I always put where my CV is from in the description. Currently it is 2014 Scott but will probably switch to 2016 Scott with next Wednesdays auctions
People can use whatever reference they want, but they must state where the quoted "value" comes from. I watch for this, and notify the sellers when I find it. Most who state catalog values are citing references, and place the citation somewhere in the listing.
As was stated in another thread, we can't find them all, so send a PM to let us know when you find something like this.
Personally I see little use in placing catalog values in listings, especially when the references are from out of date material.
The only reason I do it is because I have found that people like to get "bargains" If you remember a long time back Scott changed its valuation system because everyone was selling at a percentage of Scott. Scott then said, why do that we will establish what you should be selling at. Trouble is, the collectors who bought the catalogs still expected to get stamps at 50-60 percent of catalog value no matter what it said in the catalog. Would no catalog values in a listing matter? I don't know. If you are selling something for a dollar at auction, and the collector checks his 1999 Scott and sees that you are selling it at full value, they will probably not bid. If though the value in 2016 is $5.00 they would probably bid. Not worth chancing that sort of thing as I for one have no time to get into relisting due to stamps not selling in an experiment environment
I understand about the "bargain" thing. However, I see sellers all over the place (meaning not just on Stamporama, but APS sales books, other web sites, etc.) cite values from catalogs that were published in the 1980s and 1970s! The oldest that I have recently seen was a cite for a value from 1978 Scott. Such values, as you alluded to, are simply meaningless, and really shouldn't be used.
The same holds true to sellers who list an item for sale, and simply state, "Catalog value $xx.xx. Well? What catalog was used and in what year was the value published? I can list an item for sale, state that the catalog value is $5.00, and then give a price of $1.00. Now, isn't that a great bargain? Those who are not knowledgeable in buying stamps might think so. A seller may think that listing like this will entice someone to buy the item, but is the stated value true and current, or a fraud intended to trick a buyer?
If someone is going to sell something, anything (stamp, books, kitchen sink, cars, trucks, etc.), then that person has an obligation to properly represent what it is that is being sold. To not do so amounts to nothing else but consumer fraud.
Agreed. If you are stating a catalog value you must state the source, which I do. Of course if you are using foreign catalogs that opens up another issue which is why I don't use catalog values of stuff not listed in Scott.
Thanks, Michael -
I will be in touch.
Greg,
Your listings have ALWAYS been just fine - thanks for all you post!
Naturally, the same rule applies to the approval books. If you are using a catalog other than Scott's and you haven't disclosed that, the moderator may "pause" your book until you correct this oversight.
Buyers - if you see any such problems in an approval book, please do contact me.
everyone who has posted in this thread is among my favorites: i've bought, sold, or traded with you all and am happy for it.
there are some others who play fast and loose or who are dangerously ill-informed about stamps. Most of these members do not read (or at least do not post to) the DB, so I'm not sure we're not preaching to choir boys and girls
Some misuse of the CV that I've notice is mostly around mint stamps, the value quoted is for a MNH in the catalog, yet the stamp offered is MLH or MH which I don't think should have the same value if we go by Scott standards.
Very true, Tony. What really gets me are those that list stamps as "mint", not stating whether or not they are hinged. The catalogue price for the mint-never-hinged stamp is then given. I avoid those sellers and will not purchase their stamps; I just don't trust them.
When I have listed stamps for sale in the past, if the stamp was hinged but Scott only gave a mint-never-hinged price, I always state that Scott only prices the stamp in mint-never-hinged condition and not the hinged condition of that stamp. If I list mint-never-hinged stamps at 40% of Scott, the same stamp in hinged condition would then get listed at 20% of Scott.
Scott offers the following:
MINT = never hinged with the gum free from any disturbance, excepting that bonafide expertizer's marks do not disqualify a stamp from being called "mint".
UNUSED = stamps that have gum disturbances from hinging. The discount for an unused stamp compared to the value of a mint stamp is related to the degree of hinging. If the value of a mint stamp is $1.00, and the unused stamp shows hinging across 25% of the gum, then the unused stamp would catalog at $0.75. Scott's normal valuation of unused stamps applies to where about 50% of the gum remains unaffected, or about 50% of the catalog value of a mint stamp. Stamps without gum, unless stated otherwise in the catalog would be valued as used, unless the used value is higher than unused at which point the unused stamp without gum would be worth no more than 1/2 that of the unused stamp.
This does not include CTO stamps which are usually valued as used with the note that postally used copies sell for more. The generic benchmark for postally used is double the CTO value. Otherwise, CTO stamps are worth considerably less than used stamps.
Now take into consideration what I posted above regarding values for mint and unused stamps.
If you are selling stamps, most likely you are using a discount from stated catalog values. If you use a discount of 50% off Scott catalog value, then your pricing for an unused example of a stamp with a mint value is 50% off the value of the mint stamp, as follows:
mint stamp catalog value = $1.00 means a selling price of $0.50
unused example of the same stamp means a catalog value of $0.50 = selling price of $0.25
In the areas of a listing where Scott values stamps as mint, it also states that values for hinged stamps are significantly less than the mint value. In Scott's terminology in the introduction of the catalogs, that generally means 50% off the mint value.
Mostly on older stamps, Scott value stamps MNH and MH the same but somewhere along the way it states that " from this point forward mint prices are for MNH stamps" missing this little sing could be the root of the problem. Personally don't much care about the back of the stamp since I like to collect used stamps and placing the stamps face down on my albums just doesn't tickle my fancy.
"somewhere along the way it states that " from this point forward mint prices are for MNH stamps" "
Because of that premium, there is a plethora of stamps from that era that have been regummed. Personally I would not purchase an expensive MNH stamp without a certificate.
At what point does the buyer bear responsibility for knowing whether or not he or she is paying too much for a stamp?
Perhaps caveat emptor and trust but verify ought be added as SOR rules for buyers.
"Perhaps caveat emptor and trust but verify ought be added as SOR rules for buyers."
Tomesieksj,
Your point "At what point does the buyer bear responsibility for knowing whether or not he or she is paying too much for a stamp?" puzzles me. It speaks to the responsibility of the buyer to own his/her own action and not to rely on others. Isn't that always the case in any transaction for any merchandise?
Dan C
Steven,
the buyer ALWAYS bears responsiblity for knowing. We're just creating the platform on which transactions can occur using a common language and set of terms, much like Scott does in defining VF.
David
Dan C and David,
My point exactly -- the buyer always bears responsibility for knowing what he or she is acquiring...to accept on blind faith that the seller's listing is accurate is ill-advised.
How can you tell without having the stamp in your own hands if it is the correct description? the correct description is up to the seller, the buyer responsibility should be to pay for the stamp he/she wants. Price itself do not enters the equation since you already have agreed on the price you are going to pay in the first place. Now an informed buyer will not be paying
more that what he/she thinks that the stamp is worth. Sadly, and I see it every day on this very site, people are paying too much for a stamp that can be had for a fraction of the cost just by looking at the many choices that we have here at stamporama.
I do not put a CV on my listings as I do not have an "up to date" catalogue. The cost of which is too expensive for me.
I put a price on my listings that I am happy to receive and in my opinion a buyer would likely/maybe pay.
My "valuation" may be too high, accurate, or too low. So what, nobody is going to die or be injured because I priced it "wrong".
A buyer may get a "bargain", or not.
To me the "value" is in the eye of the beholder.
Descriptions may or may not be "accurate".
It all depends on the knowledge of the describer and the possibility of the "value" of the item.
Catalogues like Gibbons' "Stamps of the World" gives a "value" for a particular stamp in a set, yet there could be several issues/variations of that item. How is someone to know what he has and what should the description be?
Therefore ALL descriptions must be taken with a "pinch of salt"
As a Buyer I take these things into account and if neccessary ask for better scans and more information from the seller. However I would never ask a seller for more information etc on any stamp/set being sold at a nominal amount.
Brechinite,
We can agree that this position is a reasonable one:"I put a price on my listings that I am happy to receive and in my opinion a buyer would likely/maybe pay. My "valuation" may be too high, accurate, or too low."
I have a problem with this one though:"I do not put a CV on my listings as I do not have an "up to date" catalogue." What's wrong with using whatever catalog you have, identifying the catalog and date?
Dan C.
Dan, what good is stating out-of-date values? There's no meaning to such values.
"Dan, what good is stating out-of-date values?"
"There's no meaning to such values"
That is true, Randy. No one is prohibited from using any catalog, or other value/price reference. If a value is quoted, the rule must be followed.
Dani20,
In answer to your question.
"" I do not put a CV on my listings as I do not have an "up to date" catalogue." What's wrong with using whatever catalog you have, identifying the catalog and date?
"
All understood guys, and good responses to the points made. The bottom line is that we try to be as accurate as possible, and of course stand ready to remedy any excesses/errors made inadvertently.
Best,
Dan C.
My issue with using an older catalog now relates to the recent downward trend in values. Especially with collecting areas like Ireland, Guernsey/Alderney, and Jersey, an old cat reference will be the signal for me to "move on, nothing to see here."
BOB S
We used to be able to get an up to date Gibbons "Stamps of the World" catalogue at our local library but they now only renew them every 4 years.
"...an old cat reference will be the signal for me to "move on, nothing to see here."
Just for fun, I'd like to create a book of 1910 to about 1920 UK stamp, cite them according to my ragged 1924 SG catalog, and price them at 300 or 400% of said catalog, what ever seems fair to me, with a full disclosure, and see who actually reads the fine print, or the bold print either.
I have a 1904 Scott's as well for some auction listings, but not that many pre 1900 duplicates..
Maybe some day.
For Great Britain, Scott #1 in 2017 was #2 in 1905. Unused value in 1905 was $6.00. In 2017, the value is $11,000.00. Used value was 15 cents. Now it's $320.00.
Reactions from the thousands who don't read the listings may be interesting. Will they report a seller for price gouging?
"There is no way that SOR or any other neutral listing service can enforce the rule that led to this thread.
"
So perhaps I am wasting my time in listing the CV of a stamp as there have certainly been times that I have forgotten to change it in the title and had to go back and correct it. I'll experiment this week and not do it and see if it makes a difference
I do not agree that the opening bid is the true selling price of a stamp, at least not for mine. My ended auctions do not get relisted here but get moved elsewhere and if I am offering them here for 20% CV opening bid, they get bumped to 60% CV, accepting best offer and they usually sell for 40-50% CV. Not everything mind you because there still is not a place to sell stamps for under a dollar that has a simple listing process.
Yes damaged stamps should not be sold anywhere near full CV but I have over the course of time tended to not list damaged stamps, at least not major damage, at auction for 10% CV. I can't put them into a book as it a)uses a page for maybe one stamp and b) for the most part I don't think every buyer goes through an entire book especially ones where they are noted up front that the prices are in ascending order. So that $100 stamp you have for $10 never gets seen in an approval book. I shall test that thought process out this week as well. Is there a market for that kind of material? We shall see.
"I do not agree that the opening bid is the true selling price of a stamp"
More and more lately I am seeing auction listings stating (seemingly high) catalog values, but no reference to what specific catalog they are referring to - either in the item description or in the sellers terms.
And is a Mystic 'catalog' one of the pricing guides allowed here as a reference for values?
Mystic is a SALES catalog, after all.
Ultimately, I just would like verification on the catalog values noted in the lots.
re: AUCTION CV??
I always put where my CV is from in the description. Currently it is 2014 Scott but will probably switch to 2016 Scott with next Wednesdays auctions
re: AUCTION CV??
People can use whatever reference they want, but they must state where the quoted "value" comes from. I watch for this, and notify the sellers when I find it. Most who state catalog values are citing references, and place the citation somewhere in the listing.
As was stated in another thread, we can't find them all, so send a PM to let us know when you find something like this.
Personally I see little use in placing catalog values in listings, especially when the references are from out of date material.
re: AUCTION CV??
The only reason I do it is because I have found that people like to get "bargains" If you remember a long time back Scott changed its valuation system because everyone was selling at a percentage of Scott. Scott then said, why do that we will establish what you should be selling at. Trouble is, the collectors who bought the catalogs still expected to get stamps at 50-60 percent of catalog value no matter what it said in the catalog. Would no catalog values in a listing matter? I don't know. If you are selling something for a dollar at auction, and the collector checks his 1999 Scott and sees that you are selling it at full value, they will probably not bid. If though the value in 2016 is $5.00 they would probably bid. Not worth chancing that sort of thing as I for one have no time to get into relisting due to stamps not selling in an experiment environment
re: AUCTION CV??
I understand about the "bargain" thing. However, I see sellers all over the place (meaning not just on Stamporama, but APS sales books, other web sites, etc.) cite values from catalogs that were published in the 1980s and 1970s! The oldest that I have recently seen was a cite for a value from 1978 Scott. Such values, as you alluded to, are simply meaningless, and really shouldn't be used.
The same holds true to sellers who list an item for sale, and simply state, "Catalog value $xx.xx. Well? What catalog was used and in what year was the value published? I can list an item for sale, state that the catalog value is $5.00, and then give a price of $1.00. Now, isn't that a great bargain? Those who are not knowledgeable in buying stamps might think so. A seller may think that listing like this will entice someone to buy the item, but is the stated value true and current, or a fraud intended to trick a buyer?
If someone is going to sell something, anything (stamp, books, kitchen sink, cars, trucks, etc.), then that person has an obligation to properly represent what it is that is being sold. To not do so amounts to nothing else but consumer fraud.
re: AUCTION CV??
Agreed. If you are stating a catalog value you must state the source, which I do. Of course if you are using foreign catalogs that opens up another issue which is why I don't use catalog values of stuff not listed in Scott.
re: AUCTION CV??
Thanks, Michael -
I will be in touch.
Greg,
Your listings have ALWAYS been just fine - thanks for all you post!
re: AUCTION CV??
Naturally, the same rule applies to the approval books. If you are using a catalog other than Scott's and you haven't disclosed that, the moderator may "pause" your book until you correct this oversight.
Buyers - if you see any such problems in an approval book, please do contact me.
re: AUCTION CV??
everyone who has posted in this thread is among my favorites: i've bought, sold, or traded with you all and am happy for it.
there are some others who play fast and loose or who are dangerously ill-informed about stamps. Most of these members do not read (or at least do not post to) the DB, so I'm not sure we're not preaching to choir boys and girls
re: AUCTION CV??
Some misuse of the CV that I've notice is mostly around mint stamps, the value quoted is for a MNH in the catalog, yet the stamp offered is MLH or MH which I don't think should have the same value if we go by Scott standards.
re: AUCTION CV??
Very true, Tony. What really gets me are those that list stamps as "mint", not stating whether or not they are hinged. The catalogue price for the mint-never-hinged stamp is then given. I avoid those sellers and will not purchase their stamps; I just don't trust them.
When I have listed stamps for sale in the past, if the stamp was hinged but Scott only gave a mint-never-hinged price, I always state that Scott only prices the stamp in mint-never-hinged condition and not the hinged condition of that stamp. If I list mint-never-hinged stamps at 40% of Scott, the same stamp in hinged condition would then get listed at 20% of Scott.
re: AUCTION CV??
Scott offers the following:
MINT = never hinged with the gum free from any disturbance, excepting that bonafide expertizer's marks do not disqualify a stamp from being called "mint".
UNUSED = stamps that have gum disturbances from hinging. The discount for an unused stamp compared to the value of a mint stamp is related to the degree of hinging. If the value of a mint stamp is $1.00, and the unused stamp shows hinging across 25% of the gum, then the unused stamp would catalog at $0.75. Scott's normal valuation of unused stamps applies to where about 50% of the gum remains unaffected, or about 50% of the catalog value of a mint stamp. Stamps without gum, unless stated otherwise in the catalog would be valued as used, unless the used value is higher than unused at which point the unused stamp without gum would be worth no more than 1/2 that of the unused stamp.
This does not include CTO stamps which are usually valued as used with the note that postally used copies sell for more. The generic benchmark for postally used is double the CTO value. Otherwise, CTO stamps are worth considerably less than used stamps.
re: AUCTION CV??
Now take into consideration what I posted above regarding values for mint and unused stamps.
If you are selling stamps, most likely you are using a discount from stated catalog values. If you use a discount of 50% off Scott catalog value, then your pricing for an unused example of a stamp with a mint value is 50% off the value of the mint stamp, as follows:
mint stamp catalog value = $1.00 means a selling price of $0.50
unused example of the same stamp means a catalog value of $0.50 = selling price of $0.25
In the areas of a listing where Scott values stamps as mint, it also states that values for hinged stamps are significantly less than the mint value. In Scott's terminology in the introduction of the catalogs, that generally means 50% off the mint value.
re: AUCTION CV??
Mostly on older stamps, Scott value stamps MNH and MH the same but somewhere along the way it states that " from this point forward mint prices are for MNH stamps" missing this little sing could be the root of the problem. Personally don't much care about the back of the stamp since I like to collect used stamps and placing the stamps face down on my albums just doesn't tickle my fancy.
re: AUCTION CV??
"somewhere along the way it states that " from this point forward mint prices are for MNH stamps" "
re: AUCTION CV??
Because of that premium, there is a plethora of stamps from that era that have been regummed. Personally I would not purchase an expensive MNH stamp without a certificate.
re: AUCTION CV??
At what point does the buyer bear responsibility for knowing whether or not he or she is paying too much for a stamp?
Perhaps caveat emptor and trust but verify ought be added as SOR rules for buyers.
re: AUCTION CV??
"Perhaps caveat emptor and trust but verify ought be added as SOR rules for buyers."
re: AUCTION CV??
Tomesieksj,
Your point "At what point does the buyer bear responsibility for knowing whether or not he or she is paying too much for a stamp?" puzzles me. It speaks to the responsibility of the buyer to own his/her own action and not to rely on others. Isn't that always the case in any transaction for any merchandise?
Dan C
re: AUCTION CV??
Steven,
the buyer ALWAYS bears responsiblity for knowing. We're just creating the platform on which transactions can occur using a common language and set of terms, much like Scott does in defining VF.
David
re: AUCTION CV??
Dan C and David,
My point exactly -- the buyer always bears responsibility for knowing what he or she is acquiring...to accept on blind faith that the seller's listing is accurate is ill-advised.
re: AUCTION CV??
How can you tell without having the stamp in your own hands if it is the correct description? the correct description is up to the seller, the buyer responsibility should be to pay for the stamp he/she wants. Price itself do not enters the equation since you already have agreed on the price you are going to pay in the first place. Now an informed buyer will not be paying
more that what he/she thinks that the stamp is worth. Sadly, and I see it every day on this very site, people are paying too much for a stamp that can be had for a fraction of the cost just by looking at the many choices that we have here at stamporama.
re: AUCTION CV??
I do not put a CV on my listings as I do not have an "up to date" catalogue. The cost of which is too expensive for me.
I put a price on my listings that I am happy to receive and in my opinion a buyer would likely/maybe pay.
My "valuation" may be too high, accurate, or too low. So what, nobody is going to die or be injured because I priced it "wrong".
A buyer may get a "bargain", or not.
To me the "value" is in the eye of the beholder.
Descriptions may or may not be "accurate".
It all depends on the knowledge of the describer and the possibility of the "value" of the item.
Catalogues like Gibbons' "Stamps of the World" gives a "value" for a particular stamp in a set, yet there could be several issues/variations of that item. How is someone to know what he has and what should the description be?
Therefore ALL descriptions must be taken with a "pinch of salt"
As a Buyer I take these things into account and if neccessary ask for better scans and more information from the seller. However I would never ask a seller for more information etc on any stamp/set being sold at a nominal amount.
re: AUCTION CV??
Brechinite,
We can agree that this position is a reasonable one:"I put a price on my listings that I am happy to receive and in my opinion a buyer would likely/maybe pay. My "valuation" may be too high, accurate, or too low."
I have a problem with this one though:"I do not put a CV on my listings as I do not have an "up to date" catalogue." What's wrong with using whatever catalog you have, identifying the catalog and date?
Dan C.
re: AUCTION CV??
Dan, what good is stating out-of-date values? There's no meaning to such values.
re: AUCTION CV??
"Dan, what good is stating out-of-date values?"
"There's no meaning to such values"
re: AUCTION CV??
That is true, Randy. No one is prohibited from using any catalog, or other value/price reference. If a value is quoted, the rule must be followed.
re: AUCTION CV??
Dani20,
In answer to your question.
"" I do not put a CV on my listings as I do not have an "up to date" catalogue." What's wrong with using whatever catalog you have, identifying the catalog and date?
"
re: AUCTION CV??
All understood guys, and good responses to the points made. The bottom line is that we try to be as accurate as possible, and of course stand ready to remedy any excesses/errors made inadvertently.
Best,
Dan C.
re: AUCTION CV??
My issue with using an older catalog now relates to the recent downward trend in values. Especially with collecting areas like Ireland, Guernsey/Alderney, and Jersey, an old cat reference will be the signal for me to "move on, nothing to see here."
BOB S
re: AUCTION CV??
We used to be able to get an up to date Gibbons "Stamps of the World" catalogue at our local library but they now only renew them every 4 years.
re: AUCTION CV??
"...an old cat reference will be the signal for me to "move on, nothing to see here."
re: AUCTION CV??
Just for fun, I'd like to create a book of 1910 to about 1920 UK stamp, cite them according to my ragged 1924 SG catalog, and price them at 300 or 400% of said catalog, what ever seems fair to me, with a full disclosure, and see who actually reads the fine print, or the bold print either.
I have a 1904 Scott's as well for some auction listings, but not that many pre 1900 duplicates..
Maybe some day.
re: AUCTION CV??
For Great Britain, Scott #1 in 2017 was #2 in 1905. Unused value in 1905 was $6.00. In 2017, the value is $11,000.00. Used value was 15 cents. Now it's $320.00.
Reactions from the thousands who don't read the listings may be interesting. Will they report a seller for price gouging?
re: AUCTION CV??
"There is no way that SOR or any other neutral listing service can enforce the rule that led to this thread.
"
re: AUCTION CV??
So perhaps I am wasting my time in listing the CV of a stamp as there have certainly been times that I have forgotten to change it in the title and had to go back and correct it. I'll experiment this week and not do it and see if it makes a difference
I do not agree that the opening bid is the true selling price of a stamp, at least not for mine. My ended auctions do not get relisted here but get moved elsewhere and if I am offering them here for 20% CV opening bid, they get bumped to 60% CV, accepting best offer and they usually sell for 40-50% CV. Not everything mind you because there still is not a place to sell stamps for under a dollar that has a simple listing process.
Yes damaged stamps should not be sold anywhere near full CV but I have over the course of time tended to not list damaged stamps, at least not major damage, at auction for 10% CV. I can't put them into a book as it a)uses a page for maybe one stamp and b) for the most part I don't think every buyer goes through an entire book especially ones where they are noted up front that the prices are in ascending order. So that $100 stamp you have for $10 never gets seen in an approval book. I shall test that thought process out this week as well. Is there a market for that kind of material? We shall see.
re: AUCTION CV??
"I do not agree that the opening bid is the true selling price of a stamp"