Thoughts On Organizing A Collection

I would like to get input on the best way to organize a large collection from mid 80s to early 2000s. I don't have any single stamps. My collection is plate blocks, mini-sheets and booklets. With the variety of formats, I am not using a standard album but mounting on C-line sheets. I have been organizing them by Scott number. All the formats are mixed together which I originally liked.

I have recently been rethinking this from a resale standpoint. Am I correct in my assumption that splitting the collection up into separate formats will improve resale? A separate plate block collection, booklets and high face value?

Not planning to sell anything in the short term, but wanted to get some input.

A U.S. collection? What resale value?

What are C-line sheets? I've never heard of them - can you post a picture of a what it looks like please....I might be able to use it in organizing my collection.

Searching SCF for C-Line reveals that these are Mylar sheet protectors with a black paper insert. The OP posted a picture here:
https://goscf.com/t/89260

and there are other discussions here:
https://goscf.com/t/25134
https://goscf.com/t/88199

Regarding organizing the collection for resale, modern plate blocks, booklets, and mini sheets are all considered Face Value postage so I don't think there is great value in reorganizing the collection by type. Keeping it intact as a collection as you had originally envisioned it is probably more interesting for a future collector to follow in your footsteps.

However the mylar sheet protectors add volume and weight, so if the collection is large, then removing all the stamps from the protectors would save on shipping charges, and make it more convenient for a future buyer of postage. You might get a higher percentage of face for a single stack of "100 sheets of 20 Forever stamps" versus a two-binder mounted album collection of same.

Oh Ok thanks ZebraMan - appreciate you sir - I didn't think to search the SCF specifically for this...I'll have to remember that next time - also, thanks for posting related links as well.

Links above are correct. Here is Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000V6WXO...asin_title_2

This is US collection. Value is around $6k.

What is the face value? How did you determine $6k?

RedWood, based on Scott catalog 2022 so a little dated but prices don't change that much. Why the focus on the value? Does that change how you would organize?

$6k catalog value. I would be interested in knowing face value.

Scott typically values new issues at double face. That should get you in the ballpark.

Stamps from the 1980s to 2000s will be very common stamps issued in large numbers, so not at all hard to find. This means their value will never be high and you'll most likely get back only some fraction of what you paid for them -- so I wouldn't worry much about value in making collecting decisions like how to mount them in an album.

But, yes, singles and blocks and so on mounted separately might be easier to sell, but you can do that on separate pages if you really feel this is beneficial to you. I do that sometimes with my collections, adding multiples on separate pages after the singles of the same stamps. For me, it's purely for the aesthetic value, the "look," and I don't care what that does to the value of the collection. I think for most collections, doing it the way that looks best to you is nearly always going to be the best way.

As for the idea that "Scott typically values new issues at double face," yes it's true but be careful as this is likely to mislead the unwary. Scott values common stamps at a set price no collector is likely to pay, typically double their face value. What something is "worth" generally means what someone will pay for it, and for common modern stamps, most of the time it's a lower fraction of their catalogue value. After all, if the catalogue price were their resale value, to make a very nice living, all you'd have to do is but a hundred sheets of stamps every day at the post office, then take them over to your local stamp shop and make a nice 100% profit. Scott even lists a common 3-cent stamp at 25 cents, so maybe concentrate on three cent stamps! You'd make a tidy 800% profit. So I'd be wary. Even though true, in the actual stamp world it doesn't actually work this way.

From the many comments on modern issues, they tend to have little value unless used as postage. Displaying different formats by catalogue number is somewhat like a "specialised study." It may not increase the sales value much, but it adds philatelic interest. As such, the worst case scenario might be that it does not reduce the sales value. Those who buy it for postage will remain interested and a specialist (if one exists for modern stuff) becomes interested.

Your resale value for modern mint US stamps is probably 30% of face to dealers, 70% of face to collectors (we have dealers here who probably have very good estimates of these, much better then me). Scott values are for stamps you can sell individually when people want them (meaning the cost includes separating them out and listing them for sale and shipping them out), and they are very optimistic. Few modern US stamps will ever have value greater than postage, and this will only go down, how do you use 7x10 cent stamps on an envelope, and who mails envelopes any more?

Organize your collection in a way that is aesthetically pleasing to you it, will likely never be worth very much.

My comment about Scott value vs. face should have been directed to redwoodrandy, who was interested in the face value of the collection. Dividing the catalog value of collections of modern US in half should approximate face value (there are some exceptions).

I didn't mean to imply that I thought either number is what the collector could expect to sell the collection for. Next time I'll be more clear.

Philatonic you were clear and I appreciate your comments. This thread progressed very well as I had hoped by setting the flow of comments. I suspected the OP had catalog value in mind as to value of the collection. This concerned me as it could lead to false hopes for resale value. I had hoped those more eloquent would opine and they/you did. Thoughtful and appropriate comments by all. A pleasure.