Concerning My New/Old 1983 Harris Stamp Catalog I Have A Question.

I want to know- just out of curiosity, if the USA stamp prices as listed in the 1983 Harris catalog were ever realistic and if they have- in general- gone up or down since then. Thank you.

*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

It depends upon which stamps you are talking about. The older classics have probably increased some. The more common 1920 on stamps have likely decreased.

Jack Kelley

H.E. Harris's prices were high compared to other retail stamp firms at the time, and the early 1980s in general were the high-water mark for most stamp prices.

There are some ultra-rare U.S. stamps that are worth much more today than they were in 1983, but most stamps are worth about the same or less. MNH Zeppelins are worth a few hundreds now, not $5K+. Almost anything mint post-1940 is worth face value or less.

You can get a Scott catalog a few years old for $20 or so on ebay, if you want more recent catalog values.

I do want to say that I love stamps because I do. It is fascinating
and it is like holding history in your hands. It is also like collecting art in miniature. It is as close to owning my own museum as I can get.
This was instilled in me when I was young. One of my best memories. So,
please do not get me wrong. TY

The entire 'collectibles' market got turned in its head when the internet became popular. Where in the pre-internet days availability was sometimes an issue and helped raise values, this was no longer the case. But even more market pressure was brought to bear when everyone one and their Uncle started selling collectibles from their den and living room. Not needing to pay rent, inventory costs or employees allows hobbyists to sell material at a greatly reduced price. Many hobbyists, like myself, are fine with selling extra material at a loss just so that it can go to someone who might need it.

Catalog publishers did not want to decease catalog values across the board; telling hobbyists that what they own is now worth much less does not help new catalog sales each year. And some catalog publishers are actually publishing retail price lists but calling them catalogs since they are also selling stamps.
Don

Boy oh boy is that the fact. After Scott adjusted their prices downward in the 1989 catalog to represent the market more accurately, many dealers and auction houses simply refused to use the new catalogs. Scott changed the condition of stamps listed from F/VF to VF a few years later, just to give them a reason to increase the prices again and sell more catalogs.

51studebaker / Don wrote: "The entire 'collectibles' market got turned on its head when the internet became popular....." Truer words seldom spoken. We already know of the travails within philately. A cousin who passed away up in Montana last December was a doll maker, and an excellent one. Her husband is slowly disposing of the fabric and equipment at fire sale prices, if not actually giving it away, due to lack of demand. A local friend is selling old ham radio equipment at rock bottom prices, or simply recycling it, again due to lack of demand. In both areas, among other reasons, too many people trying to get rich killed off the markets.

Don also wrote: "....Many hobbyists, like myself, are fine with selling extra material at a loss just so it can go to someone who might need it....." I'm not even doing that, as I downsize my world wide collection to something more manageable. I've sold, or will sell, some material of more value at auction. But, to date, I've just given away 43 manila single country folders of album pages to the Rocky Mountain Philatelic Library, for their auctions, and more to come.

One thing is for sure. When I came back into the hobby prices were significantly reduced. It allowed for me to purchase stamps I otherwise never would have purchased sic: Zepps, White Plains, Columbians, etc.

Jack Kelley

Pricing in the eighties in catalogs was at an extreme level. H.E. Harris stratospheric. Scott made a major change in 1989. Better but still generally too high.