Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
01:15:26pm
Sean, could you please let me know which numbers have been changed, and what they are now?
Login to Like
this post
All the liberty series issues that had wet/dry printings have been re-arranged into correct chronological order. The major numbers are the same, but subcategory letters are all changed. Used to be...1030 was 1/2 cent dry print and 1030a was wet print. 2015 lists them as the opposite. The coil subcategories are really changed.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks for pointing this out Sean! Scott does have a list of the number changes on page 92A of the US Specialized, and page 1542 in the Volume 1.
That being said, I wish Scott would just leave "bad enough" alone. To me, there is nothing more annoying than major changes in catalog numbering. It does nothing more than cause confusion to dealers/collectors using different Scott catalog editions. I doubt anybody will actually redo their album pages because of this, but for those trying to fill out some empty spaces, this major renumbering may cause a few headaches and maybe even a few wrong purchases.
It's not just the wet/dry catalog numbers that have been changed. Some of the minor catalog numbers for errors and booklet panes have also been changed. Even though there were only a few changes in the postage dues, there are still changes that have to be noticed. This will only cause more confusion when we try to answer Liberty Series and postage due ID questions on the board.
I guess I should be grateful they didn't renumber the Canal Zone wet/dry printings.
Is it really that important that things are in perfect chronological order? Am I expected to also get a new Durland since those catalog numbers will also be wrong now?
While I'm glad they asked the USSS, if they bothered to ask the rest of us (that far outnumber the USSS membership), I'm guessing that most of us would say "leave it alone".
JMHO.
k
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I totally agree Kim. Now all my lists, databases, and yes, album pages are wrong. I will not re-do the album pages yet, but eventually my perfectionist nature will get the better of me.
Login to Like
this post
"Is it really that important that things are in perfect chronological order?"
In fact, many Scott listings are not in chronological order and never have been. US Scott C1-C3, the early US airmail stamps, come to mind.
Login to Like
this post
09:04:13pm
I got as far as ;
" ... The result was sometimes confusing to collectors, even if all the Scott "rules" had been followed ...."
at which point my Holmesian (¹) sense of uncontrolled jocularity kicked in and my ample abdomen shook out of control.
I WROTE some lines once on a time
In wondrous merry mood,
And thought, as usual, men would say
They were exceeding good.
They were so queer, so very queer,
I laughed as I would die;
Albeit, in the general way,
A sober man am I.
I called my servant, and he came;
How kind it was of him
To mind a slender man like me,
He of the mighty limb.
"These to the printer," I exclaimed,
And, in my humorous way,
I added, (as a trifling jest,)
"There'll be the devil to pay."
He took the paper, and I watched,
And saw him peep within;
At the first line he read, his face
Was all upon the grin.
He read the next; the grin grew broad,
And shot from ear to ear;
He read the third; a chuckling noise
I now began to hear.
The fourth; he broke into a roar;
The fifth; his waistband split;
The sixth; he burst five buttons off,
And tumbled in a fit.
Ten days and nights, with sleepless eye,
I watched that wretched man,
And since, I never dare to write
As funny as I can.
(¹) Holmesian, Oliver Wendall, of course.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I have removed the images of the two pages from the 2015 Scott US specialized that I posted because it was pointed out that it might get me in hot water with Amos Publishing. Sorry.
Login to Like
this post
12:36:34pm
It was at my suggestion that Sean removed his images. Amos Publishing (Scott Catalogs, Linn's Stamp News, et al) zealously pursues copyright infringement, even if innocently done. If you suspect or have the slightest reason to believe that an image, article or other intellectual property is subject to copyright protection, please pass it by me, lisagrant87, or auldstampguy before posting same unless you have written permission of the copyright holder.
Login to Like
this post
I wish they would have left them alone UNLESS they were going to elevate them to major status (which I think they should have long ago). They were printed on different presses using different processes, so they deserve major status as much or more than many 19th Century varieties that have major status. It SHOULD be 1030 wet print and 1030A dry print. Until they are willing to elevate them to major status for both, leave the numbering alone!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
They may do that anyway. Something tells me they are not done messing with this series. I think I'll wait a few years before I change anything.
Login to Like
this post
Regarding showing images of a catalogue page to illustrate the differences (before and after) between two versions. I'm pretty certain that would constitute "fair use" in the context that Sean did it here.
Including them sure would make the thread more useful.
Mark
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Just to be safe, I have contacted Amos Publishing to ask permission to post. As soon As I hear back, I will put the images back up here.
Login to Like
this post
What ticks me off is that I had all the wet printings. I decided to sell them. Of course that 4 cent Lincoln coil used to be just a cheapo stamp under the old numbering. Now it's a whopper. So, I'm going to pay a visit to the sole dealer down here tomorrow and see if he has them. I'll worry about the postage dues later.
I still have to redo all the Portuguese and colonies Ceres stamps...... At least Steiner has created pages for those.
Login to Like
this post
I'm not going to change anything yet. I have a feeling there will be more changes.
Login to Like
this post
"What ticks me off is that I had all the wet printings. I decided to sell them. Of course that 4 cent Lincoln coil used to be just a cheapo stamp under the old numbering. Now it's a whopper. So, I'm going to pay a visit to the sole dealer down here tomorrow and see if he has them. I'll worry about the postage dues later."
The wet/dry printing topic really covers two very different issues:
1. Flat plate stamps printed wet and dry
2. Rotary press stamps printed wet and dry
First of all, keep in mind the terms SHOULD be wet and moist, not wet and dry. Wet printing uses paper with 15% - 35% moisture content and dry printing uses paper with 5% - 10% moisture content. It's easy to see how those could be hard to identify at the extremes.
With Flat Plate Issues, you have to depend on determining the paper thickness using the "flick test" to separate wet and dry printings. There may be better ways, but I don't collect flat plate wet/dry differences because they were made with the same plates but just using different paper and pressure.
The Rotary Press wet/dry issues are different. The wet print was done on the Stickney Rotary Press and the Dry Printing was done on the Huck/Cottrell Press using different plates. All Rotary Press wet/dry issues can be identified by plate number! Imagine how handy a plate block or plate single would be:
Even booklet panes can be identified in this way using partial plate number booklet panes:
You might want to keep an eye out for plate blocks/singles and partial plate number panes of the Liberty Series. I would expect demand to rise rather quickly.
Happy Hunting!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
You don't really need a plate number to identify them. If you notice on the above images, the electric eye bar markings are always mid-stamp on dry prints, and near the perfs (or absent) on wet prints. The exception to this is the 2 cent Jefferson, which has a wide variety of variations, but it was only dry printed so it doesn't matter anyway. If I only have a single stamp with no selvage, I hold it up to a light source at an angle so the glare directly bounces off toward you. Dry prints will appear very shiny compared to wt prints. I find this much easier and more reliable than the flick test. When you do this side by side, the difference is quite obvious. It gets a lot more complicated when you throw in gum varieties, gum breaker varieties, paper varieties, and tagging varieties. I hope this helps someone.
Login to Like
this post
I received permission from Amos Publishing to post these.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
01:19:40pm
Thanks, Sean, for following through with this.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks for posting the pages from the Scott catalog as well as how you tell the wet and dry printings apart. Every little tip helps...
Login to Like
this post
As much as I have griped about Amos, I have to give them credit for granting permission to post the 2-page notice in its entirety. It looks like they didn't even require you to put in a copyright notice!
Kudos to Amos for making the obvious right choice this time! (If they had only left 1847usa alone.)
Thanks again, Sean, for starting this thread and also for following up with Amos!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
In the email I sent them I asked permission to post these 2 pages. Their response was one word....."Granted".
Login to Like
this post
The 4 cent Lincoln coil that I was referring to is Scott #1058.
Login to Like
this post
"You don't really need a plate number to identify them. If you notice on the above images, the electric eye bar markings are always mid-stamp on dry prints, and near the perfs (or absent) on wet prints."
True, and using non-plate number selvage may be a good strategy now, but when I put that together plate blocks were cheap and plentiful. I have used non-plate selvage before for stamp identification, and there are a few issues where non-plate selvage is MUCH less expensive than even a plate single.
My goal is to have as many stamps as possible that can be positively identified without having to even remove them from the mounts. I want an authoritative set that I can then use to evaluate any other stamp to determine if it is wet or dry printing, shiny or smooth gum, Type I or Type II, etc.
I realize watermarks and paper types can't typically be determined in that manner, but since I don't collect watermark or paper varieties (unless they indicate a press difference), that's not an issue for me.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
"The 4 cent Lincoln coil that I was referring to is Scott #1058."
Michael,
That is the wet printing that was only available as a Bureau pre-cancel, and previously was 1058b, right? I see a 2011 CV of $22.50 for a single, $47.50 for a pair, and $325.00 for a joint line pair. Has the price significantly risen since elevation to major catalog number status?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Lars, here is a mapping from pre-2015 to 2015:
pre-2015 ==> 2015
1058 ==> 1058a
1058a ==> 1058b
1058b ==> 1058
So the 2015 Scott catalog number for what was 1058b, is now actually the major catalog number 1058. This will cause so many headaches and confusion, since the new 1058 exists only as pre-cancelled, as Lars mentioned.
The catalog value since 2011 has actually stayed the same or fallen. The 2015 catalog values for your 2011 ($22.50, $47.50, $325) are updated in the 2015 ($22.50, $47.50, $300).
Login to Like
this post
"This will cause so many headaches and confusion, since the new 1058 exists only as pre-cancelled"
Agreed. I think they are on the right track, but why go half way? If they are going to make the wet printing 4c coil a major, they should take this to its logical and inevitable conclusion NOW. 1058 should be the wet print coil. 1058A should be the dry print coil. Apply similar treatment to all other wet/dry issues where wet=Stickney and dry=Huck and be done with it. Should have been done 25 years ago, if not longer.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, they do about wet/dry that AREN'T press differences (832, 1041, QE1-3 and others). In my opinion, those should remain minors.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
I am sure that all you collectors of US are now aware that Scott has changed the catalog numbers for the Liberty series once again. I hope this is the last time........
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
19 Mar 2015
01:15:26pm
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
Sean, could you please let me know which numbers have been changed, and what they are now?
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
All the liberty series issues that had wet/dry printings have been re-arranged into correct chronological order. The major numbers are the same, but subcategory letters are all changed. Used to be...1030 was 1/2 cent dry print and 1030a was wet print. 2015 lists them as the opposite. The coil subcategories are really changed.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
Thanks for pointing this out Sean! Scott does have a list of the number changes on page 92A of the US Specialized, and page 1542 in the Volume 1.
That being said, I wish Scott would just leave "bad enough" alone. To me, there is nothing more annoying than major changes in catalog numbering. It does nothing more than cause confusion to dealers/collectors using different Scott catalog editions. I doubt anybody will actually redo their album pages because of this, but for those trying to fill out some empty spaces, this major renumbering may cause a few headaches and maybe even a few wrong purchases.
It's not just the wet/dry catalog numbers that have been changed. Some of the minor catalog numbers for errors and booklet panes have also been changed. Even though there were only a few changes in the postage dues, there are still changes that have to be noticed. This will only cause more confusion when we try to answer Liberty Series and postage due ID questions on the board.
I guess I should be grateful they didn't renumber the Canal Zone wet/dry printings.
Is it really that important that things are in perfect chronological order? Am I expected to also get a new Durland since those catalog numbers will also be wrong now?
While I'm glad they asked the USSS, if they bothered to ask the rest of us (that far outnumber the USSS membership), I'm guessing that most of us would say "leave it alone".
JMHO.
k
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
I totally agree Kim. Now all my lists, databases, and yes, album pages are wrong. I will not re-do the album pages yet, but eventually my perfectionist nature will get the better of me.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
"Is it really that important that things are in perfect chronological order?"
In fact, many Scott listings are not in chronological order and never have been. US Scott C1-C3, the early US airmail stamps, come to mind.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
20 Mar 2015
09:04:13pm
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
I got as far as ;
" ... The result was sometimes confusing to collectors, even if all the Scott "rules" had been followed ...."
at which point my Holmesian (¹) sense of uncontrolled jocularity kicked in and my ample abdomen shook out of control.
I WROTE some lines once on a time
In wondrous merry mood,
And thought, as usual, men would say
They were exceeding good.
They were so queer, so very queer,
I laughed as I would die;
Albeit, in the general way,
A sober man am I.
I called my servant, and he came;
How kind it was of him
To mind a slender man like me,
He of the mighty limb.
"These to the printer," I exclaimed,
And, in my humorous way,
I added, (as a trifling jest,)
"There'll be the devil to pay."
He took the paper, and I watched,
And saw him peep within;
At the first line he read, his face
Was all upon the grin.
He read the next; the grin grew broad,
And shot from ear to ear;
He read the third; a chuckling noise
I now began to hear.
The fourth; he broke into a roar;
The fifth; his waistband split;
The sixth; he burst five buttons off,
And tumbled in a fit.
Ten days and nights, with sleepless eye,
I watched that wretched man,
And since, I never dare to write
As funny as I can.
(¹) Holmesian, Oliver Wendall, of course.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
I have removed the images of the two pages from the 2015 Scott US specialized that I posted because it was pointed out that it might get me in hot water with Amos Publishing. Sorry.
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
21 Mar 2015
12:36:34pm
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
It was at my suggestion that Sean removed his images. Amos Publishing (Scott Catalogs, Linn's Stamp News, et al) zealously pursues copyright infringement, even if innocently done. If you suspect or have the slightest reason to believe that an image, article or other intellectual property is subject to copyright protection, please pass it by me, lisagrant87, or auldstampguy before posting same unless you have written permission of the copyright holder.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
I wish they would have left them alone UNLESS they were going to elevate them to major status (which I think they should have long ago). They were printed on different presses using different processes, so they deserve major status as much or more than many 19th Century varieties that have major status. It SHOULD be 1030 wet print and 1030A dry print. Until they are willing to elevate them to major status for both, leave the numbering alone!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
They may do that anyway. Something tells me they are not done messing with this series. I think I'll wait a few years before I change anything.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
Regarding showing images of a catalogue page to illustrate the differences (before and after) between two versions. I'm pretty certain that would constitute "fair use" in the context that Sean did it here.
Including them sure would make the thread more useful.
Mark
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
Just to be safe, I have contacted Amos Publishing to ask permission to post. As soon As I hear back, I will put the images back up here.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
What ticks me off is that I had all the wet printings. I decided to sell them. Of course that 4 cent Lincoln coil used to be just a cheapo stamp under the old numbering. Now it's a whopper. So, I'm going to pay a visit to the sole dealer down here tomorrow and see if he has them. I'll worry about the postage dues later.
I still have to redo all the Portuguese and colonies Ceres stamps...... At least Steiner has created pages for those.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
I'm not going to change anything yet. I have a feeling there will be more changes.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
"What ticks me off is that I had all the wet printings. I decided to sell them. Of course that 4 cent Lincoln coil used to be just a cheapo stamp under the old numbering. Now it's a whopper. So, I'm going to pay a visit to the sole dealer down here tomorrow and see if he has them. I'll worry about the postage dues later."
The wet/dry printing topic really covers two very different issues:
1. Flat plate stamps printed wet and dry
2. Rotary press stamps printed wet and dry
First of all, keep in mind the terms SHOULD be wet and moist, not wet and dry. Wet printing uses paper with 15% - 35% moisture content and dry printing uses paper with 5% - 10% moisture content. It's easy to see how those could be hard to identify at the extremes.
With Flat Plate Issues, you have to depend on determining the paper thickness using the "flick test" to separate wet and dry printings. There may be better ways, but I don't collect flat plate wet/dry differences because they were made with the same plates but just using different paper and pressure.
The Rotary Press wet/dry issues are different. The wet print was done on the Stickney Rotary Press and the Dry Printing was done on the Huck/Cottrell Press using different plates. All Rotary Press wet/dry issues can be identified by plate number! Imagine how handy a plate block or plate single would be:
Even booklet panes can be identified in this way using partial plate number booklet panes:
You might want to keep an eye out for plate blocks/singles and partial plate number panes of the Liberty Series. I would expect demand to rise rather quickly.
Happy Hunting!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
You don't really need a plate number to identify them. If you notice on the above images, the electric eye bar markings are always mid-stamp on dry prints, and near the perfs (or absent) on wet prints. The exception to this is the 2 cent Jefferson, which has a wide variety of variations, but it was only dry printed so it doesn't matter anyway. If I only have a single stamp with no selvage, I hold it up to a light source at an angle so the glare directly bounces off toward you. Dry prints will appear very shiny compared to wt prints. I find this much easier and more reliable than the flick test. When you do this side by side, the difference is quite obvious. It gets a lot more complicated when you throw in gum varieties, gum breaker varieties, paper varieties, and tagging varieties. I hope this helps someone.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
I received permission from Amos Publishing to post these.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
24 Mar 2015
01:19:40pm
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
Thanks, Sean, for following through with this.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
Thanks for posting the pages from the Scott catalog as well as how you tell the wet and dry printings apart. Every little tip helps...
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
As much as I have griped about Amos, I have to give them credit for granting permission to post the 2-page notice in its entirety. It looks like they didn't even require you to put in a copyright notice!
Kudos to Amos for making the obvious right choice this time! (If they had only left 1847usa alone.)
Thanks again, Sean, for starting this thread and also for following up with Amos!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
In the email I sent them I asked permission to post these 2 pages. Their response was one word....."Granted".
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
The 4 cent Lincoln coil that I was referring to is Scott #1058.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
"You don't really need a plate number to identify them. If you notice on the above images, the electric eye bar markings are always mid-stamp on dry prints, and near the perfs (or absent) on wet prints."
True, and using non-plate number selvage may be a good strategy now, but when I put that together plate blocks were cheap and plentiful. I have used non-plate selvage before for stamp identification, and there are a few issues where non-plate selvage is MUCH less expensive than even a plate single.
My goal is to have as many stamps as possible that can be positively identified without having to even remove them from the mounts. I want an authoritative set that I can then use to evaluate any other stamp to determine if it is wet or dry printing, shiny or smooth gum, Type I or Type II, etc.
I realize watermarks and paper types can't typically be determined in that manner, but since I don't collect watermark or paper varieties (unless they indicate a press difference), that's not an issue for me.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
"The 4 cent Lincoln coil that I was referring to is Scott #1058."
Michael,
That is the wet printing that was only available as a Bureau pre-cancel, and previously was 1058b, right? I see a 2011 CV of $22.50 for a single, $47.50 for a pair, and $325.00 for a joint line pair. Has the price significantly risen since elevation to major catalog number status?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
Lars, here is a mapping from pre-2015 to 2015:
pre-2015 ==> 2015
1058 ==> 1058a
1058a ==> 1058b
1058b ==> 1058
So the 2015 Scott catalog number for what was 1058b, is now actually the major catalog number 1058. This will cause so many headaches and confusion, since the new 1058 exists only as pre-cancelled, as Lars mentioned.
The catalog value since 2011 has actually stayed the same or fallen. The 2015 catalog values for your 2011 ($22.50, $47.50, $325) are updated in the 2015 ($22.50, $47.50, $300).
Login to Like
this post
re: Re-numbering of Liberty Series
"This will cause so many headaches and confusion, since the new 1058 exists only as pre-cancelled"
Agreed. I think they are on the right track, but why go half way? If they are going to make the wet printing 4c coil a major, they should take this to its logical and inevitable conclusion NOW. 1058 should be the wet print coil. 1058A should be the dry print coil. Apply similar treatment to all other wet/dry issues where wet=Stickney and dry=Huck and be done with it. Should have been done 25 years ago, if not longer.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, they do about wet/dry that AREN'T press differences (832, 1041, QE1-3 and others). In my opinion, those should remain minors.
Lars
Login to Like
this post