount other types that way? Even Scott agrees with that! Scott lists regulars and commemoratives together in its catalogues and albums. Why then second-class status for Airs and Semis? Airs and Semis circulate just as regular and commemorative stamps do.

I collect for artistic, cultural, and historical interest. Stamps are small works of art, historical objects that reflect the era in which they were issued, Therefore, I want regular, commems, airs, and semis together by year.

The best reason for putting all stamps from each year together in an album is this -- that they all reflect the artistic and social concerns of that era. They may look similar. They may address similar concerns. Plus it's strange to look through an album year-by-year, noting how stamp styles and subject matter changed, and then have to go through the same years, same subjects, same stamp styles again in the back of the album.

I chose to organize my album pages the way that makes the best artistic and historical sense by keeping stamps from the same year together as much as possible. And European album makers agree with that approach. They put not only regular and commemorative stamps together, they include Semis and Airs with them. Europeans invented stamp collecting. Why J. Walter Scott changed the organization of stamps in his albums I don't know. It's a mistake I try to correct.

That's my rationale, anyway.

There is no one right answer for all.

Scott's logic is organized by service markings (parcel post, air mail, etc) and people collect by groups not by year so understand and generally agree with their logic. For example, if I want to get the all 1968 stamps I do not want Revenue, Postage Due, etc. This would bloat albums with pages and empty spaces most do not collect. The rules are not consistent and would prefer to see semi-postals with general postage and would even accept airmails.

The challenges with any catalogue/album is deciding whether to group definitives (like the Great Americans) in one section or scattered throughout the years. Scott's tries to reserve blocks for groups but modern series (post Liberty) are in multiple groups.

I would prefer definitive series to be in one section and varieties of the same design to be in one set such as the Purple Heart issue that is also spread across years. I tend to favor "sets" over "year".

"There is no one right answer for all........" I agree. Collect what you want and organize it how you want. But, the Scott catalog rules in the US, as the Minkus organization learned in the 1960s and 1970s, with their different numbering system and grouping of back-of-book issues with the regular issues, as Drew does it. But, if doing it Drew's way makes sense for others, don't hold back.

"I tend to favor sets over years......" Actually, I do both. It's easy to do that with the Portuguese colonies. Even though earlies were often issued in multiple years, I tend to group some together. Example are the King Carlos issues that first came out in 1898. Others in the set came out in 1903. I still group them as one set, by value. The 1914-26 Ceres sets need to be done differently now that Scott has changed its listings to reflect perf and paper types. The perf 15x14 came first, in two different paper types for the larger colonies. The 12x11 perfs came later, again with different paper types. It's almost multiple sets for what is basically the same issue.

Mexico and Poland; which are other specialty areas for me; have some similarities with the Portuguese colonies. Not sure how I will ultimately do Mexico; so far, using trimmed Scott specialty pages for the classic, pre-1940, issues. But all the different District overprints & batch/year numbers will require blank quadrille pages to make sense. See Nick Follansbee's catalog for the classic Mexico issues and what I'm saying will make more sense.