Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
The matter of major catalog numbers and minor numbers is interesting when looking through the catalogs, especially Scott, which seems to be the major culprit with its erratic, and inconsistent, numbering system.
One can look through a set of stamps in Scott and find a group of minors. The minors could be perf, watermak, color variations. However, Scott's policy with its numbering system in this regard is to (usually - damn they make so many inconsistent exceptions) give the lower-valued stamp the major number and the higher valued stamp the minor when (usually again - ack!) the stamp design and color is the same.
Looking at the heading for the set listing, one can find the perf varieties that the stamps come in. Now look at the minors. Often one can find that the set of stamps was issued with a perf of 11. A year or so later, a couple of the stamps in the set were reissued with say a perf 10. Scott often doesn't consider the reissued stamps to be worthy of a major number (Gibbons and Michel usually do give these stamps major numbers - yes they make exceptions too, but not to the extent of Scott). However, the primary perf 11 set is often "broken" by Scott when it makes one or all of the perf 10 reissues major numbers.
With its USA listings, Scott seems to give almost every stamp variety a major number, even if the difference is just a fly speck only visible with an electron microscope. Why the rest of the world is treated differently is a question I have asked of Scott several times, but have never received a good answer.
I used to be an avid collector of anything listed by Scott (and unlisted too if I could find the stamps listed in other catalogs like Gibbons or Michel). I started to get away from the minors due to physical space limitations, and reduced a large number of them from my collection. I have been reconsidering this move for some time, and some minors have returned to the albums, when I make comparisons to the listings for these stamps in Scott, Gibbons and sometimes Michel.
What comes and goes in one's collection and why certainly is intriguing.
Login to Like
this post
I know what you mean,Guatemala has often reissued the same stamp several years later..Scott does not assign it a catalog number but the ISGC (International Society of Guatemala Collecors) does. The only way i can know the difference is when its on a first day cover !
Login to Like
this post
Phil, is the sole difference that it is reprinted? if so, why would it qualify for a new listing? After all, some flag over stamps were reprinted multiple times (ah, for the PNC days....). Or are there other differnces?
Login to Like
this post
Michael, your points are precisely why I decide for myself what to include, but I disagree that Scott is inconsistent in its treatment of US stamps based on face value. I just haven't seen it. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
My big complaint is the flyspecking of the 19th Century issues with no logical justification. Almost all 20th Century variations are indicative of what I would call a significant difference, like a different press, etc. In fact, there is one stamp that doesn't even have a minor that was printed on two different press, but because they can only be differentiated by the gum they aren't recognized as different.
I would say that Scott has been consistent since the Banknotes, but I just don't agree with their rules, such as granting major status to any stamp that differs by 0.5 or more on perforation and translating that to die cut variation where it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Login to Like
this post
Michael, I don't think there is a great overall catalog. Each worldwide catalog has downfalls.
Scott is recognized as the best for US, Gibbons for UK, Michel for Germany, Yvert for France, etc. Each of these catalogs doesn't go into detail concerning the countries they are not primarily focused on. But I'm not telling you something you don't already know. 
Login to Like
this post
Lar, I was referring to the differences in listing policies with US stamps versus stamps from other countries. A US stamp gets a major number, while a similar type of stamp in another country only gets a minor listing.
Ross, I agree with you. That's why I have Scott, Gibbons and Michel. I don't have room for more. I used to have Minkus too, along with a few other specialized ones.
Login to Like
this post
Michael, even so, I was wrong anyway. After I wrote that last night I went to bed and realized that even though the treatment of perforations is consistent (albeit illogical), the treatment of paper differences is not consistent.
Login to Like
this post
Oh no, hes putting my feet to the fire again...Ok, David i went to the specialized catalogs, in 1949 Guatemala issued a set of stamps scott 325-329, of a missionary and an indian. In 1964 they issued scott 384 to 386 of the same type. the stamp in question in this case is Scott 386 4 cents brown. In 1975 Guatemala REISSUED Gibbons 665a,Yvert 432,Michel 1007, NOT IN SCOTT . i quote " The 1975 stamp is difficult to distinguish from the 1964 issue. They both share the same 12.4 perforation. The 1964 stamp is a deep brown. The 1975 appears to be a lighter sepia,because of the whiter paper used. The 1964 stamp is found on both fluorescent and non-fluorescent paper. The 1975 appears only on fluorescent paper. Don't ask me any more questions, thats all i know !
Login to Like
this post
01:06:23pm
" ... That's why I have Scott, Gibbons and Michel....."
Add to that a recent Facit, an older Yvert, a Ma, a Sakura and a few others and I'm with you.
And as of yesterday's mail, the latest "Deegam".
Login to Like
this post
I'll bet that Deegam must weigh 20 pounds, or do you have it on disc now?
Mike
Login to Like
this post
11:08:51pm
" .... I'll bet that Deegam must weigh 20 pounds, or do you have it on disc now? ...."
Yes, it is on disc through the miracle of micro-optics.
The last time it was published in paper format it was quite large, plus for several years I added pages that then encompassed the newer information from the Deegam reports as well as the general hobby information sites. That brought it to three , three inch wide binders.
That is why the disc process became the most sensible thing to do.
Login to Like
this post
I confess that these days I try not to put too much weight on catalog numbering schemes. They're all imperfect on one sense or another (especially as there's always some other, alternative or more specialized resource available). Which is why I usually prefer to rely on textual descriptions (or visuals) instead.
Login to Like
this post
Arno made a point in another post regarding his collection whereby he only collects stamps with major catalog numbers and not the minor listed varieties.
The matter of major catalog numbers and minor numbers is interesting when looking through the catalogs, especially Scott, which seems to be the major culprit with its erratic, and inconsistent, numbering system.
One can look through a set of stamps in Scott and find a group of minors. The minors could be perf, watermak, color variations. However, Scott's policy with its numbering system in this regard is to (usually - damn they make so many inconsistent exceptions) give the lower-valued stamp the major number and the higher valued stamp the minor when (usually again - ack!) the stamp design and color is the same.
Looking at the heading for the set listing, one can find the perf varieties that the stamps come in. Now look at the minors. Often one can find that the set of stamps was issued with a perf of 11. A year or so later, a couple of the stamps in the set were reissued with say a perf 10. Scott often doesn't consider the reissued stamps to be worthy of a major number (Gibbons and Michel usually do give these stamps major numbers - yes they make exceptions too, but not to the extent of Scott). However, the primary perf 11 set is often "broken" by Scott when it makes one or all of the perf 10 reissues major numbers.
With its USA listings, Scott seems to give almost every stamp variety a major number, even if the difference is just a fly speck only visible with an electron microscope. Why the rest of the world is treated differently is a question I have asked of Scott several times, but have never received a good answer.
I used to be an avid collector of anything listed by Scott (and unlisted too if I could find the stamps listed in other catalogs like Gibbons or Michel). I started to get away from the minors due to physical space limitations, and reduced a large number of them from my collection. I have been reconsidering this move for some time, and some minors have returned to the albums, when I make comparisons to the listings for these stamps in Scott, Gibbons and sometimes Michel.
What comes and goes in one's collection and why certainly is intriguing.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Majors vs. Minors
I know what you mean,Guatemala has often reissued the same stamp several years later..Scott does not assign it a catalog number but the ISGC (International Society of Guatemala Collecors) does. The only way i can know the difference is when its on a first day cover !
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Majors vs. Minors
Phil, is the sole difference that it is reprinted? if so, why would it qualify for a new listing? After all, some flag over stamps were reprinted multiple times (ah, for the PNC days....). Or are there other differnces?
Login to Like
this post
re: Majors vs. Minors
Michael, your points are precisely why I decide for myself what to include, but I disagree that Scott is inconsistent in its treatment of US stamps based on face value. I just haven't seen it. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
My big complaint is the flyspecking of the 19th Century issues with no logical justification. Almost all 20th Century variations are indicative of what I would call a significant difference, like a different press, etc. In fact, there is one stamp that doesn't even have a minor that was printed on two different press, but because they can only be differentiated by the gum they aren't recognized as different.
I would say that Scott has been consistent since the Banknotes, but I just don't agree with their rules, such as granting major status to any stamp that differs by 0.5 or more on perforation and translating that to die cut variation where it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Login to Like
this post
11:45:21pm
re: Majors vs. Minors
Michael, I don't think there is a great overall catalog. Each worldwide catalog has downfalls.
Scott is recognized as the best for US, Gibbons for UK, Michel for Germany, Yvert for France, etc. Each of these catalogs doesn't go into detail concerning the countries they are not primarily focused on. But I'm not telling you something you don't already know.
Login to Like
this post
re: Majors vs. Minors
Lar, I was referring to the differences in listing policies with US stamps versus stamps from other countries. A US stamp gets a major number, while a similar type of stamp in another country only gets a minor listing.
Ross, I agree with you. That's why I have Scott, Gibbons and Michel. I don't have room for more. I used to have Minkus too, along with a few other specialized ones.
Login to Like
this post
re: Majors vs. Minors
Michael, even so, I was wrong anyway. After I wrote that last night I went to bed and realized that even though the treatment of perforations is consistent (albeit illogical), the treatment of paper differences is not consistent.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Majors vs. Minors
Oh no, hes putting my feet to the fire again...Ok, David i went to the specialized catalogs, in 1949 Guatemala issued a set of stamps scott 325-329, of a missionary and an indian. In 1964 they issued scott 384 to 386 of the same type. the stamp in question in this case is Scott 386 4 cents brown. In 1975 Guatemala REISSUED Gibbons 665a,Yvert 432,Michel 1007, NOT IN SCOTT . i quote " The 1975 stamp is difficult to distinguish from the 1964 issue. They both share the same 12.4 perforation. The 1964 stamp is a deep brown. The 1975 appears to be a lighter sepia,because of the whiter paper used. The 1964 stamp is found on both fluorescent and non-fluorescent paper. The 1975 appears only on fluorescent paper. Don't ask me any more questions, thats all i know !
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
22 Jan 2014
01:06:23pm
re: Majors vs. Minors
" ... That's why I have Scott, Gibbons and Michel....."
Add to that a recent Facit, an older Yvert, a Ma, a Sakura and a few others and I'm with you.
And as of yesterday's mail, the latest "Deegam".
Login to Like
this post
re: Majors vs. Minors
I'll bet that Deegam must weigh 20 pounds, or do you have it on disc now?
Mike
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
24 Jan 2014
11:08:51pm
re: Majors vs. Minors
" .... I'll bet that Deegam must weigh 20 pounds, or do you have it on disc now? ...."
Yes, it is on disc through the miracle of micro-optics.
The last time it was published in paper format it was quite large, plus for several years I added pages that then encompassed the newer information from the Deegam reports as well as the general hobby information sites. That brought it to three , three inch wide binders.
That is why the disc process became the most sensible thing to do.
Login to Like
this post
re: Majors vs. Minors
I confess that these days I try not to put too much weight on catalog numbering schemes. They're all imperfect on one sense or another (especially as there's always some other, alternative or more specialized resource available). Which is why I usually prefer to rely on textual descriptions (or visuals) instead.
Login to Like
this post