Future Of White Ace Albums?

Today I am doing a little 'happy' dance. The front door bell rang as my regular carrier left a priority package at the door. It was my order of FDCs from Washington Press. Mailed on 11/28 it arrived today in perfect condition today 11/30. If you ordered sufficient items Washington press paid the P&H (which came to $8.80). I received approximately 200 covers for $146.25 (making the covers about $ .73each (better than the dollar box at the shows.) I was able to fill many holes in the collection as I ordered many airmails, 2-officials & a B2 set, and many commemorative & definitive issues. The caches are finely defined and raised off the envelope. They set the standard & I am now wondering just who would be the main supplier of wonderful caches in the future. I am sure that there is someone somewhere picking up the business. If Artcraft had copyrights to the designs, do you think that new caches would be print to order by a local printing firm. (I wonder how PCS is going to make out since they took over their own cache printing some years ago [or maybe had contracted Washington Press w/PCS logo]). Or perhaps take up the slack as a new revenue source, {or maybe Mystic who I think took over Fleetwood??} The hobby will miss this resource greatly.

I can try to answer these, but you're better off contacting Scott/Amos Media since they'll know better. I use Scott albums and I've bought a lot lately.

1) Are their supplements complete in terms of stamps issued in the calendar year? That is to say when the 2018 supplement is issued will it have every stamp issued from Jan1 - Dec31, or is it some skewed period like Nov 2017 - Oct 2018?

I'm pretty sure they include all stamps issued in a calendar year. But sometimes they correct the previous year by including newly designed pages which include spaces for stamps they missed previously. You insert the new page and remove the old one. This doesn't happen often, though. It's good they fix their errors.

2) When they put space for a coil issue, is it for a single stamp or do they insist on strips? Nowadays coils seem to be printed detached from each other so strips seems stupid to me.

Not sure but I have some pages with single coils and some pages with pairs so maybe their policy has changed over time? I don't remember spaces for "strips" though maybe in their "coils only" album?

3) Are blocks of 4 only shown as a block? Seems to me that if a stamp has a unique integer Scott number it ought to have its own space. Blocks in the containing numbers (making them up for illustration) 2500-2503 usually id the block as 2503a. That should not be the only way it is illustrated, one cannot collect used that way, especially with self adhesives. Now items that are souvenir sheets I can see being the sheet only. For the life of me I cannot fathom why Scott sometimes enumerates individual stamps and other times gives them letters in a multi-stamp issue.

White Ace used to have spaces for both singles and a block of four. If stamps are se-tenant and come as a block, Scott includes a space only for the block of four -- no redundancy. There's nothing stopping you from adding a blank page for additional stamps as singles, used, owhatever you like. But they would not have separate spaces provided for them. Some collectors might mount singles next to the block, but that can clutter up a page. Scott does not provide spaces for mint and used stamps. That's more the gimmick used by Lindner, I think with their plastic pages on top of regular pages. Not a fan of that. Scott keeps it simple and provides spaces for just one or the other of your choice.

4) I know they have thin paper, so I would be willing to scan any new supplement and print it onto sturdier stock. Are the stamps grouped such that, if one ignored the border which can be erased in scan, would the remaining stamps fit on a standard 8 1/2 x 11 page?

Scott's current weight of paper is very sturdy, not thin at all. Quite a few years ago they used thin paper in their albums -- maybe to keep the bulk down? Not sure. But that changed either in the 1990s or soon after. Now all their album pages are very sturdy if not quite as thick and "cardboardy" as Lighthouse or Schaubek pages. This goes for all their Specialty country albums, their National album, and their International album. I did not like the thin pages which were easy to tear especially at the page holes. I very much like their modern pages.

As for photocopying onto large or smaller paper, there's nothing to stop you from doing that, I suppose, if you need to. But if you bought their pages, why would you? When a page gets damaged or badly worn, I have a few times copied an older page onto a same-size all-blank page. The result is a new page that looks just like the old page. You do have to be sure you have the correct holes, of course. Copying larger Scott pages onto smaller 8.5 x 11 pages I have never done, but I don't like small album pages which look too cluttered to me. You could do that, too, I imagine if you wanted to as long as Scott's page layout did not extend past the edges of your blank paper.

As for White Ace disappearing, a collector can keep using their WA albums if they're willing to use sturdy 8.5 x 11 paper with three holes punched in it to make blank pages. That's easy. And all you have to do is cut each corner with a cheap corner rounder punch to match the WA pages. If you need a border, make one up and use it as your "original" as you run them through a copying machine. Or copy a WA page border to your blank pages. They're out of business -- they won't care what you do. You can't get WA page layouts anymore, of course, but if you must have page layouts that can be solved, as well, by using Steiner page layouts which are print-yourself pages. Or mount future stamps on blank pages. All of these will fit the WA binders just fine.

Thanks. The reason I asked about scan/reprint was that I heard the Minuteman pages are paper thin, but I like the idea of having info under the stamp. I was considering buying Minuteman pages, scanning them and printing them on smaller but sturdier stock, because I have been a White Ace guy since the early 1980's and prefer the "standard" page size. But the Scott insistence on not having spaces for the individual stamps of blocks has pretty much stopped me in my tracks. If I'm going to be forced to make my own pages for those stamps I may as well design the whole supplement. Also, considering the fact that coils no longer are physically connected to each other it seems ludicrous to continue the farce of showing a pair. The Scott claim to "have a space for every major number" is worded such that what they're doing is technically true but to be is done ass-backwards. All major numbers should have their own separate square and as a "bonus", a space for the setenant block (a minor number) would also be provided.

My guess is Scott thinks most users of their catalog collects mint so assume you will get blocks. But, Mystic does the same thing. Even Steiner does it like with the RSA dual language issues.

"The Scott claim to "have a space for every major number" is worded such that what they're doing is technically true but to be is done ass-backwards. All major numbers should have their own separate square and as a "bonus", a space for the setenant block (a minor number) would also be provided."

If Scott says they provide spaces for every stamp, and they then provide a space, I don't see the problem, myself. They do what they say they do.

I always found it strange for some album publishers to expect me to buy two of every se-tenant stamp, both the connected stamps as with a block and four separate stamps. If the stamps were 20c each, it's not a financial issue but it would look odd to me to have a block on the page along with four separate copies of exactly the same stamps. Why do I need two of each stamp? Doesn't the block prove they came attached? What do the separate stamps prove?

And if the stamps were $2 each, well that's even worse. Not only is there that repetitive and strange album page layout, but there's also a much higher cost of collecting those stamps, $8 for the block and another $8 for the individual stamps. And this in an era when collectors are screaming bloody murder over the ridiculously high annual price of stamps.

I also dislike the modern practice of mounting an entire min-sheet of stamps when that sheet repeats some of the same stamps. Why do publishers assume we're happy purchasing multiple copies of the same stamps? I'm not. So that's a different viewpoint, but I'd say it's just as valid as assuming it's normal to collect a block and singles. I wouldn't call it "ass-backwards" to provide one space per stamp -- or to provide one larger space for a multiple like a block. To me that seems like the best way to do it, and the other way is the "ass-backwards" way since it's based on an assumption I don't think makes much sense to most collectors.

Why "should" collectors mount singles next to a block of the same stamps? That's the definition of redundant, and it's wasteful of page space, wasteful of collectors' money, and so on. But it's good there are (or at least "were") album choices for different kinds of collectors. I'm sure we'd both agree with that!

Scanning Minuteman pages onto blank paper would create the kind of album you want, but I have to tell you I don't understand the appeal of making album pages smaller. For generations, collectors put stamps onto fairly large pages because by spreading stamps out to give them breathing room, they could also either add more stamps on a page, or they could add useful information about the stamps. Today, lots of collectors use smaller pages the size of computer paper. I understand that's easier. Everyone has a printer, and so on. But does that produce good-looking albums? I don't think so. To me, it's a compromise which developed because it's easier and cheaper -- not because it produces better looking albums.

And if you want Minuteman type stamp descriptions, how does shrinking the page allow for that in an effective way? Stamp boxes plus descriptions would require a larger, not a smaller, page. You'd think so, anyway.

I'd copy your Minuteman pages, if that's what you like, onto good quality paper stock in a similar size to the Minuteman pages or onto Scott Specialty-sized blank paper. And then I'd put the resulting pages into a good quality binder and not one of those miserable vinyl binders sold for introductory albums which is what I think the Minuteman album uses. Each to their own, but that's my opinion, anyway.

You will do what you like, of course, and that's what you should do. Whatever you do, have fun with it.

I see your point.

I think the problem I'm having then is Scott issuing a major number to members of a block that is clearly issued together. They are not consistent applying this rule. "Block" as I'm using the term is a group of setenant stamps. The two space pairs, the coin and banking pair. Fine, Scott gave them each a major number and the "pair" a minor number. Next take the numerous blocks of 4. Again, each gets a major number, the block of 4 a minor number. Postal people, strip of ten. Again each gets a major number. But if the design is such that each stamp on a sheet is different; a block of 20 if you will, now all of a sudden all bets are off? The "20" collectively gets a major number and the individuals get minors? Sorry, it's still a multi-stamp issue. Because it fills the sheet should not matter one bit.

I still say they are splitting hairs by saying every major number has a space. To me that means each major number gets it's own space. Using their twisting of English, they could make a big square and stick in as many separate issues as possible and claim they've provided space for each major number. They're playing lawyer.

I put this to some people who are not stamp collectors by telling them what Scott says and then describing what a major and minor issue means as well as a setenant issue and how the items are numbered within. I then asked them to tell me what they thought the pages would look like. Not one of them expected "blocks" to be treated differently. In plain English, to them, a major number means just that, one square per major number item.

Now I don't begrudge Scott (and apparently much of the collecting world) their methods of work. I wish they wouldn't use the phrasing they do; they ought to say "Each singly issued major number will get its own space; and every multi-issue set will get a space for that multi-set.

I know many who collect used stamps. It's practically unheard of to find a natural cover that has joined setenants. They're forced to make their own pages by every album publisher, except for White Ace, who now are leaving us.

We have had this discussion before but what is clearly needed, and one day will be available, is an online 'drag and drop' album page application. Users would start with a template and then quickly customize the pages using a graphical 'drag and drop' methodology. This application is not rocket science and could easily be done. For example I already have a database of the bounding box sizes for US stamps, all that is needed is the user interface.

Why any of the existing album publishers have not yet done this is simply a question a vision and ability.
Don

Scott's numbering rule is consistent but I do not necessary agree with it. It does not help with the USPS issues a stamp with 4 designs each row having the same design. Scott will assign a minor to the vertical strip of each design (hate mounting these).

When a sheet has multiple designs and only one instance of it they will assign the sheet a major number and the singles are minor numbers and they expect you to mount the sheet.

But this is the downside for using a certain catalog maker's albums.

I have redone a number of Mystic and Steiner pages to collect them how I want to collect them.

Maybe Scott has heard the cry in the wilderness. There was an add for a new type of US Supplement for collecting the "used" individual stamps from setenants. Of course, no law says you have to mount "used" stamps in those spaces. A possible win-win.

This is what I get for not logging in for a long time. White Ace album pages were just gorgeous. I just sent them an email asking if they would be willing to release their page templates into the public domain, so that customers might be able to make their own pages for any White Ace albums they may have. Hopefully they're still responding to emails.

If they have not thought about such ideas, maybe that is why they went out of business.

I used to have a White Ace album. I thought it was gorgeous. But I had issues with it.

1. I did not like that you had to collect se-tenants connected and as individual stamps.
2. The simplified pages that had se-tenants connected only, did not have all major Scott catalog numbers.
3. Booklet stamps had a separate supplement that required you mount the stamp and the whole booklet.

After I took everything out of my White Ace album and moved it to my Mystic Album, I threw the White Ace album away. I wish I had kept it, just so I can scan in the pages now and use them as templates.

If anyone has a White Ace album and could scan in each of the different page styles into some ridiculous resoltion like 1200 DPI, I'd love to take a whack at recreating a page.

Sounds like a great idea apastuszak

wouldn't mind trying that out myself
love tinkering with that kind of stuff, of course make the pages
available as templates once complete.

I would love it if White Ace just released PDFs of everything if no one offers to buy their album line from them.

I just recently realized that Washington Press has gone out of business. I've been utilizing White Ace pages since 1980. I guess I will just have to design an print my own pages going forward. I can include/exclude any/all stamps I want and I don't have to complain about any publisher on how and/or what to present. (Wasn't sure how White Ace was going to present the hot-wheels stamps... now I don't have to worry.).