Scott Album Pages- Not What They Used To Be

Was this only the international pages, or did this change occur with the National pages as well?

I think the Specialty pages are also now being run off on different paper than before- those pages are a bit more yellowish but not like the International pages are now.

I have no idea how many page sets Amos sells; I just find it surprising that I have not seen any reference to this issue on any other boards. This perhaps is just not an issue for most people who buy them. Just incredible..

In the end Scott needs to be able to sell album pages at a certain price point and make a profit off of that. It's quite possible that their old paper got too expensive for them to continue to use it without raising the price.

A LOT of Scott's supplements are "print on demand." "Print on Demand" usually means photocopied or laser printed on demand. That may effect print quality also.

I have no idea how much of a price differential there'd be if they used the older stock. Probably not terribly much.
I'd be happy to pay the difference. In order to save a couple bucks Amos is instead forcing customers to accept their pages on paper that doesn't collate well with older pages. I don't believe for one minute that better paper stock is no longer available. They ought to have added 'at the price we want to pay'.

I have to wonder how much longer until Amos goes to some sort of download set up so customers can either print their own pages or have them done by a printer of their choice? I know.. to many issues with the pdf files being pirated, etc.

It sounds as if Scott may be using a newer cheaper paper product to produce their pages. What did they say about the images? Today's images should be more clear and focused than yesterday's; perhaps they were in a hurry to get the product out.

Scott is not likely to go to a downloadable page for one simple reason - their unique page size (10x11.5 inches; 254x279mm). Scott page size paper can not be handled by most home printers. They are very close to B4 in width (10.1x14.3 inches; 257x364mm) but the Scott length is much shorter.

Non-commercial wide format printers are pre-set for various paper sizes, including B4, but I suspect the printer software would try to stretch the image to fill the whole page, and that would seriously distort the original image.

Their pricing policy may likely follow their online price for the digital catalog -- you will still pay a lot. It would not be $50 and download all you want. They do not let their IP go a low prices.

I am breaking down an older collection in Scott Internationals right now and this topic led me to pay more attention to paper uniformity. The four volumes have a wide range of differing paper characteristics mostly to do with the softness/hardness of the paper as well as thickness. The color and imaging however is very uniform. Not sure of the overall paper vintage.

Interesting. I have noticed with paper purchases for bookbinding that paper types will come and go over the years.

I would assume that they have tech specs for suppliers of their paper but might deviate when hitting a deadline. Another thing I noticed was that as far as aging goes all of the papers have held up very well. The albums appear to have been well cared for and stored though. Original purchase cost is important since albums that I come across that were originally sold as low cost alternatives to the traditional names have severe issues with toning and reaction with stamps mounted directly (hinged) onto them.

I did get a reply from Amos. It seems they re no longer printing at least the Internationals in-house. They farm this out to a local printing company and I was told that the old paper type they used for years is 'no longer available'. I bet it's not- at the price they feel they need to hold it to to make the usual profit margin. They promised to forward my concerns to the printer. I'd pay extra- up to $25-30 per page set-for pages printed on quality paper.Not an option apparently.

One thing has occurred to me, I am slightly color blind. These pages may not appear to others as they do to me. That may explain why no one else has mentioned this.

You wrote that the pages have a "striking yellowness" which "almost glow[ed] with yellow." And, "The illustrations are awful; black splotches in many cases. You have to look closely in order to make out the stamp image." But the next day: "The illustrations aren't that bad, I guess . . .  I can easily live with this." So this is really about the color of the paper. Any misprinted page can be returned to Scott/Amos and they will provide you with a better replacement page.

This thread gets very creative in places with claims that aren't true. Or at least there's no evidence. The possibility that the pages aren't really Scott pages is pretty unlikely. What evidence is there that someone is copying Scott pages to sell? None.

Someone suggested buying from "Amos directly" as if their pages might be a different shade of white from their suppliers' Scott pages. But they're the same pages. It is possible that some very "old stock" may still be in the hands of older suppliers, but Scott changed their paper color years ago. It's pretty unlikely anyone would get decades old pages now. Suppliers buy their pages from Scott/Amos. They're not going to vary in color. They're the same pages.

Scott/Amos said, "We did have to change the paper that they are printed on, because the supplier could no longer get the other paper." This got turned into Scott may be using "cheaper" paper. Or maybe they were in a "hurry" to print them. There is no evidence for this. Does Scott change its paper specs under deadline pressure to get printing jobs done? Also no evidence. I've bought Scott pages for years, and I've never seen this.

I wonder if the real cause of this page color difference could be that:

1. Scott changed its page color some years ago to a more yellowish-white color.
2. Stamps 1962 is color blind.

I posted earlier that Scott changed its page color to a more yellow-white page. I know because I asked Scott a couple years ago. Yes, the new pages do not match the earlier pages. I much prefer the new shade. And Stamps 1962 says he is color blind. No offense intended, but how can someone who is color blind say that a page "glows with yellow". What am I not understanding?

If you purchase pages from Bill Steiner's page printer in Maryland (Richard Simpson), he uses a different shade of white paper from Scott. It's whiter than Scott's current shade. I don't know if that gives us three shades of white now -- or if it's closer to Scott's old paper color. Try it and find out.

This is not some conspiracy by Scott to cheat customers, as some have suggested. There's no evidence they're cutting back on paper standards. In addition to the change in paper color (which I like), Scott also now prints on a heavier paper. I imagine most collectors welcome this. Earlier International pages were much too thin for regular use. In fact, they were awful. The holes ripped easily. The new pages are much less likely to rip. They have a much sturdier feel to them. Scott also moved the holes in farther from the margin to prevent tearing at the posts. These were really helpful improvements. The newer pages are a big improvement. But if the color is the main thing you care about, I'd change albums.

You also say, "One thing has occurred to me, I am slightly color blind. These pages may not appear to others as they do to me. That may explain why no one else has mentioned this." I'm going to have to agree with you there.

The only colorblindness I've read about regarding yellow is a rare condition called Tritanomaly, and with that condition yellow appears violet or light grey. Not glowing yellow. Make of that what you will.

Drew,part of my problem with what look to be contradictory statements in this thread were due to my posting several times over days, during which I was dithering about how to resolve this. I suspect you could find many of us on here do the same thing occasionally. This isn't a legal proceeding.

I did appreciate your suggestion about the dealer selling Steiner pages and lighter colored Scott type paper.That may be what I need to do.

I have sent back the pages and gone in a different direction. Please, let's drop this. I see nothing constructive in continuing it. Thanks to all who participated.

Paper companies are now massive operations or tiny artisan papermakers; there seems to be nothing in between, really. That's even counting China, etc. The big guys aren't going to change the factory around just to make the relatively puny amounts of paper that Scott uses today for its National and Specialty pages. As for the tiny papermakers, go to a real art supply store with specialty papers and see what their paper costs per sheet.

I think you haven't bought different specialty papers in the last 20 years to be able to see that what Scott says is true. I've seen some great and popular papers go from being available from wholesalers by the ream to being special order only by the pallet load to no longer being available. My main interest around that time was in papers specifically made for high quality laser printer output.

Per bookbndrbob, paper availability has changed over the years. If you can't believe me, at least believe him. And Scott pages have changed over time as well. I have Scott Specialty pages of "expected" weight (i.e., what I'm used to) from sometime in the mid-1960s. The supplement pages that were added to the albums from about 1970 onward are definitely heavier and a slightly different color. Go back to earlier times, perhaps the 1940s, and the paper is noticeably thinner. There are some old Specialty pages from about the same time that are distinctly grayish, and not due to ageing.

Whether the optical brighteners used on current Scott pages is a good thing or not is still a question.