Scott No Longer Allowing Access To Legacy Digital Catalogues

I have my Scott paper catalogs from 15 years ago
Prices are useless … such little change over the years and so inaccurate … and I get dynamic pricing by looking at auction sites, prices realized etc.
Thus, there is no new info that would ever make me buy a yearly subscription. Occasionally adding a new variation for a stamp from Diego Suarez or paper discovery for a US Revenue is not important enough to warrant buying subscription yearly

Just ask ChatGPT about a Scott # or value and the answer is free

"I find it hard to believe that Scott's claim to a system that uses whole numbers starting at one would not be laughed out of Court even if it takes a higher court. It is a ludicrous claim IMO."

You may find it hard to believe, but they have had their system for how many years?, yet no one has managed to overturn their control of it.

Generally correct except there are some very few album page exceptions.

I looked up the digital vrs the hard copy. After weighing the two options, I am going to get the paper catalog instead of the digital . it seems that the Scott catalog is convenient in digital form, but I think the paper one will become obsolete someday.

"Take over"?

Under whose authority? You can't just take control of someone else's intellectual property because you don't like the way they run it. That's not how any of this works.

Now, if the property owner wishes to sell, then an entity (nonprofit or otherwise) can throw their hat in the ring to purchase said intellectual property, but that's the extent of it.

Otherwise, you have the choice to NOT use the Scott catalogues or numbering system. That's it.

P.S. I say this as someone who was disenfranchised from several years of purchased (rented?) so-called "permanent access" catalogues on the original iOS app, which Amos Media allowed to become defunct without any communication to purchasers.

I fully understand platform obsolecence, and now the change in legal entities and subsequent platform change. My issues are less with the removal of access, but rather the HORRIFIC lack of communication to impacted purchasers. The entire notion of "we'll throw a temporary bone only to those who reach out and complain loud enough" is just abysmal customer disservice.

This has been discussed in great detail in other threads and Rod's comment was the obvious answer. I dislike the anachronisms foremost, followed by Semi-postal stamp number designations and, finally, plate varieties having their own major catalog numbers (EG #s 5-9, which should be catalog #3 with plate varieties given a letter designation like 3a, 3b, etc), to name a few gripes.

The problem is that most Americans don't like change (myself included) and would much rather keep a legacy system in place - even one that is flawed, instead of enduring the pain of change. I deliberately chose the word 'Americans' over 'collectors' because of a much more glaring example of us refusing to change - that being the the conversion to the metric system.

If there ever was a good time to improve the US stamps numbering system, this seems like it.

Brian

Under their own authority. Spin off a nonprofit. Open source the numbering system. Get volunteers to help. It would be for their own good.

Feel free to have a go at it. Imperfect as any catalog might be, most of the value is in the number of people who use it to facilitate buying and selling and organizing. I'm personally not a fan of the letter prefixes for different categories of stamps, e.g. C for airmail, etc., but I'll take a catalog system that everyone uses over a 'superior' one that just a handful use, any day.



Why would they do this and put themselves out of a job?

No one has really tried because why bother. It takes deep pockets to go legal for something like this. And time. If I had a spare $200,000 hanging around I might do it for the sport.

Because they cannot make money by clinging to an obsolete business model with a declining client base. I've not seen their books, but it is pretty clear that their profits and growth are thin or negative. They need to innovate - the new owners certainly have the opportunity to do so. . .and "open sourcing" their numbering system is not required to do so, but that model has worked in other domains.

They should do something like this before it is too late - I doubt they can prevent anyone else from using it anyway - at least the way they appear to be doing so with a vague, dubious, and implicit legal threat that has not actually been tested.

If it was losing money with no hope of turning the corner, why would they have bought it from Amos?

It is a very common practice for corporations to acquire failing or bankrupt businesses for various reasons - sometimes for something as simple as acquiring a trademark before selling off the rest of the assets, then writing it all off as a "loss". I have no doubt the new owners had a plan in place before signing the dotted line.

The acquiring party was not some corporation looking for a trademark or a writeoff.

If not that, then why did they buy Amos? I was merely playing devil's advocate and giving them some credit. I doubt very much they would have purchased Amos without a plan to make money off it!

I am sorry what happened to the digital subscribers. I would be mad too! In the future, I will go with a hard copy after seeing this. digital anything is risky.