Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
This is a recently bought colour extract from a US dealer, as promoted on this site. I think it may be from 2015.
Can anyone steer me in the right direction please?
Login to Like
this post
Hi Ningpo,
It's the same in my 2009 Scott. I guess they updated the numbers some time before then.
There is a reference that a 2c rose, perf 12 "is most likely a proof". I guess this stamp was listed at some time as Scott #36 (and/or #36a) but was subsequently deleted.
Login to Like
this post
My 2015 Classic Specialized lists #36 as a 2c rose lake, wmk.2, perf. 14 valued at $290 unused and $35 used.
#36a is rose pink $235/$35
#36b is carmine ('84) $57.50/$2.75
#36c aniline carmine ('84) $57.50/$2.75
The note indicates that the 2c rose, perf. 12 is a proof.
Login to Like
this post
That's very interesting.
I thought major catalogue numbers (such as #36) were important to the Scott catalogue? It seems very strange to send one off to hide in the Scott Classic.
If this there were an SG issue I would just assume it was the result of renumbering as SG don't place the same emphasis on major numbers. They will happily interpolate #100a, #100b if they need to add new discoveries between #100 and #101 even if they are completely unrelated to #100.
Similarly, when SG delete individual items from their listings, they are happy to leave gaps in the numbering.
Login to Like
this post
tomiseksj wrote:
"My 2015 Classic Specialized lists.....
#36 as a 2c rose lake $290/$35
#36a is rose pink $235/$35
#36b is carmine $57.50/$2.75
#36c aniline carmine $57.50/$2.75
"
Thanks very much Steve. I shall paste this in somewhere.
Nigelc wrote:
"I thought major catalogue numbers (such as #36) were important to the Scott catalogue? It seems very strange to send one off to hide in the Scott Classic."
This is more than strange, it's totally loopy. This may well explain why I see so many mis-described auction listings. Okay, the bigger dealers and advanced collectors may have access to a 'classic' catalogue, but what about everyone else.
After all, there is a considerable difference in price.
Anyway, thank you both for your replies.
Login to Like
this post
Well it would seem that it makes no difference to some sellers that actually do use a 'Classic' Scott and/or Gibbons catalogue. Unfortunately they don't get it right; and even invent their own 'shades'.
Not one of these is correct:
All but the top one (which is #36c - aniline carmine) are #36b - carmine (slight shade differences).
This of course is the problem with relying on colour 'definitions', as opposed to reference images. But we have discussed this subject numerous times.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"I thought major catalogue numbers (such as #36) were important to the Scott catalogue? It seems very strange to send one off to hide in the Scott Classic.
"
Nigel, it makes perfect sense from a Scott perspective.
When Scott first did this, I contacted them to complain that the major numbers should not be removed from the "standard" catalogs. Scott's reply was that the "standard" catalogs are intended to provide a "general" listings of a country's stamps, not a "specialized" listing. Scott continued that it has always been their policy to list the lowest valued stamp in the "standard" catalogs", and that people needing more information about other varieties would consult "specialty" catalogs for that information.
My reply to Scott was that their comments were a bunch of "BS", and that since this change was made at the same time that they began publishing the "Classic Specialized" catalog that the changes were nothing more than a ploy to get people to buy the new and expensive catalog. Scott did not offer any further replies to my complaint and claim.
I think it is very obvious. Scott is, through their own remarks, expected to create regional catalogs starting with the 2018 edition. There will be many more volumes than the current six. If Scott merely creates regional catalogs by pulling out the countries from the current "standard" catalogs and continues to omit the major catalog numbers from those catalogs, I don't think that would be acceptable. Also, I would want to see all those compressed set listings for newer stamps broken out as single stamp listings that are grouped into sets. I don't see much use for a larger, more expensive, set of regional catalogs that have truncated listings in the classic period, and combined set listings in many countries for stamps issued from 1990 onward. To me it would be like buying a catalog that has pages missing from it.
Login to Like
this post
I'm having difficulty finding an entry for Scott #36 in the Hong Kong section of the cat. I can find #36b but not #36 or #36a. It should be on page 823.
This is a recently bought colour extract from a US dealer, as promoted on this site. I think it may be from 2015.
Can anyone steer me in the right direction please?
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott catalogue query
Hi Ningpo,
It's the same in my 2009 Scott. I guess they updated the numbers some time before then.
There is a reference that a 2c rose, perf 12 "is most likely a proof". I guess this stamp was listed at some time as Scott #36 (and/or #36a) but was subsequently deleted.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott catalogue query
My 2015 Classic Specialized lists #36 as a 2c rose lake, wmk.2, perf. 14 valued at $290 unused and $35 used.
#36a is rose pink $235/$35
#36b is carmine ('84) $57.50/$2.75
#36c aniline carmine ('84) $57.50/$2.75
The note indicates that the 2c rose, perf. 12 is a proof.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott catalogue query
That's very interesting.
I thought major catalogue numbers (such as #36) were important to the Scott catalogue? It seems very strange to send one off to hide in the Scott Classic.
If this there were an SG issue I would just assume it was the result of renumbering as SG don't place the same emphasis on major numbers. They will happily interpolate #100a, #100b if they need to add new discoveries between #100 and #101 even if they are completely unrelated to #100.
Similarly, when SG delete individual items from their listings, they are happy to leave gaps in the numbering.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott catalogue query
tomiseksj wrote:
"My 2015 Classic Specialized lists.....
#36 as a 2c rose lake $290/$35
#36a is rose pink $235/$35
#36b is carmine $57.50/$2.75
#36c aniline carmine $57.50/$2.75
"
Thanks very much Steve. I shall paste this in somewhere.
Nigelc wrote:
"I thought major catalogue numbers (such as #36) were important to the Scott catalogue? It seems very strange to send one off to hide in the Scott Classic."
This is more than strange, it's totally loopy. This may well explain why I see so many mis-described auction listings. Okay, the bigger dealers and advanced collectors may have access to a 'classic' catalogue, but what about everyone else.
After all, there is a considerable difference in price.
Anyway, thank you both for your replies.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott catalogue query
Well it would seem that it makes no difference to some sellers that actually do use a 'Classic' Scott and/or Gibbons catalogue. Unfortunately they don't get it right; and even invent their own 'shades'.
Not one of these is correct:
All but the top one (which is #36c - aniline carmine) are #36b - carmine (slight shade differences).
This of course is the problem with relying on colour 'definitions', as opposed to reference images. But we have discussed this subject numerous times.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
05:39:10pm
re: Scott catalogue query
"I thought major catalogue numbers (such as #36) were important to the Scott catalogue? It seems very strange to send one off to hide in the Scott Classic.
"
Nigel, it makes perfect sense from a Scott perspective.
When Scott first did this, I contacted them to complain that the major numbers should not be removed from the "standard" catalogs. Scott's reply was that the "standard" catalogs are intended to provide a "general" listings of a country's stamps, not a "specialized" listing. Scott continued that it has always been their policy to list the lowest valued stamp in the "standard" catalogs", and that people needing more information about other varieties would consult "specialty" catalogs for that information.
My reply to Scott was that their comments were a bunch of "BS", and that since this change was made at the same time that they began publishing the "Classic Specialized" catalog that the changes were nothing more than a ploy to get people to buy the new and expensive catalog. Scott did not offer any further replies to my complaint and claim.
I think it is very obvious. Scott is, through their own remarks, expected to create regional catalogs starting with the 2018 edition. There will be many more volumes than the current six. If Scott merely creates regional catalogs by pulling out the countries from the current "standard" catalogs and continues to omit the major catalog numbers from those catalogs, I don't think that would be acceptable. Also, I would want to see all those compressed set listings for newer stamps broken out as single stamp listings that are grouped into sets. I don't see much use for a larger, more expensive, set of regional catalogs that have truncated listings in the classic period, and combined set listings in many countries for stamps issued from 1990 onward. To me it would be like buying a catalog that has pages missing from it.
Login to Like
this post