Catalog Value And Mint

Like so many others posting on this forum, I have inherited a stamp collection and find myself struggling with some of the terminology of stamp collecting as much as the stamps. For example, I think I finally figured out that "catalog value" is just a ridiculously high number to get people like me excited. Or is it for dealers who want to prove to customers that they are getting the best deal??? Can someone clarify?

Also, from time to time I have been using Stamp World's online catalog to try to get an idea of the value of certain stamps in my new collection. But sometimes the catalog shows a price for "Never Used" (which I have surmised means it is in excellent condition but has been hinged) but no price for "Mint" (which means never hinged, right?). And sometimes the catalog shows a price for "Mint" but not for "Never Used." What gives?

As always (not my first post), any and all insights are greatly appreciated.

A lot of collectors will tell you that catalog prices are "ridiculously high", but I don't agree. Scott prices are for "very fine" stamps, and 80%+ of stamps are lower quality than that. Scott prices for cheap (<$10) stamps are usually very high in my experience - the less expensive, the higher the difference in catalog vs market price. The minimum is 25c, and nearly every stamp at the minimum is worth less.

Also, scott prices are full retail prices for a single stamp - no accounting for volume of, say, buying a year set. And definitely not what a lone collector will get from a dealer.

With all those caveats, I think scott catalog value is still on the high-end for most items. Look at actual dealer price lists and sold (not asking) prices on ebay, and be sure to note the quality of the sold stamps. And note that a even a small fault will drastically reduce the price.

Strictly speaking, mint should mean as fresh as sold. It, often, has become synonymous with unused. Many catalogues had a price for unused (or mint) and used stamps. Some also priced "used on entire." For unused (mint) prices up to ca. 1940 were for unused stamps with almost full original gum that had been hinged. Over time, catalogue editors started to add prices for never hinged (unmounted) mint stamps for older stamps.

Unused could be without gum if issued without gum. But many collectors lumped used stamps that had passed through the mail uncancelled under unused.

Where the definitions have become vague, it is common that mint should be considered hinged, unless it is stated that it is unmounted mint.

I do agree with Philazilla to some extent. Catalogues started out as dealers' price lists (Moens, Stanley Gibbons). Some became industry standards and the dealers that published them offered quality stamps. Later, many catalogues were issued by dealer organisations or publishers that received input from dealers that have shops and personnel that cost money.

Now, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can sell stamps online. Catalogue editors still rely on a select group of dealers who have costs and quote asking prices. If you ask for a discount, you, probably, receive it. And Tom, Dick, and Harry will undercut them and each other.

Keep in mind that Boeing and Airbus too have catalogues but rarely sell at listed prices. IKEA, usually, will not give you a discount on its listed prices.

A specific catalog was not mentioned by the OP but I will use Scott as an example. The very clear and simple answer is that nobody pays catalog unless they are in a bidding war, uninformed or going by graded (SMQ) values whether real or imaginary.

Scott catalog values pricing is meant to be for brick & mortar retail stock and that dinosaur has been extinct for a long time. The catalog prices now read like a Mystic catalog.

I rather like having rarity/scarcity ratings instead of dollar based hard values since most people are simply going to utilize the internet to look at what people are actually paying for a given item. Never going to happen though. Scott going from fantasy pricing to rarity (or lack thereof) ratings would be like Dunkin Donuts eliminating doughnuts. The old formula is profitable so why rock the boat.

Thanks again for all the help! It's a shame this hobby is struggling with so many veterans ready, willing and able to share what they know.