Question About Greece Scott #'s 657 – 663

Saturday last I purchased through ebay this set: Greece Scott 657 – 663 MNH for $2.00 from a dealer I've worked with before. Other sellers offer the same set in the $4.00 - $6.00 range. The 2015 Scott Catalog values this set at $14.45 for the seven stamps.

There is also a current ebay listing for: "Greece Stamps # 657-63 XF OG LH Scarce Set All Inv Wmks Rare" priced at $78.50, with the note that this is a 50% reduction from a previous price of $157.00.

The 2015 Scott does not indicate that these stamps are watermarked nor that there are any "subsets".

The seller's information indicates that they are a coin and stamp dealer so it is presumed they know their material.
Two questions:
1. Someone here familiar with Greek stamps explain this?
2. Is the Scott catalog not always compete about certain stamps, such as not indicating if there is a watermark or if there are "rare oddities"?

Thank you.

I have the Hellas catalogue from 2008, this 1959 Red Cross set is numbered 831-837, watermark Greek Crown.
There is no mention of an inverted watermark, or indeed any listed varieties, for this set.
Have looked to see if there is a general note regarding Greek Crown watermarks, but cannot find one.
Hope this helps.
DavidR

The seller is well known in this forum (Anth...) for phony listings.

Thank you DavidR, that was helpful.

It was mostly a curiosity question as Scott (2015) doesn't indicate that these stamps have a watermark, let alone that some sets "may" have inverted watermarks. Coincidently I just had watermark fluid arrive with a recent supply order so I'll check the stamps out when they arrive Wednesday or Thursday. It does make me curious as to if the Scott catalog information is often incomplete this way, it is my only point of reference at the moment.

@perf12, the thought had crossed my mind as to if the "Scarce Set All Inv Wmks Rare" was legitimate but it wasn't my place to "wonder out loud" without evidence, good to know now.

Work next week will take me within 100 miles of Portland, OR where the dealer has the brick & mortar Uptown Stamp Show shop. I'm tempted for several reasons to take a long drive home and stop in, and I can visit with the knowledgeable staff. At $2.00 I'll probable pick up another set if they have one. I work part time for the Red Cross, it is a topical interest and I really like the design.

You need to read the introductory section that's in the front of every Scott catalog. There it is noted that parts of the description carry over to following entries unless there is a change. This is normal for catalogs in general.

Scott is also a general postage stamp catalog; do not expect every last variety to be noted and priced in it. The exception may be the US Specialized, but even that is certainly not complete to the last variety or detail possible.

Thank you hy-brasil for this information! I have read, and found useful to me and informative, the Introduction section of the Scott catalog, but rather skipped over the "Understanding the Listings" page as that "seemed intuitive to me", but I was wrong. I notice now that they italicize it even:

I have a few stamps in my collection with inverted or sideways watermarks for which Scott makes no mention. I believe, in some cases, they are just as plentiful as upright watermarks, so Scott does not make a distinction.

Robert

I think Scott's policy on identifying watermark changes would make more sense if they followed it systematically.

I did a quick check just now on their Greece listings in my old 2009 edition.

The Scott range #524 to #687 consists of 25 sets. 24 of these sets have Scott wmk #252 and one (Scott #535-538) is unwatermarked.

I've checked these against another catalogue which gives an explicit watermark for each set.

Scott notes the unwatermarked set as such but is inconsistent in the way it describes the following sets.

The very next set, Scott #539-544 is explicitly described as wmk 252 so the listings are correct in terms of changes of watermark being noted explicitly.

I find it strange though that in the following 23 sets, 13 have the watermark given explicitly and the other 10 do not, with no obvious pattern.

Scott is inconsistent not only in the Greece listings, but other countries as well. Not only for putting watermark numbers in set headers, but gum, paper, printing... as well.

Some of it, of course, is caused by the re-arrangement of catalog listings over the years, especially when sets are inserted or moved. But I think a lot of it is simply the whim of whoever is formatting the set entries, as to whether they want to look backwards in the listing to see what the current watermark, paper, gum... or simply find it easier to format/include that entry again (better safe and put it in so no risk for erroneous earlier entry).