Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read








Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!

Even Lac {library And Archives Canada} Makes Mistakes.

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 2 / Views: 525Next Topic  
Rest in Peace
7742 Posts
Posted 12/26/2020   2:24 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add wert to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
Here is an example of a mistake on information of the {Canada Grizzly} Scott 1694 stamp.

When digging deeper into information, I noticed they have information of the Scott 1695 and NOT the Scott 1694 stamp.

I have not sent anything to my contact in LAC, but will do so.
Robert







Send note to Staff

Valued Member
Canada
449 Posts
Posted 12/26/2020   4:53 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add studystamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Scott 1694 was originally assigned to the 73c Maple Leaf stamp.

Scott re-assigned many numbers of this definitive series in April 2006 and then again in April 2008.

#1694 (73c Leaf) became 1693 (Apr 2006) and then 1685 (Apr 2008).

#1700 ($8 Grizzly) became 1702 (Apr 2006) and then 1694 (Apr 2008).

You should not be referencing these archived pages unless you give the whole story - they have not been available on Library and Archives for years. The reference to the 73c Leaf (i.e. 1694) was accurate at one time. It has been impossible for LAC people to correct these pages as those LAC pages no longer exist.

Your screen shot evens alludes to this in the top banner ("You are viewing an archived web page" and "The information on this web page may be out of date.")

I believe that referencing out-of-date archived pages (whether this be LAC or any other website), as if they are supposed to be up-to-date, is simply wrong and a disservice to the hobby. It would have been far more helpful to provide the facts and reason why the archived data is showing an old link so that a future researcher can understand why the wrong link is there.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Rest in Peace
7742 Posts
Posted 12/26/2020   4:58 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wert to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Sorry I guess..Ok

Robert
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous TopicReplies: 2 / Views: 525Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Go to Top of Page

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2026 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.11 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05