Catalogs, How Reliable Are Them?

These are just simple mistakes - "181 2c Taylor (179)" should be "181 5c Taylor (179)" and "204 90c Taylor (179)" should be "204 5c Taylor (179)". Not familiar with the pocket Scott US catalog but from context on these pages shown it can be assumed that the numbers in parentheses refer to the catalog number of the first issued stamp with that same design type as the subject catalog number. If a listing is a first for that design (e.g. 179,205,210,211), there is no number in parentheses. So this just means 181 and 204 have the same design as the previously issued 179.

The catalogue listing is wrong, wrong, wrong for #204. From the OP the illustrated page reads, "204 90c Taylor (179), deep blue" with a price.

Here is what a 204 looks like and it is NOT a 90 cent stamp. It is 5 cents.




The above can be found here: http://www.usphila.com/us/stamp/pri...t-204-page-1

Also for the better quality 204s, the catalog seems low.


Good catch naufrago. Send an email to Scott. They will fix it next edition. It is not their first mistake nor needed correction.

Everyone already agreed it is not a 90 cent stamp. They made an error. OK.

There isn't a single catalog inexistance that doesn't have typo graphical errors -- not one. All humans make errrrors! That's why God invented erasers and placed them on the ends of pencils.

Ah! that had me chuckling..