Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Please keep the comments on track with the review.
Note that every time I do these reviews there inevitably comes along a few people who start blasting what a waste of time this is. Such comments are not desired in this thread. If you think this activity is a waste of time, then don't waste your time reading it.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
No honest effort is a waste of time, thanks for doing these reviews.
Just out of curiosity, what IS the current value on the Bugs Bunny sheet? I may have made a decent investment after all. According to my wife, that doesn't happen very often. 
WB
Login to Like
this post
I knew I forgot to say something. Please don't ask me for catalog values of stamps. That is not the purpose of the review. If I start answering such questions, I'll wind up spending my time looking up value after value. I am doing the review for my own collection. I do this anyway, so as an aside I also share with everyone the tidbits of information that I find as I go through the catalogs. Thanks for understanding.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
WB
Login to Like
this post
This has certainly been depressing. There are more countries decreasing in value than countries increasing. I don't see this changing.
Login to Like
this post
It may be depressing if our collections are intended for retirement income, but I look on the bright side that it means it will be cheaper to acquire more.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
What is value anyway? I'm only back in this about a year and have found I don't have to pay more than 10-20% of catalog value to buy mint classic USA stamps in nice condition. I have a 2004 Scott Specialized and find it's still relevant value wise. I don't buy damaged, off centered or no gum stamps either.
Login to Like
this post
I need to clarify a couple of things that are part of the review:
- (No changes) versus +0.0%: "No changes" means that there were no value changes that I found in any stamps. "+0.0%" means that there were value changes (increases and decreases), but when tabulated, the country saw no change in overall value.
- You may be noticing the absence of some countries, such as Afar and Issas and the Azores. When Scott continues the numbering from a country name to another, I group them together into one inventory list. So, Azores, for example will be reviewed when Volume 5 is released so that I get the Azores listings under Portugal.
Nigel, if you include Austria offices in Crete as part of your Crete collection, there is a little bit of news for you in the review.
Login to Like
this post
12:40:40pm
" .... What is value anyway? ...."
That is why most times I prefer to use the phrase "Scott Listing"
I think that is more appropriate when quoting the Scott Comparative Listings, and less confusing to newbies. But I guess I am alone in that..
Login to Like
this post
I've been tied down with alot of non-philatelic work to do. However, here's a little bonus.
My son collects Christmas Islands. When I got Volume 2 of the catalog last week, he borrowed it and with his 95% complete MNH collection, including most minors, he found that the Scott value from the 2016 catalog to the 2017 catalog saw a drop of 5.75%.
I will be getting to Volume 2 hopefully in the near future. It will be interesting to see how 2015 to 2017 goes.
Login to Like
this post
"Bermuda +1.2%
All changes were prior to 1935."
Hey, we bucked the trend, Bermuda fans!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
In the Letter from the Editor of the 2015 Volume 1, Scott stated that it was difficult for the editors to accurately value the stamps from Bolivia. The reason cited was that some dealers were charging close to or at Scott value, and some dealers were selling stamps from Bolivia at prices "noticeably higher than Scott".
Scott stated that it would monitor dealer offerings for Bolivia and make an assessment as to the true values for the country. Well, looks like Scott has completed its assessment. Remembering that Scott stated that dealers were charging near or "noticeably higher than Scott", it makes perfectly logical sense that Scott dropped the stamp values for Bolivia by an average of over 12%. Makes perfect sense to me...
Login to Like
this post
I wonder how many dealer price list for Bolivia you can find. The sample size for the data may be small and probably ignores other selling outlets (ebay) because it would be too difficult.
Al
Login to Like
this post
Okay, Nigel. Crete has been reviewed. There were finally quite a few changes.
Login to Like
this post
MICHAEL! Columbia? Really?!!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
After that long discussion some people here had about "Colombia" versus "Columbia"...how could I resist? I knew someone would find it! 
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"Scott stated that it would monitor dealer offerings for Bolivia and make an assessment as to the true values for the country. Well, looks like Scott has completed its assessment. Remembering that Scott stated that dealers were charging near or "noticeably higher than Scott", it makes perfectly logical sense that Scott dropped the stamp values for Bolivia by an average of over 12%. Makes perfect sense to me..."
What a classic case of tail wagging the dog...It will get even more interesting when/if the dealers do not decrease their prices.
-k-
Login to Like
this post
While going through the French listings, I started to see a trend in valuations. Catalog values were being updated (upwards and down) in multiples of 40 ($0.40; $0.80; $1.20, etc.)
This is not an extensive change right now, but the last time I saw this, values were being updated in multiples of 25. Two years after that was started, Scott raised the minimum value from 20 cents to 25 cents. Could this be a foretelling of an increase of the minimum value from 25 cents to 40 cents?
Login to Like
this post
Volume III started out in the red. However, British-related Africa looks strong.
Login to Like
this post
d1stamper
"michael78651
Thank you for posting the changes.
I look forward to your reports.
Doug"
Thanks, Doug. I am glad that you find the updates useful.
The report with Great Britain was like writing a book!
FYI, I moved your comment to the Catalog Review Discussion thread. All I could do was copy and paste it above. I try to keep the actual reviews clean of comments.
Michael
Login to Like
this post
Does one think the price changes actually reflect market changes even if we accept a Scott catalogue price is a base.
Al
Login to Like
this post
Al, that's a good question, and I have often given that thought when I go through and update "values" in my inventory.
First, I don't consider catalog values to be a "base". It may simply be semantics, but I think of them as reference points. How does one decide that a stamp valued at 25 cents in 2015 should be valued at 30 cents in 2017? On the more drastic side, how does a stamp valued at 50 cents in 2015 advance to $80 in 2017? The converse is true as my comments on Jersey, Guernsey and Greece show regarding declines up to 60%!
It is also common to find countries with a large number of value changes in the postage section, but when you look at the back-of-the-book section, there's nothing. How do the value changes stop after all those changes? Did no "bob" stamps change in value?
Also, there are many countries where nothing changes at all. Why would that be? Because there aren't enough people working the catalogs to conduct regular reviews of all the listings. Then, every few years, there is a massive change in the values of almost all the stamps in these countries.
Another thing that I have seen happen is that since the catalogs are now maintained in an electronic environment, it is easy to simply make blanket changes to all listings within a given parameter. This is nothing more than a simple "search and replace" operation.
The big key to where I think catalog values are not a reflection of the current market are the following factors:
1 - The current catalog states that it is the 2017 edition.
2 - We are in the year 2016.
3 - The catalogs are updated at least 6 months prior to publication date.
4 - Most of the 2017 catalogs use valuations based on the year 2015.
5 - The catalog values are two years out of date.
I am not picking on Scott. It is just that I know those catalogs very well. All the catalog publishers follow most of the practices that I have listed above.
Then this all begs the question of what are we to do regarding figuring out what are the values of our stamps? Take it all with a grain of salt with the understanding that the values printed in a catalog are out of date before the catalog is even printed. Catalog values are nothing more than a mere reference point. Since we all use the same reference point, we are all in the same boat.
For most stamp collectors, it is best to enjoy the stamps and the hobby, and not get turned upside down over how much a collection is worth. It will always be worth more to a collector, than it truly is in the monetary sense.
Login to Like
this post
An ad in the September American Philatelist shows Subway selling 2017 Scott catalogs for $85.00 each. Better than 124.99 (does anyone pay the full price ?) But still pricey.
Login to Like
this post
I think I would be somewhat trusting of older stamps (pre-1960) that have just had their pricing updated in the most recent catalogue. My assumption is that pricing has been evaluated for those stamps and that the appropriate changes have been made. If no price changes have been recorded for a number of years, then the prices may be out-of-date if the pricing is changing for that country.
Pricing of post-1960 and especially post-1980 stamps is probably just a very raw estimate. They have to put something down, so they make a guess. If there is enough of a market for those stamps, those rough estimates over the years will eventually come more into line with reality as updates are made. This is probably where the big changes are seen in more recent stamp pricing; they evaluated the pricing for that country, found enough data to make a good estimate and published the new pricing values. If their initial estimates were too high, you might see some big drops percentage-wise.
Scott does use italicized values for stamps in which there is not enough market data available to give a "good" price. This is generally seen in higher valued older stamps.
Having followed stamp pricing for decades, I still remember the time several decades ago when Scott reevaluated their pricing policy and decided to go with a strict market value based upon published prices by stamp retailers. They had been overpricing for years, giving the retailers the ability to market their stamps at "only 50% of Scott" or less in many cases. I remember the uproar that caused. For anyone who was tracking the "value" of their stamp collection, for many areas that value suddenly plunged 50% or more. I remember the huge drop in the pricing for German States material since I was collecting Germany extensively at the time. Since then Scott's pricing seems to be fairly accurate based upon what stamp retailers are presently quoting for their stamps. For smaller sellers without the inventory, employees, and other overhead that larger sellers have, pricing is generally well below Scott pricing, but then that is to be expected.
What is a certain stamp or country collection actually worth? You can generally get a good idea by watching online auctions and sales. For country collections, I look at what Robert Friedman lists for the country collections that he has for sale once every two months (ads in Linn's and a list sent directly to past buyers, as well as on his website). I have noticed that many European countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden and others sell for a very small percentage of the total catalogue value (many times in the 20% range or less). For other areas, especially the small, rarely seen colonies, his pricing is at 50-75% of Scott for the entire run of stamps. Former French colonies, an area I collect, is one of these, as is anything related to China. People are just willing to pay much higher percentages of Scott for these areas.
For Scott to give more accurate pricing for the entire world each and every year, they would have to hire an army of people to do that evaluation. They could do that, but then what would each catalogue cost? And are any of the other companies that put out stamp catalogues any more accurate with their pricing? From what I have seen, both SG and Michel tend to price everything higher than what Scott does.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"I still remember the time several decades ago when Scott reevaluated their pricing policy and decided to go with a strict market value based upon published prices by stamp retailers."
That was certainly a major upheaval and fiasco. The yellow covered 1988 catalogs were the last set to be issued under the old valuation system. The light blue 1989 set was the new valuation scheme that many dealers refused to use. Their refusal was so vehement that they declared that the 1988 catalogs would be the only ones that they would use to price their stamps.
I remember seeing at shops and shows dealers with just the 1988 catalogs. Many wouldn't even sell the stamps that were issued after that catalog was published. Within 5 years or so Scott had changed a basis of determining valuation to a higher grade condition (very fine), and the overall values were back to where dealers abandoned the 1988 catalogs. A sly move by Scott.
I would not have any problem if Scott would resort to using a letter or symbol for any stamp with a value less than $1.00 to indicate that a stamp/set was very common and basically worthless.
Login to Like
this post
I remember Marlen stamps stating in Linns that the yellow 1988 was the last catalog they were going to use...what a stupid remark for a large stamp firm to make..i mean they were in the business of buyng and selling STAMPS .
Login to Like
this post
"It may simply be semantics, but I think of them as reference points."
This is what I meant.
I was just wondering if you think whether ups and downs actually reflect the market ups and downs and if there is a delay. My observation is that dealers and sellers (like on ebay) use these numbers a lot and expect look forward to increase prices with each edition so they can raise prices. US dealers buy modern material in bulk well below face but somehow the stamp is now worth 2x face. If it was a true free market, we should see more selling at face if they can buy at 40% face.
I think for most recent material the pricing is quite suspect. I was inventorying my US booklets and amazing how they varied (some have significant markups) and not sure the market is really like that. The problem is that there are a lot fewer dealer price sheets so less published material.
Login to Like
this post
When catalogs were more affordable i used to acquire a set every 3 years as i was active trading stamps..i now realize most of the stamps issued after 1969 mean very little to me. If i need a stamp i will trade for it and not worry about "catalog for catalog" value. Its so much easier.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I had read about Guernsey/Alderney's drops in 2016 and now Jersey in 2017 
and since I collect both, that hurts. Maybe I can find some of those sets and sheets I need at more reasonable prices in the future. BOB
Login to Like
this post
Volume III is completed.
I also started Volume IV, but what a downward start it has been.
Login to Like
this post
"Liechtenstein -4.4% Mostly increases up to 1995. After 1995 changes were mostly decreases."
UGH. This is not a good sign for Switzerland.
Login to Like
this post
More and more i agree that the catalog is only a suggestion...my old buddy Big Jose used to say "a stamp is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it !"
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
True, but there has to be some point of reference from which to decide what to pay for a stamp. Someone might be willing to pay only face value for a $5 US Columbus 1893 stamp. I doubt anyone would be willing to sell it at that price. So, although face value is what someone is willing to pay for it, $5 is not the true value of the item.
It takes more than just a buyer who is willing to pay the buyer's price. The seller also is part of deciding what an item is worth. Through the negotiation process, both the buyer and seller make that decision only when and if they both agree on a fair price.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:24:47am
" ... More and more i agree that the catalog is only a suggestion... ..."
Which is why I have led the lonely campaign to avoid Catalog Value in my dealings in favor of Catalog listing.
It just seems more honest to say that a given stamp or stamp set has a catalog listing than to say it has a catalog value and then spend the next ten minutes explaining that in practice that same stamp can usually be bought for less than half that listed value and if resold will likely bring less than half that. Or explaining that there are physical conditions involved in the actual pricing.
I bet many of our knowledgeable members would agree that any collector who buys at the catalog listing is foolish.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Actually, I'd feel more foolish buying a stamp or set without some sort of reference to go by. Catalogs may not be accurate, but they do at least set a reference point to work from.
To me, catalogs also serve to show where trends are headed. I tend to add to my collection by zeroing in on areas that are down at the time. I think of it as a window into where the best values are to be had.
Michael's posts are very helpful in that respect.
WB
Login to Like
this post
11:38:06am
If you are talking to a non-collector or newbie and say "I bought this stamp that has a catalog value of $12.00 but I only paid $6.00 for it." you drag the listener into a morass of cognitive dissonance.
Does it have a real value of $12 or $6 ?
Was the seller dumb as a bag of pebbles or are you just one hell of a negotiator ?
The eager listener may then wonder, " Are you are going to sell it for $12.00 and make a quick six dollar profit ?"
Perhaps you will agree or if honest will probably begin, " No the most a dealer will give me for it is between $2 and if I were lucky $4"
"Huh ? then why does the catalog value it at $12.00 "
"Well that is because, blah, blah, blah ...retail, blah, blah, blah .... condition blah, blah, blah, .... comparative rarity, .... blah, blah, blah .... wholesale .... blah, blah, blah ....blah, blah, blah .. .
I suspect we have all been there and unless you are a patient, charming conversationalist like me, someone's eyes glazed over at the second " .... blah, blah, blah ...".
I think I'd prefer to either start with saying the stamp has a comparative rarity listing of $12.00 and avoid the "Value" confusion altogether. People are likely to know that a list price, like the MSRP for cars is just an advertising ploy.
Login to Like
this post
But if your talking to a newbie and don't explain the proper use of catalogs and their valuing system, then you've done them a disservice in the first place. All things bought and sold need a reference point to work from, otherwise, where would you begin? I may come across a stamp that I see in my eyes as a really awesome piece of work, well worth $100, but if I go to a catalog and see it listed for $.25, I'm not going to pay $100 for it, no matter how much I like it.
If you're suggesting that catalogs should do a better and more realistic job of how they do their valuations, then I can totally agree. But, if you're suggesting that there be know catalog pricing guides at all, then I must wholeheartedly disagree.
WB
Login to Like
this post
My early lesson of value was when I was 12 or 13. An elder in our stamp club gave me a big bag of used US stamps from the 1940s and 1950s. Picture these being all small stamps, definitives and those small WWII propaganda series stamps. And there were maybe 100 duplicates of each stamp. I was in heaven! I looked them up in my Scotts catalog and saw they each had a value of 3 to 5 cents each! I added that all up and was very excited at my new found wealth!
Then the downer... I showed my wealth status to my father who counseled me that "something is only worth what someone will pay you for it". I was determined to prove him wrong so I put them out for sale at our next club meeting, each one with the catalog value as it's price. Keep in mind that these stamps would be a hard sell at a penny each today, never mind in 1970. Stamps that every collector already has, there are millions of extras in the market that will never be absorbed. And of course I didn't sell a single stamp!
So I sadly learned the basic fundamental of commerce on that day. A life's lesson that needed to be learned and serves me well to this day.
Login to Like
this post
08:45:51pm
" ,,, well worth $100, but if I go to a catalog and see it listed for $.25, I'm not going to pay $100 for it, no matter how much I like it. ... "
That begs the question Why not ?
You say it is well worth the $100. The seller who wants $100 apparently believes it is well worth $100.
To be worth $100 in your initial assessment it must have some attraction, the last one to fill a set or a page, one, regardless of the catalog, that you seldom see, its pristine condition, centering and crispness must be more than the usual run of stamp, possibly its perfect clear date stamp, probably more than one of those characteristics. Otherwise your premise is faulty and it is not well worth the asked price. After all something must have attracted you (All hypothetical including the stamp)
But that is an aside.
The point that I was making is that saying Catalog Value is confusing to many people and trying to do what you suggest, ("explain the proper use of catalogs and their valuing system,"which means that "value" does not mean actual realistic value. ) can often be more than they want to know or are willing to listen to. Using the word "listing" and equating that to things most people are already used to seeing in advertisements, e.g. MSRP, a houses listing price and so on, would not require the long drawn out, often boring, explanation I tried to dramatize.
As I wrote it is a lonely endeavor.
NOTE: I am not questioning catalogs doing what catalogs do, only the nomenclature involved.
Login to Like
this post
I love how some people use the quote feature and leave out part of the sentence. I wonder why anyone would do that? 
I said, "In my eyes" it may be well worth $100, but I'm not about to pay that because the catalog says that it's very likely I could find one for far less money. Thus making the catalog valuation a handy reference tool to have when purchasing stamps.
WB
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:45:27pm
That is a distinction without a difference.
My comments made it plain that in your hypothetical situation the "well worth $100" estimate was in your eyes.
In who else's eyes would it have been ?
You created the hypothetical situation.
No deceit was expressed or implied.
It was not my circus, not my monkey.
Login to Like
this post
"deceit was expressed or implied."
"my circus, my monkey."
See what a word or two left out can do?
WB
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:46:16am
Now you are being silly.
But thanks for playing.
Login to Like
this post
Hmmmm... I thought this was a thread about Michael's catalog review. 
Login to Like
this post
Bob, that's true, but discussing apsects of the catalog tend to creep in every time I do this. I don't have any problem with it. After all, the catalog reviews are abouit the "values", and those can be interpreted in different ways.
Charlie, historically I haven't agreed with your philosophy regarding catalog values. However, you stated it differently this time. I now understand your point of view regarding "listing" versus "value". I think there is some merit in what you said considering that "value" connotes that what is stated in the catalog as a "value" is what a collector would be required/expected to pay for a stamp. Since next to no one is willing to pay the published "value", then the catalog is not a valuation of stamps, but rather a "listing". The values printing in the listings are merely suggested references from which a buyer and seller would negotiate to arrive at a selling price agreeable to both.
Login to Like
this post
I seem to recall, maybe wrongly, that the prices quoted in the Gibbons catalogues was the price that they would sell you the stamp. You could order from them at the stated price for the duration of the catalogue publishing term.
Presumably this did not apply to Scott as they did/do not have retail store.
Login to Like
this post
That's correct, Vic.
Login to Like
this post
Much as i hate to admit it..there have been times over the decades when i did pay full catalog price for an item i really wanted. For many years 50 percent of cat seemed to be the price. It seems to me that stamps cost less now than they ever did (due to the internet ?)
Login to Like
this post
The Internet may have a minor effect. The real reason stamps are cheaper is that the supply of stamps increase each year by the millions, perhaps billions (new issues and used saved by collectors) and the number of stamp collectors decreases by the thousands each year. It is totally a supply and demand issue, plain ole Economics 101.
Stamp collecting is the world's greatest hobby but the world's worst investment. Just my belief.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"The real reason stamps are cheaper is that the supply of stamps increase each year by the millions, perhaps billions (new issues and used saved by collectors) and the number of stamp collectors decreases by the thousands each year. It is totally a supply and demand issue, plain ole Economics 101. "
eBay has made it easy to find things that were once rare. A funny thing happens when you take all the collectibles in America and put them in an alphabetical database! In the old days I wanted to have a Scott 300b booklet pane but had never even seen one in person. Once eBay came about, I saw one for sale in 1998 or so. I bid on it and won. I was so excited. I thought I had something elusive. Well, I have a search that alerts me whenever one is listed. I now own six of them, and I only bid when they are cheap!
There are millions of stamps that have been around for decades and have never been in a collection! Think about that. I've seen bales of used US definitives, literally 100 of the same stamp, baled up in the 1930s or 1940s. Everyone has cigar boxes full of stamps in that same situation. Those stamps may have been in a stock book or just stored as someone's duplicates, but have never been "the one" that someone has put in their album to represent that issue.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
What a huge increase in Nepal. What is the hype? Was it very underpriced or is suddenly everybody jumping on that country?
Login to Like
this post
Surprised the heck out of me. I haven't heard anything about demand for Nepalese stamps exploding like that. The increases were found throughout and affected most stamps.
Login to Like
this post
So far I have not had any problems getting Nepal for low prices and although they did sell pretty well the last time I put some on sale, it was only at low prices. The really old ones are much more difficult to find and probably could do with a higher value. But that's about it, as far as I can see.
Login to Like
this post
The older ones had a big increase in value.
Login to Like
this post
OK. I have now finished updating through Volume 5. Just one more volume to go!
Login to Like
this post
Working on Volume 6 has certainly been depressing.
Login to Like
this post
FYI. I have completed the review.
Login to Like
this post
Very informative Michael, thanks for going to the trouble of doing the reviews.
Just wondering, did you happen to do the math overall to see how things stood?
WB
P.S. never mind, I just read your final review and found the answer.
Login to Like
this post
Interesting trends:
France and French colonies in Africa seem to be out of favour, with the exception of French Equatorial Africa.
Portuguese colonies are up.
Italy and Italian colonies are also down.
British commonwealth: very mixed, many are up, some are a lot down (like Pitcairn).
Russia and Russian area: up
Most remarkable change: Nepal.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks very much Michael for doing this once again.
The results are always fascinating even if the trends are not always what we would like!
Login to Like
this post
This thread is to be used to discuss the information provided in the 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review thread.
Please keep the comments on track with the review.
Note that every time I do these reviews there inevitably comes along a few people who start blasting what a waste of time this is. Such comments are not desired in this thread. If you think this activity is a waste of time, then don't waste your time reading it.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
No honest effort is a waste of time, thanks for doing these reviews.
Just out of curiosity, what IS the current value on the Bugs Bunny sheet? I may have made a decent investment after all. According to my wife, that doesn't happen very often.
WB
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I knew I forgot to say something. Please don't ask me for catalog values of stamps. That is not the purpose of the review. If I start answering such questions, I'll wind up spending my time looking up value after value. I am doing the review for my own collection. I do this anyway, so as an aside I also share with everyone the tidbits of information that I find as I go through the catalogs. Thanks for understanding.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
WB
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
This has certainly been depressing. There are more countries decreasing in value than countries increasing. I don't see this changing.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
It may be depressing if our collections are intended for retirement income, but I look on the bright side that it means it will be cheaper to acquire more.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
What is value anyway? I'm only back in this about a year and have found I don't have to pay more than 10-20% of catalog value to buy mint classic USA stamps in nice condition. I have a 2004 Scott Specialized and find it's still relevant value wise. I don't buy damaged, off centered or no gum stamps either.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I need to clarify a couple of things that are part of the review:
- (No changes) versus +0.0%: "No changes" means that there were no value changes that I found in any stamps. "+0.0%" means that there were value changes (increases and decreases), but when tabulated, the country saw no change in overall value.
- You may be noticing the absence of some countries, such as Afar and Issas and the Azores. When Scott continues the numbering from a country name to another, I group them together into one inventory list. So, Azores, for example will be reviewed when Volume 5 is released so that I get the Azores listings under Portugal.
Nigel, if you include Austria offices in Crete as part of your Crete collection, there is a little bit of news for you in the review.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
16 May 2016
12:40:40pm
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
" .... What is value anyway? ...."
That is why most times I prefer to use the phrase "Scott Listing"
I think that is more appropriate when quoting the Scott Comparative Listings, and less confusing to newbies. But I guess I am alone in that..
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I've been tied down with alot of non-philatelic work to do. However, here's a little bonus.
My son collects Christmas Islands. When I got Volume 2 of the catalog last week, he borrowed it and with his 95% complete MNH collection, including most minors, he found that the Scott value from the 2016 catalog to the 2017 catalog saw a drop of 5.75%.
I will be getting to Volume 2 hopefully in the near future. It will be interesting to see how 2015 to 2017 goes.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
"Bermuda +1.2%
All changes were prior to 1935."
Hey, we bucked the trend, Bermuda fans!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
In the Letter from the Editor of the 2015 Volume 1, Scott stated that it was difficult for the editors to accurately value the stamps from Bolivia. The reason cited was that some dealers were charging close to or at Scott value, and some dealers were selling stamps from Bolivia at prices "noticeably higher than Scott".
Scott stated that it would monitor dealer offerings for Bolivia and make an assessment as to the true values for the country. Well, looks like Scott has completed its assessment. Remembering that Scott stated that dealers were charging near or "noticeably higher than Scott", it makes perfectly logical sense that Scott dropped the stamp values for Bolivia by an average of over 12%. Makes perfect sense to me...
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I wonder how many dealer price list for Bolivia you can find. The sample size for the data may be small and probably ignores other selling outlets (ebay) because it would be too difficult.
Al
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Okay, Nigel. Crete has been reviewed. There were finally quite a few changes.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
MICHAEL! Columbia? Really?!!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
After that long discussion some people here had about "Colombia" versus "Columbia"...how could I resist? I knew someone would find it!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
"Scott stated that it would monitor dealer offerings for Bolivia and make an assessment as to the true values for the country. Well, looks like Scott has completed its assessment. Remembering that Scott stated that dealers were charging near or "noticeably higher than Scott", it makes perfectly logical sense that Scott dropped the stamp values for Bolivia by an average of over 12%. Makes perfect sense to me..."
What a classic case of tail wagging the dog...It will get even more interesting when/if the dealers do not decrease their prices.
-k-
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
While going through the French listings, I started to see a trend in valuations. Catalog values were being updated (upwards and down) in multiples of 40 ($0.40; $0.80; $1.20, etc.)
This is not an extensive change right now, but the last time I saw this, values were being updated in multiples of 25. Two years after that was started, Scott raised the minimum value from 20 cents to 25 cents. Could this be a foretelling of an increase of the minimum value from 25 cents to 40 cents?
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Volume III started out in the red. However, British-related Africa looks strong.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
d1stamper
"michael78651
Thank you for posting the changes.
I look forward to your reports.
Doug"
Thanks, Doug. I am glad that you find the updates useful.
The report with Great Britain was like writing a book!
FYI, I moved your comment to the Catalog Review Discussion thread. All I could do was copy and paste it above. I try to keep the actual reviews clean of comments.
Michael
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Does one think the price changes actually reflect market changes even if we accept a Scott catalogue price is a base.
Al
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Al, that's a good question, and I have often given that thought when I go through and update "values" in my inventory.
First, I don't consider catalog values to be a "base". It may simply be semantics, but I think of them as reference points. How does one decide that a stamp valued at 25 cents in 2015 should be valued at 30 cents in 2017? On the more drastic side, how does a stamp valued at 50 cents in 2015 advance to $80 in 2017? The converse is true as my comments on Jersey, Guernsey and Greece show regarding declines up to 60%!
It is also common to find countries with a large number of value changes in the postage section, but when you look at the back-of-the-book section, there's nothing. How do the value changes stop after all those changes? Did no "bob" stamps change in value?
Also, there are many countries where nothing changes at all. Why would that be? Because there aren't enough people working the catalogs to conduct regular reviews of all the listings. Then, every few years, there is a massive change in the values of almost all the stamps in these countries.
Another thing that I have seen happen is that since the catalogs are now maintained in an electronic environment, it is easy to simply make blanket changes to all listings within a given parameter. This is nothing more than a simple "search and replace" operation.
The big key to where I think catalog values are not a reflection of the current market are the following factors:
1 - The current catalog states that it is the 2017 edition.
2 - We are in the year 2016.
3 - The catalogs are updated at least 6 months prior to publication date.
4 - Most of the 2017 catalogs use valuations based on the year 2015.
5 - The catalog values are two years out of date.
I am not picking on Scott. It is just that I know those catalogs very well. All the catalog publishers follow most of the practices that I have listed above.
Then this all begs the question of what are we to do regarding figuring out what are the values of our stamps? Take it all with a grain of salt with the understanding that the values printed in a catalog are out of date before the catalog is even printed. Catalog values are nothing more than a mere reference point. Since we all use the same reference point, we are all in the same boat.
For most stamp collectors, it is best to enjoy the stamps and the hobby, and not get turned upside down over how much a collection is worth. It will always be worth more to a collector, than it truly is in the monetary sense.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
An ad in the September American Philatelist shows Subway selling 2017 Scott catalogs for $85.00 each. Better than 124.99 (does anyone pay the full price ?) But still pricey.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I think I would be somewhat trusting of older stamps (pre-1960) that have just had their pricing updated in the most recent catalogue. My assumption is that pricing has been evaluated for those stamps and that the appropriate changes have been made. If no price changes have been recorded for a number of years, then the prices may be out-of-date if the pricing is changing for that country.
Pricing of post-1960 and especially post-1980 stamps is probably just a very raw estimate. They have to put something down, so they make a guess. If there is enough of a market for those stamps, those rough estimates over the years will eventually come more into line with reality as updates are made. This is probably where the big changes are seen in more recent stamp pricing; they evaluated the pricing for that country, found enough data to make a good estimate and published the new pricing values. If their initial estimates were too high, you might see some big drops percentage-wise.
Scott does use italicized values for stamps in which there is not enough market data available to give a "good" price. This is generally seen in higher valued older stamps.
Having followed stamp pricing for decades, I still remember the time several decades ago when Scott reevaluated their pricing policy and decided to go with a strict market value based upon published prices by stamp retailers. They had been overpricing for years, giving the retailers the ability to market their stamps at "only 50% of Scott" or less in many cases. I remember the uproar that caused. For anyone who was tracking the "value" of their stamp collection, for many areas that value suddenly plunged 50% or more. I remember the huge drop in the pricing for German States material since I was collecting Germany extensively at the time. Since then Scott's pricing seems to be fairly accurate based upon what stamp retailers are presently quoting for their stamps. For smaller sellers without the inventory, employees, and other overhead that larger sellers have, pricing is generally well below Scott pricing, but then that is to be expected.
What is a certain stamp or country collection actually worth? You can generally get a good idea by watching online auctions and sales. For country collections, I look at what Robert Friedman lists for the country collections that he has for sale once every two months (ads in Linn's and a list sent directly to past buyers, as well as on his website). I have noticed that many European countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden and others sell for a very small percentage of the total catalogue value (many times in the 20% range or less). For other areas, especially the small, rarely seen colonies, his pricing is at 50-75% of Scott for the entire run of stamps. Former French colonies, an area I collect, is one of these, as is anything related to China. People are just willing to pay much higher percentages of Scott for these areas.
For Scott to give more accurate pricing for the entire world each and every year, they would have to hire an army of people to do that evaluation. They could do that, but then what would each catalogue cost? And are any of the other companies that put out stamp catalogues any more accurate with their pricing? From what I have seen, both SG and Michel tend to price everything higher than what Scott does.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
"I still remember the time several decades ago when Scott reevaluated their pricing policy and decided to go with a strict market value based upon published prices by stamp retailers."
That was certainly a major upheaval and fiasco. The yellow covered 1988 catalogs were the last set to be issued under the old valuation system. The light blue 1989 set was the new valuation scheme that many dealers refused to use. Their refusal was so vehement that they declared that the 1988 catalogs would be the only ones that they would use to price their stamps.
I remember seeing at shops and shows dealers with just the 1988 catalogs. Many wouldn't even sell the stamps that were issued after that catalog was published. Within 5 years or so Scott had changed a basis of determining valuation to a higher grade condition (very fine), and the overall values were back to where dealers abandoned the 1988 catalogs. A sly move by Scott.
I would not have any problem if Scott would resort to using a letter or symbol for any stamp with a value less than $1.00 to indicate that a stamp/set was very common and basically worthless.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I remember Marlen stamps stating in Linns that the yellow 1988 was the last catalog they were going to use...what a stupid remark for a large stamp firm to make..i mean they were in the business of buyng and selling STAMPS .
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
"It may simply be semantics, but I think of them as reference points."
This is what I meant.
I was just wondering if you think whether ups and downs actually reflect the market ups and downs and if there is a delay. My observation is that dealers and sellers (like on ebay) use these numbers a lot and expect look forward to increase prices with each edition so they can raise prices. US dealers buy modern material in bulk well below face but somehow the stamp is now worth 2x face. If it was a true free market, we should see more selling at face if they can buy at 40% face.
I think for most recent material the pricing is quite suspect. I was inventorying my US booklets and amazing how they varied (some have significant markups) and not sure the market is really like that. The problem is that there are a lot fewer dealer price sheets so less published material.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
When catalogs were more affordable i used to acquire a set every 3 years as i was active trading stamps..i now realize most of the stamps issued after 1969 mean very little to me. If i need a stamp i will trade for it and not worry about "catalog for catalog" value. Its so much easier.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I had read about Guernsey/Alderney's drops in 2016 and now Jersey in 2017 and since I collect both, that hurts. Maybe I can find some of those sets and sheets I need at more reasonable prices in the future. BOB
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Volume III is completed.
I also started Volume IV, but what a downward start it has been.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
"Liechtenstein -4.4% Mostly increases up to 1995. After 1995 changes were mostly decreases."
UGH. This is not a good sign for Switzerland.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
More and more i agree that the catalog is only a suggestion...my old buddy Big Jose used to say "a stamp is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it !"
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
True, but there has to be some point of reference from which to decide what to pay for a stamp. Someone might be willing to pay only face value for a $5 US Columbus 1893 stamp. I doubt anyone would be willing to sell it at that price. So, although face value is what someone is willing to pay for it, $5 is not the true value of the item.
It takes more than just a buyer who is willing to pay the buyer's price. The seller also is part of deciding what an item is worth. Through the negotiation process, both the buyer and seller make that decision only when and if they both agree on a fair price.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
21 Sep 2016
10:24:47am
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
" ... More and more i agree that the catalog is only a suggestion... ..."
Which is why I have led the lonely campaign to avoid Catalog Value in my dealings in favor of Catalog listing.
It just seems more honest to say that a given stamp or stamp set has a catalog listing than to say it has a catalog value and then spend the next ten minutes explaining that in practice that same stamp can usually be bought for less than half that listed value and if resold will likely bring less than half that. Or explaining that there are physical conditions involved in the actual pricing.
I bet many of our knowledgeable members would agree that any collector who buys at the catalog listing is foolish.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Actually, I'd feel more foolish buying a stamp or set without some sort of reference to go by. Catalogs may not be accurate, but they do at least set a reference point to work from.
To me, catalogs also serve to show where trends are headed. I tend to add to my collection by zeroing in on areas that are down at the time. I think of it as a window into where the best values are to be had.
Michael's posts are very helpful in that respect.
WB
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
21 Sep 2016
11:38:06am
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
If you are talking to a non-collector or newbie and say "I bought this stamp that has a catalog value of $12.00 but I only paid $6.00 for it." you drag the listener into a morass of cognitive dissonance.
Does it have a real value of $12 or $6 ?
Was the seller dumb as a bag of pebbles or are you just one hell of a negotiator ?
The eager listener may then wonder, " Are you are going to sell it for $12.00 and make a quick six dollar profit ?"
Perhaps you will agree or if honest will probably begin, " No the most a dealer will give me for it is between $2 and if I were lucky $4"
"Huh ? then why does the catalog value it at $12.00 "
"Well that is because, blah, blah, blah ...retail, blah, blah, blah .... condition blah, blah, blah, .... comparative rarity, .... blah, blah, blah .... wholesale .... blah, blah, blah ....blah, blah, blah .. .
I suspect we have all been there and unless you are a patient, charming conversationalist like me, someone's eyes glazed over at the second " .... blah, blah, blah ...".
I think I'd prefer to either start with saying the stamp has a comparative rarity listing of $12.00 and avoid the "Value" confusion altogether. People are likely to know that a list price, like the MSRP for cars is just an advertising ploy.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
But if your talking to a newbie and don't explain the proper use of catalogs and their valuing system, then you've done them a disservice in the first place. All things bought and sold need a reference point to work from, otherwise, where would you begin? I may come across a stamp that I see in my eyes as a really awesome piece of work, well worth $100, but if I go to a catalog and see it listed for $.25, I'm not going to pay $100 for it, no matter how much I like it.
If you're suggesting that catalogs should do a better and more realistic job of how they do their valuations, then I can totally agree. But, if you're suggesting that there be know catalog pricing guides at all, then I must wholeheartedly disagree.
WB
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
My early lesson of value was when I was 12 or 13. An elder in our stamp club gave me a big bag of used US stamps from the 1940s and 1950s. Picture these being all small stamps, definitives and those small WWII propaganda series stamps. And there were maybe 100 duplicates of each stamp. I was in heaven! I looked them up in my Scotts catalog and saw they each had a value of 3 to 5 cents each! I added that all up and was very excited at my new found wealth!
Then the downer... I showed my wealth status to my father who counseled me that "something is only worth what someone will pay you for it". I was determined to prove him wrong so I put them out for sale at our next club meeting, each one with the catalog value as it's price. Keep in mind that these stamps would be a hard sell at a penny each today, never mind in 1970. Stamps that every collector already has, there are millions of extras in the market that will never be absorbed. And of course I didn't sell a single stamp!
So I sadly learned the basic fundamental of commerce on that day. A life's lesson that needed to be learned and serves me well to this day.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
21 Sep 2016
08:45:51pm
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
" ,,, well worth $100, but if I go to a catalog and see it listed for $.25, I'm not going to pay $100 for it, no matter how much I like it. ... "
That begs the question Why not ?
You say it is well worth the $100. The seller who wants $100 apparently believes it is well worth $100.
To be worth $100 in your initial assessment it must have some attraction, the last one to fill a set or a page, one, regardless of the catalog, that you seldom see, its pristine condition, centering and crispness must be more than the usual run of stamp, possibly its perfect clear date stamp, probably more than one of those characteristics. Otherwise your premise is faulty and it is not well worth the asked price. After all something must have attracted you (All hypothetical including the stamp)
But that is an aside.
The point that I was making is that saying Catalog Value is confusing to many people and trying to do what you suggest, ("explain the proper use of catalogs and their valuing system,"which means that "value" does not mean actual realistic value. ) can often be more than they want to know or are willing to listen to. Using the word "listing" and equating that to things most people are already used to seeing in advertisements, e.g. MSRP, a houses listing price and so on, would not require the long drawn out, often boring, explanation I tried to dramatize.
As I wrote it is a lonely endeavor.
NOTE: I am not questioning catalogs doing what catalogs do, only the nomenclature involved.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I love how some people use the quote feature and leave out part of the sentence. I wonder why anyone would do that?
I said, "In my eyes" it may be well worth $100, but I'm not about to pay that because the catalog says that it's very likely I could find one for far less money. Thus making the catalog valuation a handy reference tool to have when purchasing stamps.
WB
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
21 Sep 2016
09:45:27pm
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
That is a distinction without a difference.
My comments made it plain that in your hypothetical situation the "well worth $100" estimate was in your eyes.
In who else's eyes would it have been ?
You created the hypothetical situation.
No deceit was expressed or implied.
It was not my circus, not my monkey.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
"deceit was expressed or implied."
"my circus, my monkey."
See what a word or two left out can do?
WB
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
22 Sep 2016
10:46:16am
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Now you are being silly.
But thanks for playing.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Hmmmm... I thought this was a thread about Michael's catalog review.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Bob, that's true, but discussing apsects of the catalog tend to creep in every time I do this. I don't have any problem with it. After all, the catalog reviews are abouit the "values", and those can be interpreted in different ways.
Charlie, historically I haven't agreed with your philosophy regarding catalog values. However, you stated it differently this time. I now understand your point of view regarding "listing" versus "value". I think there is some merit in what you said considering that "value" connotes that what is stated in the catalog as a "value" is what a collector would be required/expected to pay for a stamp. Since next to no one is willing to pay the published "value", then the catalog is not a valuation of stamps, but rather a "listing". The values printing in the listings are merely suggested references from which a buyer and seller would negotiate to arrive at a selling price agreeable to both.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
I seem to recall, maybe wrongly, that the prices quoted in the Gibbons catalogues was the price that they would sell you the stamp. You could order from them at the stated price for the duration of the catalogue publishing term.
Presumably this did not apply to Scott as they did/do not have retail store.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
That's correct, Vic.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Much as i hate to admit it..there have been times over the decades when i did pay full catalog price for an item i really wanted. For many years 50 percent of cat seemed to be the price. It seems to me that stamps cost less now than they ever did (due to the internet ?)
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
The Internet may have a minor effect. The real reason stamps are cheaper is that the supply of stamps increase each year by the millions, perhaps billions (new issues and used saved by collectors) and the number of stamp collectors decreases by the thousands each year. It is totally a supply and demand issue, plain ole Economics 101.
Stamp collecting is the world's greatest hobby but the world's worst investment. Just my belief.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
"The real reason stamps are cheaper is that the supply of stamps increase each year by the millions, perhaps billions (new issues and used saved by collectors) and the number of stamp collectors decreases by the thousands each year. It is totally a supply and demand issue, plain ole Economics 101. "
eBay has made it easy to find things that were once rare. A funny thing happens when you take all the collectibles in America and put them in an alphabetical database! In the old days I wanted to have a Scott 300b booklet pane but had never even seen one in person. Once eBay came about, I saw one for sale in 1998 or so. I bid on it and won. I was so excited. I thought I had something elusive. Well, I have a search that alerts me whenever one is listed. I now own six of them, and I only bid when they are cheap!
There are millions of stamps that have been around for decades and have never been in a collection! Think about that. I've seen bales of used US definitives, literally 100 of the same stamp, baled up in the 1930s or 1940s. Everyone has cigar boxes full of stamps in that same situation. Those stamps may have been in a stock book or just stored as someone's duplicates, but have never been "the one" that someone has put in their album to represent that issue.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Auctions - Approvals
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
What a huge increase in Nepal. What is the hype? Was it very underpriced or is suddenly everybody jumping on that country?
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Surprised the heck out of me. I haven't heard anything about demand for Nepalese stamps exploding like that. The increases were found throughout and affected most stamps.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions - Approvals
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
So far I have not had any problems getting Nepal for low prices and although they did sell pretty well the last time I put some on sale, it was only at low prices. The really old ones are much more difficult to find and probably could do with a higher value. But that's about it, as far as I can see.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
The older ones had a big increase in value.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
OK. I have now finished updating through Volume 5. Just one more volume to go!
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Working on Volume 6 has certainly been depressing.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
FYI. I have completed the review.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Very informative Michael, thanks for going to the trouble of doing the reviews.
Just wondering, did you happen to do the math overall to see how things stood?
WB
P.S. never mind, I just read your final review and found the answer.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions - Approvals
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Interesting trends:
France and French colonies in Africa seem to be out of favour, with the exception of French Equatorial Africa.
Portuguese colonies are up.
Italy and Italian colonies are also down.
British commonwealth: very mixed, many are up, some are a lot down (like Pitcairn).
Russia and Russian area: up
Most remarkable change: Nepal.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2015 - 2017 Scott Catalog Review Discussion Thread
Thanks very much Michael for doing this once again.
The results are always fascinating even if the trends are not always what we would like!
Login to Like
this post