Scott - Michel Conversion Charts

A search for reviews of Phildex turn up this review . . . .



On more googleling, I can verify that these four are the major indexes - each based in a different old stamp collecting country - France (Yvert & Tellier), Germany (Michel), United Kingdom (Stanley Gibbons) & United States (Scott).

Why a hobby as old as stamp collecting doesn't have a central governing body regulating a single index seems rather strange in today's world. Guess I can sum up why with one word - greed.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you. While I don't like the lack of a unified catalog system and their aggressive moves to block independent cross-references, these are for-profit companies and they have a right and a responsibility to defend their intellectual property. They invested a lot of time and money to create/develop/update their numbering system. These are not companies that are earning billions of dollars each quarter.

The real problem, if one must point a finger, actually is with us collectors. We all want a free unified numbering system, but we can't produce one that is acceptable to even a small fraction of collectors. There have been several attempts over the years to produce the equivalent of an "open-source" numbering system at the grass-roots level. All died miserable deaths for two simple reasons -- collectors can't agree, and even if they do agree, dealers won't implement it. Yes, we can agree on some very specialized collecting areas where the stamp population is relatively limited. But when it comes to a general numbering system, opinions differ as widely as the collecting areas.

Consider how much I gripe about Scott. Multiply annoying collectors like me by a few thousand... you get the idea.

Well, to be fair to myself, I'm vocal about Scott because I have to pay for their catalogs. When something's free, I let most things slide by.

If I had developed a numbering system for fun and not profit, then of course I would allow free distribution. I operate a non-profit organization (not related to philately), and all the things we produce are not copyright and may be freely distributed.

But if I had developed a numbering system as a business, I admit I would be aggressively protecting the numbering system as well. Others have understood and have accepted this licensing system. Brookman and USPS are 2 examples of those who have a paid licensing agreement with Scott.

Again, I don't like it -- but I really don't think it is a greed issue in this case.

Just my opinion... I do appreciate you having shared your thoughts. I'm always interested in hearing/reading opinions of others, and have actually changed my own thoughts in the past on many issues after hearing some compelling opinions/facts from others.

k

If I made my own album pages, (Which I plan to do for my WWII collection.) with each stamp having its cross reference numbers under it, my heirs wouldn't be allow to sell the album because these reference numbers were copyrighted.

You can produce your own album pages with as many catalog different catalog numbers written underneath as you want. In fact, I write both Scott and SG catalog numbers into my Lighthouse Great Britain album. This falls under fair use.

What you may not do is reproduce your album pages for distribution or sale without permission from the publisher. Your heirs or anyone else may sell your album as is, because your original incorporation of the catalog numbers was "fair use". There should be no problem. I am not a copyright lawyer, so don't accept that as a legal opinion.

Before fellow forum members start getting worried/annoyed, keep in mind that the catalog publishers are not going to go around prosecuting individuals who post their collections online with catalog numbers written/printed underneath. That would be an exceptionally poor business decision.

So enjoy the catalog systems and implement them the way you want in your collection and album pages. As long as you don't reproduce/distribute your album pages, you won't get a letter from the publishers.

k

Any of these attempts online somewhere? I have my own index for my photos. It base on date taken and a simple number system. I could add the country codes to the front and a sub category for different presentation of each stamp.

All the grass roots movements to produce a unified catalog numbering system that I am aware of died out well over a decade ago. Those websites are long gone. There may have been other attempts since then, but I haven't followed it because I felt it was a lost cause (my opinion, sorry if that discourages anyone).

There are numerous numbering systems for highly specialized areas (such as US booklets/panes) that were developed by passionate collectors that were successful and are still in use today. Many of these systems eventually went on to be copyrighted. Oh, well. However, whether someone or group will have the passion, patience, and sufficient knowledge to develop one for worldwide stamps... I certainly would not oppose them!

Yes... For example http://www.philadb.com

And like khj, I don't believe in these attempts either. Changing the tide is not simply a matter of creating something that works - the real challenge is to get collectors, dealers etc. to put the system to real use on wide scale. This is mission impossible.

IMO it's much wiser to "pressure" existing catalogue publishers to become more open. After all, if stamp collectors (=the customers) start complaining with massess, they have no other choises than to change or become abandoned.

Does anyone have a cros reference for DDR stamps?

Andy,
I actively collect Soviet Occupied Germany, including DDR. I use both Scott and Michel catalog numbers. There isn't a simple algorithm for converting from one catalog to another because of the different way they treat things like semi-postal and air mail stamps.

I talk to my German collector friends in "Michel" and organize my collection by Michel number for specialized areas and Scott number for the rest.

After a while you get used to being "bi-catalog."

If you are stuck on some issues, let me know and I'll try to sort them out.

Dan

sharksfan11: I would be interested in a copy of your conversion chart for WWII-era European stamps. I can't contact you via PM because I don't have a sufficient number of posts for using it. Thank you.

He hasn't actively posted in quite some time.

Sharkfan11's last activity was;
Last Post: 09/15/2013 Last Visit: 09/18/2014
Another member(liphil) asked him for a copy of his conversion chart and sharkfan11 replied that he'd get it to him soon, so maybe you could get the chart from liphil? Worth a try. Yeah, I know that user name is kinda close to mine, but it isn't me!

Not online, but there was a series of philatelic investment guides published around 1992 by a US company that now has the website (170403) Not Allowed - Auto-Removed. The one for Germany, which I have a copy of, had two major sections. First was the investment guide proper, listing stamps by Scott and Michel catalog numbers and advising how good an investment each might be. Second was a complete cross-reference between Michel, Scott and Yvert catalog numbers for pretty much the entire German area. Including all of East Germany, which had stopped issuing stamps by that point.

The publishers had given their permission to use their numbering systems in the book. Stanley Gibbons numbers were not included because SG did not.

The second edition did not include the cross-reference table because one or more of the catalog publishers withdrew their permission.

There were guides for several other countries as well. I would think that copies must come up for sale occasionally, but I have never seen one offered for sale since they went out of print.

In practice, are there significant differences? I would expect Scott to be out of line with the three European companies, but, setting aside "home" areas, where much greater specialisation is likely, does Michel treat, say, France, much differently from SG?

Minkus used their own numbering system0. They tried to cross-reference Scott, got sued by Scott and settled before trial.