| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 1,138 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
117 Posts |
|
|
This is off the wall, but why are the Scott #s sometimes out of order relative to the date that the stamp was released? Here is an example using Airmail stamps c80 and c81.  |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
8956 Posts |
|
|
That is especially the case if it is a long drawn out issue. Personally I wish Scott had done this with the Transportation Series, instead of creating four different groups.
Peter |
Send note to Staff 
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1434 Posts |
|
|
From Scott: Quote:
Although the Scott catalogue usually lists stamps in chronological order by date of issue, there are exceptions. When a country has issued a set of stamps over a period of time, those stamps within the set are kept together without regard to date of issue. This follows the normal collecting approach of keeping stamps in their natural sets. In this case, Scott grouped the stamps for number continuity, but numbered the stamps in value order, not chronologically. Most catalogs do this to some degree. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by classic_paper - 09/29/2021 12:33 pm |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
6329 Posts |
|
|
Scott does indeed like to put "sets" in denomination order. If cataloged in issue sequence. the first U.S. airmail is C3, then C2, then C1. Too bad they didn't number these three in issuance order.
Conversely, who would want the 1/2 cent Ben Franklin Prexie listed between Martha Washington and John Adams?
For the transportation coils: Their issue dates span from 1981 to 1995 across 6 rate periods. It would make more sense to have 6 groups of catalog numbers corresponding to each of the 6 rate periods.
Catalog editing is surely a thankless job. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
4421 Posts |
|
|
As noted, Scott numbering often seems tied to how they present in their album and usually have issues in demonization order for presentation. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
Al |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
856 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
...and usually have issues in demonization order for presentation. Scary!  |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by rustyc - 09/29/2021 10:09 am |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
568 Posts |
|
|
Scott's numbering system has been the de-facto standard for so long, at least with US collectors. There are number of glaring issues with it and the catalogs, some legit complaints, some are insignificant. The cost benefit does not play out well for attempting a major change and would never satisfy everyone. I have my own opinions, even so, I use the Scott's numbering in my inventory, and album pages but order the items on pages as I see fit, which is among the reasons I started making my own.
This subject can get deep fast. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by jconey - 09/29/2021 12:11 pm |
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
Australia
38679 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
Catalog editing is surely a thankless job. Amen to that. I consider those at Amos do a cracking job, Keep it up boys and girls! |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
239 Posts |
|
|
It's a no win deal; if they put in order by release date they may later prove to be out of denomination order and if they correct the issue means changing already-released Sc numbers. If they leave blank numbers foe future issues to keep in denomination order there will be numbers with no stamp. And, if they put in denomination order, later after all issues, they will be both delayed and out of release date order. The conflicts here are probably what drives the (capital) A, B, C Sc numbers. You can't please everybody simultaneously. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
12557 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 1,138 |
|
Posted 09/28/2021 8:47 pm
