Just for the record, I have an older (c. 1966) Scott National which, over the years, has gradually become Volume I of my now finally 4-volume Scott National album. I've added groups of pages over the years up to about 2015 to get from one volume to four. That's where I think I'm cutting if off. Finally. My how the number of stamp issues grew in my "short" lifetime! Right?
If you enjoy statistics (and who doesn't enjoy a good statistic?), in the month and year I was born in 1948, the federal government had issued just under 1,000 U.S. postage stamps. A more than manageable number to collect, I'm sure we'd agree. Today, the U.S. has issued over 5,000 stamps. That means I've witnessed, or at least been alive, for the issuing of 80% of all U.S. stamps. And do I feel humbled, believe me. I could be wrong, but I kind of think we could have managed to get along with "only" 4,000 stamps.
In any case, album-wise, I had thought of replacing some pages in the early and middle years of my National album, by buying entire sets of pages and taking out only the few pages I needed. That way, I could swap out messy or damaged earlier pages. Not very economical, obviously, but my National album is my one treasured lifelong collection (close up for a shot of tears in my eyes), and I thought it was worth keeping it in the very best shape I could.
But, often this can't be done. Scott reorganized the stamps on many of even the early pages, even adding or removing stamps. In the earliest years, some stamps are no longer included, as mentioned above. These include some of what are now realized to be proofs or other "non-stamp" stamps that have been pulled from the album. After trying to figure out if I could just remove one page and insert the new one, I often couldn't because it omitted (or repeated) a stamp or two. No big deal, but if you wanted to use a new National album with brand new pages, you'd have to transfer all the stamps from your album to the new one to do it exactly right. I'm not up for that, believe me. If you just wanted to make a few page updates, it might work with some pages but won't work with others. So I'd advise against buying all new sets of pages and thinking you can swap just some of the pages into your old album. That may not work so well.
(Tangentially) I've always felt that Mr. Scott and his assistants went way overboard in its early years, giving catalogue numbers to every conceivable variety of stamp that often all looked exactly alike -- or weren't even necessarily postage stamps, as above. Their over-enthusiasm was no doubt because Scott was not so much a catalogue company, but a company selling stamps. Having more varieties in the catalogue likely looked to make them more money since collectors would want to fill those spaces. And eagle-eyed collectors often insisted a stamp was a legitimate variety even though, to me, it really isn't. I think what Scott was doing might be considered a "conflict of interest" today.
At the other end of the spectrum are album makers that pretty much only list one variety of "face different" stamps without including slight color differences, perf varieties, watermark varieties, or tiny improvements in engraving, all of which old Mr. Scott thought he should do. Davo albums in the Netherlands is one example.
My approach to collecting the U.S. in a Scott National album has been somewhere between these two extremes. Where a stamp is not affordable, I mount another identical-looking but more affordable stamp or variety in its space. An empty space for the third or fourth or fifth identical-looking stamp might get the cheapest variety of all the varieties Scott lists for that stamp. I'm honest, so I always mark the cheaper variety's real catalogue number just beneath it. That way, whoever inherits the collection (probably some auction house) will know it's a different variety (and not think I'm a cheater!). For me, common sense combined with honesty usually trumps obsessive compulsiveness and poverty.
(Even more tangentially) My other nit to pick with Scott has always been its approach to treating airmails and, especially, semi-postals, as "different" from other stamps. No, they're not. They're sold over the counter just as other stamps are, and they are also used to mail a letter. If you do this for semis and airs, why treat regular stamps and commemorative as the same kind of stamp when they are not? I'd do what many foreign catalogue and album publishers do which is to list them (mostly) together. Regular and commems belong together, as Scott does, but also semis and airmails chronologically, as well. Minkus albums used to do this. For one thing, it's historically much better. And in terms of stamp style and design, it's also preferable, as well.
In own albums, being such a damned rebel, I do this. I include all semi and airmail pages chronologically where they belong in terms of time -- and style and design similarities are more noticeable -- and there's no weird "afterward" at the end of the album where older stamps suddenly appear once again.
A bit off the subject, but I thought these remarks might intrigue someone. Happy collecting, whether or not you do it "my" way or the "wrong" way! |
Posted 08/17/2023 7:51 pm
