Quote:
Here is the issue, my 2022 Scott lists the block of 4 at $350.00. But I also lists the single used stamp at $75.00? Thus a block of four, one of the four known (per you) carries a premium of $50.00 as a block or just a 16.66% boost. That is not much. Mentioning there are only four known blocks of four does not change the Scott Catalog price of $350.00.
Scott pricing on revenue multiples has been a sh*t show for years. I've been after them to overhaul their methodology for approaching 10 years now, going back to Jim Kloetzel's period as managing editor.
The problem is that everything is done manually, and they have a nasty habit of only ever increasing the values for singles and forgetting to update the values for pairs and blocks of 4. So over the course of time, the multiples (in general) lose their premiums in the catalogue vs. N x single value.
I advocated for a formulaic approach and even offered to do the foundational math to get them to a baseline.
My original proposal:
Quote:
I have been scrutinizing the 1st-3rd issue revenues since approximately 2005 and tracking their increases and decreases since. In some cases, stamps have doubled or tripled in value, many with numerous increases in value over that period. An all too frequent problem is that when the base stamp increases, the pair and block prices, as well as that of associated plate varieties get forgotten, and as a result comparative premiums for them greatly diminish over time, to the point that I've discovered cases where a pair is listed at less than 2x the single value, blocks listed at less than 4x the single value, and plate varieties listed at the same or less than the base single value.
Additionally, there is no good way to currently calculate a calculate the value of a multiple that contains a plate variety.
I realize that in reality pricing scarce/specialized items is art more than science, and aesthetic attributes as well as cancels, usage, color shades beyond the scope of this catalogue can alter the true market value of every item, but in my opinion there at least needs to be some sort of consistent, scientific method to establish a baseline from which to compare similar items.
To that end, I propose treating multiples and plate varieties similar to the manner in which cancel premiums are treated in the front of the book: additions to and multipliers of, the base value.
My approach would be to use multipliers of the base value for pairs and blocks, and additions to the base value for plate varieties:
1. Treat pricing of multiples as a multiplier.
2. Treat pricing of plate varieties as an add-on (like cancels are treated in the front of book section).
3. Multipliers are applied before add-ons.
For example, currently R70a is listed as follows:
Base stamp: $50.00
Pair: $150.00
Block of 4: $600.00
Double transfer at bottom: $80.00
Under my proposed model it would be listed as follows:
Base stamp: $50.00
Pair: 3x
Block of 4: 12x
Double transfer at bottom: +$30.00
This has the added benefit of being able to accurately price multiples that contain varieties. For example, if I have an R70a pair with one of the stamps having the DT the price would be (3 x $50.00) + $30 = $180.00
Believe it or not, this is currently a big problem in the revenue collecting community: how to price multiples that contain other attributes. Right now it's all over the map because dealers, auction houses, and collectors have no guidance.
Of course the various multipliers and add-ons would (1) need to be obtained, which I would be happy to assist with, and (2) they would still have to be periodically updated as ratios change with the change to the base stamp value.
However, this avoids the problem where only base stamp values receive scrutiny. Varieties and multiples wouldn't be left behind and lose their inherent value compared to single stamps.
The folks at Amos are utterly disinterested, not even willing to discus alternative proposals or methods. I'm perfectly fine with people not liking my initial stab at a starting process, but let's iterate on it or some alternative method and actually make SOME sort of progress.
Quote:That is not a surprising price on
ebay for a philatelic area not in high demand.
Not to argue semantics, but U.S. revenues are very much in demand (at least based upon my experiences in competitive situations), but the market of collectors is a narrow audience compared to the collector market as a whole. There's a difference IMO.
Also, many traditional specialists eschew
ebay, Hipstamp, etc. This is an item that IMO would have done considerably better through a traditional auction house than online.
Posted 08/06/2023 09:43 am
