Why The Catalog Number Crutch?

Due to rogdcam, GeoffHa, and gmot (below) posts I have removed my previous post and refrain from posting in the future. The hell with this, I am also rethinking the rest of my participation here.

Don

Yes, rather funny how folks have taken the original topic and rode off into the sunset with their personal takes on the merits or otherwise of catalogues, valuations, scarcity & obsolescence.

And making comments about other people's post is on-topic?
Don

Assuming your question is directed to me, then certainly yes, it was on topic, given that this is a discussion forum, a key part of which is responding or referring to other people's posts as part of a thread.

I think it is pretty clear from the tone and words chosen, my comment was not unkind or malicious, and to construe it as such would be incorrect.

I still have a small beef with Scott about so-called airmail vs. global mail. Scott has taken the tack that gives each class of service a different numbering, so we have a myriad of prefixes like C, B, etc. So, the US stops having airmail service and replaces it with Global mail. So why didn't Scott create a new prefix for this service? They are not "regular" stamps, even though they can be used for domestic mail. I've used "airmail" stamps for domestic packages for years, so that distinction is not enough to qualify globals as regular postage.

I'm not surprised that a thread begun in the spirit of "It baffles me that some people (YOU know who you are) choose to collect in a certain way--what's with you anyway?" would generate ill feeling.




I hope that Don was simply having a bad day yesterday and will rethink his rethinking.

Back to the original post, I don't consider use of Scott, or other, catalogue numbers to be a "crutch." Several of my collections are mounted exclusively, or partially, on Scott International blank quadrille pages. None of the pre-printed Scott Big Blue pages that I use include Scott numbers. Some of my trimmed-to-fit Scott specialty pages have Scott numbers printed on, which I use or not.

Overall, I view penciling in Scott numbers to be an "assist" for me now, as I track what I have. I'll note that I don't use any sort of computer spreadsheet, but do keep some hand-written "want lists." A second "assist" is for the next owner of my collections.

Some of my collections are specialized enough that I may use numbers from other catalogues. Examples include Gibbons (British East Africa). Mundifil (Portugal & the former colonies), and Fischer (Poland). I also have Follansbee (Mexico), but using Scott there for now.

@Dudley: I was not offended by the original post from Classic Paper. He or she is as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. Just as others are free to agree, disagree, or be "somewhere in between," on this discussion board.

I never liked the hiding of the Scott numbers within the rectangle. Just because I own a stamp doeesn't mean I no longer need to know its number. I like ti visible at all times for quick reference. I make my own White Ace style pages and add the number below the stamp's rectangle along with it's postage value at the time of issue (in parentheses if a forever) and without parentheses if fixed.

I use Scott because I'm in the U.S. and my uncle gave me a Scott Minuteman album in 1976 and then I bought the Scott National in 1978. I prefer the numbers being there as long as they represent the major number. If I have a minor and put into that space, I will write the minor number under the frame in pencil. If I get an example of the major later, I can erase the pencil and move the minor to it's own page or back into storage. I started using Steiner last year because I needed new pages and wanted spaces for all of the major varieties. Steiner includes minors mixed in with the majors in some areas and has additional pages for minors in other areas. It's not consistent. I prefer the latter approach as I would prefer to keep the minors completely separate. It doesn't help that Scott sometimes adds or deletes majors or changes major to minors and vice versa. When I have minors that Steiner does not include, I just create my own page.

I don't see numbers as a crutch. It's just a very simple way to correlate a space on an album page to an entry in the catalog. I don't care if the pages don't have numbers on them. I can easily add them. In fact, writing them in helps me ensure that the Steiner page is following the catalog that I have.

I think some people are inferring "crutch" or "lack of knowledge" when perfectly acceptable alternatives are "convenience" and "familiarity".

I have Michel, Yvert, Gibbons, Facit, and a host of other catalog systems. I prefer using Scott where possible unless I am getting very deep in the weeds, as Scott is the most familiar and convenient for me. I grew up with it, and like it or not it's what most of the U.S. collecting and dealing population use.

I don't know what transpired prior to posts being removed as I didn't get a chance to read the thread before now, and the OP starts out in a somewhat confrontational fashion. However, there have been times both here and on other forums where those using Scott catalogs/number/albums have been characterized as being subpar or "unwashed". I don't know whether it's snobbery, elitism, or just cases of "everyone should be collecting the way I do and no other way" as we've occasionally seen pop up.

I say use whatever catalogs, numbering systems, and ordering systems that you find most useful and to heck with whatever anyone else thinks. If and when people find the Scott catalog numbering systems to no longer be sufficient as their collecting advances, they may gravitate to other systems, or if no catalogs are suitable, will find other criteria upon which to organize their collection.

There is no right or wrong answer here. It's preference.

No offense intended to all opinions
But a shout out and thank you to revenue collector. As always .... No right or wrong
Cheers m

For me, having a Scott no. on the album page for my US collection helps when I set about filling by purchase a gap among, say, Washington-Franklins by reducing or eliminating a cross referencing step. It also lets me look up easily from a filled spot on the album page to a certificate, by number, or purchase record in my indexing spreadsheet.

With my other hand, I have been pulling apart a modest but pretty decent French collection that was on un-illustrated Steiner pages without Scott or other numbers and intercalating the proceeds into my own custom album with both Scott and Yvert nos. I find I like having the numbers right there (and like other respondents, I like them shown below the stamp). Is that a crutch? Maybe, but it has helped me pinpoint several instances where the previous collector -- who was not a complete slouch by any means -- has confused material. And it helps in gap filling to have the Scott and Yvert numbers right there so I can compare French and US vendor offerings, without multiple catalogs open on my limited desk space.

Crutches and wheelchairs are enabling devices in my view.

All that said, I do think the monopoly exerted by Scott over US issue numbering has some unfortunate consequences which I believe Don was getting at in his now-deleted post. The economic and legal enforcement of the monopoly has some adverse tendencies on the entry level of the hobby as open catalogue databases and open-source albums are frustrated to a certain extent by the exclusion of unlicensed numbers that would help keep things straight. I have to agree that Scott has a right to defend its IP, but I wish they would cut amateur album makers more slack.

For those interested in free pages for the French area with Yvert numbers, this site has pretty much everything -

http://www.album.france-timbres.net/

For me I like to have the catalog information on my pages (actually page insert keys as I use Vario pages to house the actual stamps) as a reference.

And as I like to shop on international stamp retail sites, I like to have information from more than just Scott. Here I have Scott, Seven Seas, Gibbons and Michel numbers for quick reference.

DJ - Nice!