Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
The Scott U.S. Specialized Catalogue terminology in describing the different Types I-IV for #13-16 is, to say the least, frustrating. What are "the shells"? What is "the label"? What does "complete at the top" and "recut at top or bottom or both" mean? Sheesh!
My stamp was in an auction lot of mostly nonphilatelic items, so there was no Scott number given.
Intelligent guesses?
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I'm sure someone here has a cheat sheet for these. Hopefully, they see this and share.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
For me I look at the Scott just for the basic info (general reference) only.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Your stamp is a Scott 15. Type III.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:43:39pm
It's examples like this that I think will change the collecting of US stamps. Many of the early classics require a huge amount of time and patience to figure out. That's ignoring the expense as well but there will always be people with extra money. In my 34 years of teaching I saw a decrease in the amount of patience displayed by the average student and in the 11 years I have been retired I suspect the "problem" is worse. I remember my wife and I spending hours, and then more hours, pouring over a few Washington/Franklin stamps - design types, watermarks, perforations, colour shades, paper types, etc. I really enjoy looking through the early part of my album but I know I would not have the patience to figure them out again. The hobby might exist into the next generations but it will drastically change. Again this is just an opinion!!
By the way, I think I agree with Jack! I'm almost positive it is a #15. Does anyone have a #16 they could show a scan of?
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
S.16 has a recut top outer frame line. See image below:
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:35:49pm
Thanks Jack, that's a wonderful stamp!!! Thanks very much for posting the stamp! Would you mind if I saved a copy of the image? My first page in my US Liberty album is complete, including 10A and 11A. The album leaves out #16. I must check with my local stamp dealer and see if he can keep his eyes open for me. He has found some great US classics for me lately, most requiring more than one payment! Maybe I'll get lucky someday. Thanks again!!
EDIT: If I read Scott's properly other re-cuts exist for this stamp!
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Right, I should have said relative to the discussion of Type IVs, "recut at either top or bottom or both" as the recutting is what distinguishes a Type IV. More Siegel examples below.
All Type IV:
Clearly recut at bottom and not so clearly at the top
Clearly recut at both top and bottom
The original image in question shows no recutting at all. So that is a Type III.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thank you all! I now have a better understanding of recutting, that it's part of the engraving process. If "shells" are those flourishes at the bottom, Scott's could have called them lettuce leaves or something more descriptive; but I suppose they do look a little like oyster shells.
I'm grateful for all who helped me decide where to put this rather homely green stamp in my album. I was ready to use the eeny-meeny-miney-mo technique, when I remembered that my fellow StampoRamites have always come through for me.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Yes, shells are the ornaments at the bottom left and right. See the Brookman diagram below:
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Btw, your stamp (OP, earwaves) is a nice four margin example!
For further reference, my example of S.15 10c green, Type III :
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:12:40am
"From this single plate came all of the Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV stamps."
There are some very interesting and very valuable pairs/blocks of stamps that contain more than one of these types since they show up on particular parts of the sheet. So US #'s 13, 14, 15 and 16 all come from the same sheet, interesting stuff!! For example, a block of 4 containing types I, III and IV lists for $16 000!!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
A block of six containing IV(4), III(1), II(1): Type IVs the two on the left and two in the middle, Type II is on the top right, Type III is bottom right - notice the recuts on the IVs (left to right top to bottom) recut bottom, recut bottom, recut top and bottom, recut top:
Sold for $90K in 2021.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:35:49pm
Thanks for posting his wonderful block of stamps!!!! It also has an amazing red postmark!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Jack and BNG,
Thanks for your later contributions to this thread. The black and white labeled diagram is so helpful. And that "six-pack" is amazing; makes me wonder where 60¢ carried the envelope or package in the 1850s.
Joe
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
05:53:09pm
I am pretty sure the post mark says Cleveland so I think we know where it started. It really is an amazing block of 6!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Try usung "ImageSleuth"
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:04:24pm
No matter how much we ID the image it can not tell us where the stamps were sent.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Use it on the cancel!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I used ImageSleuth see scan of the cancel!
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I have downloaded ImageSleuth and donated to Mr. Levinson. It didn't quite work on my 10-center, but I'm sure it will be helpful on others I'll try it on. Thanks for the tip, 1899!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"It's examples like this that I think will change the collecting of US stamps."
It did for me many years ago. The type differences for that stamp are all on the same plate! Think about that. It is nothing more than the expected variations of steel plates before the Bessemer process was widespread, inks were plant based instead of petroleum based, and inspections were done with limited magnification via ambient sunlight through primitive windows or candlelight. It was an extremely primitive process. I personally consider 13, 14, 15 and 16 to be the same stamp.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:15:35am
"I personally consider 13, 14, 15 and 16 to be the same stamp."
Sounds like a great idea, Scott's should have done the same thing many years ago. This could have been done in many cases. If I were starting this page now I'd probably do the same and with several others as well in several countries. But it's a bit late for me since I have 3 of the four, I don't see me getting #16 any time soon!!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I like the idea of plate varieties all being the same stamp too. Does anyone know the history why Scott gives them different major numbers? Did early stamp collectors just have the time to spend looking for variations? I imagine it being a simpler time with each country only have issued a few stamps each and no modern media to distract them.
Thanks,
Josh
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
The current numbering system in Scott catalogues was instituted in the 96th edition published in 1940. Prior to that time the 10c greens were still divided into four types, but the imperfs were designated as S.35, 35a, 35b, 35c. And the perfed ones were 49, 49a, 49b, 49c and 50 (Type V). I don't know for sure when these numbers were first applied but probably when Scott started using numbers in the 40th edition in 1887.
Why Scott converted to major numbers for stamps that clearly should have been sub varieties and had been treated that way is a mystery to me.
Below is a page of my 1933 Scott catalogue (whole world in one volume that you can hold in one hand) with these stamps:
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:08:09am
"1933 Scott catalogue (whole world in one volume that you can hold in one hand)"
My wife and I started collecting stamps (US, Canada, Poland and Russia) in the early 1970's and we had a 1972 edition of Scott's. It was 3 volumes, brown softish covers and thin paper. If I remember right Vol I was British Commonwealth with US (I think) and two volumes for the rest of the world. I wish I had held onto it!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I'm not sure of your posting, difficult to understand. There is a free 2022 Scott cat. I would expect this would be a cat. from the 1970s!
This ad is on SOR
Here's the ad "Free 2022 Scott Specialized Catalogue of United States Stamps & Covers for postage costs".
Hope this help you out!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks for all the amazing info Jack!
-Ari
Login to Like
this post
In the 1905 Scott catalog there is one catalog number for the 10c imperf stamp. One.
After 50 years, still just one catalog number.
Enter Stanley Bryan Ashbrook
Ashbrook was a world-renowned expert on the stamps and postal history of the classic United States issues. He produced a large body of original research which he published in many journals.
His most celebrated work was the two-volume The United States One Cent Stamp of 1851-57, published in 1938. Ashbrook also wrote about the 5-cent and 10-cent 1847 and 1869 issues and the 10-cent 1855-57 issue. His book, The United States Ten Cent Stamp of 1855-57 (1936) received the Crawford Medal in 1937.
(Source: APS web site Hall of Fame page)
Ashbrook is personally responsible for many of the early type differences becoming major catalog numbers.
In the Scott 2008 Specialized Catalogue of United States Stamps & Covers, on page 10, James E. Kloetzel, Scott Catalog Editor wrote: "It has been theorized that Ashbrook originated the many different types of the 1c and 10c stamps for catalogue listing partly in order to sell more stamps, but far be it for me to comment on that theory."
I don't mind commenting on that theory!
The insane varieties in pre Civil War stamps was nothing more than a grift.
Why were stamps from the same plate visibly different before the Civil War?
The answer is simple. Combine 1860 metallurgy (before Bessemer steel) and 1860 mechanization (mostly hand-cranked), and the result will not be very uniform. Throw in 1860 illumination (sunlight and gaslight) and 1860 magnification to inspect the proofs, plus 1860 printing ink compounds (animal and vegetable matter) and you have a very imprecise process. Applying post WWI technology (Bessemer steel, steam-powered presses, incandescent light, improved magnification, and petroleum based inks) to evaluate pre-Civil War stamps is stupid. The equivalent would be to employ electron microscopes and computer technology to differentiate into four or five categories the over ONE BILLION 2c Columbians issued in 1893. Who would benefit from such an arbitrary categorization? Perhaps a dealer with a large supply of otherwise common stamps to sell?
I smell a rat, and his name is Stanley Ashbrook!
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@larsdog
Seems like you've researched this!
Why not write a letter to Scott Cat.?
Be an adult don't include your childress remark from the last sentence of your recent posting!
Login to Like
this post
"Be an adult don't include your childress remark from the last sentence of your recent posting!"
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
12:00:15pm
I'm going to make a suggestion that probably will not "go over" very well and probably should be ignored by the powers that be. What if we had the choice whether to either "like" or "dislike" a post? I'm only half serious about this because it could result in bad feelings but it might be worth discussion! What do the rest of you think? I'm not saying we should do it but it might be worth thinking about! Or maybe not!!!
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I'm going to make a suggestion that prob ...
It's been brought up before. I'm against it. Could promote a "ganging up" or "piling on" mentality. If you like something, like it; if not, ignore and move on. In cases like this one, grab the popcorn! 
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
01:25:04pm
"If you like something, like it; if not, ignore and move on. In cases like this one, grab the popcorn!"
I only brought it up as something to discuss, it's probably a really bad idea. There are times when I've commented on things I really should have ignored. Sometimes a "dislike" is less harmless than an actual response!!
Login to Like
this post
I, for one, appreciate the informative history of the making of Scott's early numbering system. I know the name Ashcroft, but not the man's association with Scott.
I also appreciate the theory behind the content, and it sounds quite reasonable: creating artificially smaller piles of some stamps.
Scott has always had a clumsy grasp of consistency, and all these major numbers from a single (or even sets of) plate that shows no more than the inconstant nature of plate-making in the days when they were hand-made.
And if your theory is correct, rat is just another name for grifter or self-serving editor. Obviously, Stanley didn't have the same stock of German material as the folks who brought us Michel.
David
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"Seems like you've researched this!"
Yes, I have, and I have researched many other facets of my hobby. That's part of the fascination for me.
"Why not write a letter to Scott Cat.?"
Why in the world would I do something that futile?
"Be an adult don't include your childress remark from the last sentence of your recent posting!"
I'm afraid I don't know what a "childress remark" is. My dictionary goes from child-resistant to childs play. No listing for childress. I assume it was intended as an insult since you said to be an adult. I don't know what is improper about calling Ashbrook out for being a grifter. That is my opinion, and I am not the only one with that opinion. If you don't understand the phrase "I smell a rat" that's on you, not me.
If you are trying to bait me with name calling, I really don't have the patience to deal with that.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I've written to Scott Cat. in the past and working on one now.
It's only futile if you don't write, give it a try, you never know!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Here's some food for thought:
1928 - Scott Specialized 5th Edition - price $2.00 = 100 stamps or 10 gallons of gas or 6 gallons of milk
Major catalog numbers for 1851-57 series = 7*
That includes 3 types for 1c - really should be one
* excluding imperf listing for 24c, 30c and 90c that turned out to be proofs
Major catalog numbers for 1857-61 series = 15
That includes 3 types for 1c - really should be two
Three different colors for 5c Type I - really should be one
Missing type difference for 12c - I had been including Type II as a minor but it was finally elevated between 2008 and 2016
So Scott had 22 major catalog numbers. I think it should have been 18. But at least we are in the ballpark.
2016 - Scott Specialized 94th Edition - price $124.99 = 255 stamps or 58 gallons of gas or 39 gallons of milk
Major catalog numbers for 1851-57 series = 20
Major catalog numbers for 1857-61 series = 27
So we went from a total of 22 to a total of 47.
I simply choose not to accept that. And I'm free to do as I please with my own collection. Being able to create my own pages where needed has been liberating. Nice hobby!
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Well, at least I got to have a haircut in the Penny Lane barber shop.
23 Dec 2024
05:16:29pm
The Scott U.S. Specialized Catalogue terminology in describing the different Types I-IV for #13-16 is, to say the least, frustrating. What are "the shells"? What is "the label"? What does "complete at the top" and "recut at top or bottom or both" mean? Sheesh!
My stamp was in an auction lot of mostly nonphilatelic items, so there was no Scott number given.
Intelligent guesses?
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
06:05:02pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I'm sure someone here has a cheat sheet for these. Hopefully, they see this and share.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
For me I look at the Scott just for the basic info (general reference) only.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Your stamp is a Scott 15. Type III.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
23 Dec 2024
09:43:39pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
It's examples like this that I think will change the collecting of US stamps. Many of the early classics require a huge amount of time and patience to figure out. That's ignoring the expense as well but there will always be people with extra money. In my 34 years of teaching I saw a decrease in the amount of patience displayed by the average student and in the 11 years I have been retired I suspect the "problem" is worse. I remember my wife and I spending hours, and then more hours, pouring over a few Washington/Franklin stamps - design types, watermarks, perforations, colour shades, paper types, etc. I really enjoy looking through the early part of my album but I know I would not have the patience to figure them out again. The hobby might exist into the next generations but it will drastically change. Again this is just an opinion!!
By the way, I think I agree with Jack! I'm almost positive it is a #15. Does anyone have a #16 they could show a scan of?
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
S.16 has a recut top outer frame line. See image below:
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
23 Dec 2024
10:35:49pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Thanks Jack, that's a wonderful stamp!!! Thanks very much for posting the stamp! Would you mind if I saved a copy of the image? My first page in my US Liberty album is complete, including 10A and 11A. The album leaves out #16. I must check with my local stamp dealer and see if he can keep his eyes open for me. He has found some great US classics for me lately, most requiring more than one payment! Maybe I'll get lucky someday. Thanks again!!
EDIT: If I read Scott's properly other re-cuts exist for this stamp!
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Right, I should have said relative to the discussion of Type IVs, "recut at either top or bottom or both" as the recutting is what distinguishes a Type IV. More Siegel examples below.
All Type IV:
Clearly recut at bottom and not so clearly at the top
Clearly recut at both top and bottom
The original image in question shows no recutting at all. So that is a Type III.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Well, at least I got to have a haircut in the Penny Lane barber shop.
24 Dec 2024
07:47:04am
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Thank you all! I now have a better understanding of recutting, that it's part of the engraving process. If "shells" are those flourishes at the bottom, Scott's could have called them lettuce leaves or something more descriptive; but I suppose they do look a little like oyster shells.
I'm grateful for all who helped me decide where to put this rather homely green stamp in my album. I was ready to use the eeny-meeny-miney-mo technique, when I remembered that my fellow StampoRamites have always come through for me.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Yes, shells are the ornaments at the bottom left and right. See the Brookman diagram below:
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Btw, your stamp (OP, earwaves) is a nice four margin example!
For further reference, my example of S.15 10c green, Type III :
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
24 Dec 2024
11:12:40am
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
"From this single plate came all of the Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV stamps."
There are some very interesting and very valuable pairs/blocks of stamps that contain more than one of these types since they show up on particular parts of the sheet. So US #'s 13, 14, 15 and 16 all come from the same sheet, interesting stuff!! For example, a block of 4 containing types I, III and IV lists for $16 000!!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
A block of six containing IV(4), III(1), II(1): Type IVs the two on the left and two in the middle, Type II is on the top right, Type III is bottom right - notice the recuts on the IVs (left to right top to bottom) recut bottom, recut bottom, recut top and bottom, recut top:
Sold for $90K in 2021.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
24 Dec 2024
08:35:49pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Thanks for posting his wonderful block of stamps!!!! It also has an amazing red postmark!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Well, at least I got to have a haircut in the Penny Lane barber shop.
26 Dec 2024
05:07:11pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Jack and BNG,
Thanks for your later contributions to this thread. The black and white labeled diagram is so helpful. And that "six-pack" is amazing; makes me wonder where 60¢ carried the envelope or package in the 1850s.
Joe
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
26 Dec 2024
05:53:09pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I am pretty sure the post mark says Cleveland so I think we know where it started. It really is an amazing block of 6!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Try usung "ImageSleuth"
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
26 Dec 2024
09:04:24pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
No matter how much we ID the image it can not tell us where the stamps were sent.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Use it on the cancel!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I used ImageSleuth see scan of the cancel!
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Well, at least I got to have a haircut in the Penny Lane barber shop.
29 Dec 2024
11:25:04am
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I have downloaded ImageSleuth and donated to Mr. Levinson. It didn't quite work on my 10-center, but I'm sure it will be helpful on others I'll try it on. Thanks for the tip, 1899!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
"It's examples like this that I think will change the collecting of US stamps."
It did for me many years ago. The type differences for that stamp are all on the same plate! Think about that. It is nothing more than the expected variations of steel plates before the Bessemer process was widespread, inks were plant based instead of petroleum based, and inspections were done with limited magnification via ambient sunlight through primitive windows or candlelight. It was an extremely primitive process. I personally consider 13, 14, 15 and 16 to be the same stamp.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
03 Jan 2025
08:15:35am
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
"I personally consider 13, 14, 15 and 16 to be the same stamp."
Sounds like a great idea, Scott's should have done the same thing many years ago. This could have been done in many cases. If I were starting this page now I'd probably do the same and with several others as well in several countries. But it's a bit late for me since I have 3 of the four, I don't see me getting #16 any time soon!!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I like the idea of plate varieties all being the same stamp too. Does anyone know the history why Scott gives them different major numbers? Did early stamp collectors just have the time to spend looking for variations? I imagine it being a simpler time with each country only have issued a few stamps each and no modern media to distract them.
Thanks,
Josh
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
The current numbering system in Scott catalogues was instituted in the 96th edition published in 1940. Prior to that time the 10c greens were still divided into four types, but the imperfs were designated as S.35, 35a, 35b, 35c. And the perfed ones were 49, 49a, 49b, 49c and 50 (Type V). I don't know for sure when these numbers were first applied but probably when Scott started using numbers in the 40th edition in 1887.
Why Scott converted to major numbers for stamps that clearly should have been sub varieties and had been treated that way is a mystery to me.
Below is a page of my 1933 Scott catalogue (whole world in one volume that you can hold in one hand) with these stamps:
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
03 Jan 2025
10:08:09am
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
"1933 Scott catalogue (whole world in one volume that you can hold in one hand)"
My wife and I started collecting stamps (US, Canada, Poland and Russia) in the early 1970's and we had a 1972 edition of Scott's. It was 3 volumes, brown softish covers and thin paper. If I remember right Vol I was British Commonwealth with US (I think) and two volumes for the rest of the world. I wish I had held onto it!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I'm not sure of your posting, difficult to understand. There is a free 2022 Scott cat. I would expect this would be a cat. from the 1970s!
This ad is on SOR
Here's the ad "Free 2022 Scott Specialized Catalogue of United States Stamps & Covers for postage costs".
Hope this help you out!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Thanks for all the amazing info Jack!
-Ari
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
In the 1905 Scott catalog there is one catalog number for the 10c imperf stamp. One.
After 50 years, still just one catalog number.
Enter Stanley Bryan Ashbrook
Ashbrook was a world-renowned expert on the stamps and postal history of the classic United States issues. He produced a large body of original research which he published in many journals.
His most celebrated work was the two-volume The United States One Cent Stamp of 1851-57, published in 1938. Ashbrook also wrote about the 5-cent and 10-cent 1847 and 1869 issues and the 10-cent 1855-57 issue. His book, The United States Ten Cent Stamp of 1855-57 (1936) received the Crawford Medal in 1937.
(Source: APS web site Hall of Fame page)
Ashbrook is personally responsible for many of the early type differences becoming major catalog numbers.
In the Scott 2008 Specialized Catalogue of United States Stamps & Covers, on page 10, James E. Kloetzel, Scott Catalog Editor wrote: "It has been theorized that Ashbrook originated the many different types of the 1c and 10c stamps for catalogue listing partly in order to sell more stamps, but far be it for me to comment on that theory."
I don't mind commenting on that theory!
The insane varieties in pre Civil War stamps was nothing more than a grift.
Why were stamps from the same plate visibly different before the Civil War?
The answer is simple. Combine 1860 metallurgy (before Bessemer steel) and 1860 mechanization (mostly hand-cranked), and the result will not be very uniform. Throw in 1860 illumination (sunlight and gaslight) and 1860 magnification to inspect the proofs, plus 1860 printing ink compounds (animal and vegetable matter) and you have a very imprecise process. Applying post WWI technology (Bessemer steel, steam-powered presses, incandescent light, improved magnification, and petroleum based inks) to evaluate pre-Civil War stamps is stupid. The equivalent would be to employ electron microscopes and computer technology to differentiate into four or five categories the over ONE BILLION 2c Columbians issued in 1893. Who would benefit from such an arbitrary categorization? Perhaps a dealer with a large supply of otherwise common stamps to sell?
I smell a rat, and his name is Stanley Ashbrook!
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
@larsdog
Seems like you've researched this!
Why not write a letter to Scott Cat.?
Be an adult don't include your childress remark from the last sentence of your recent posting!
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
"Be an adult don't include your childress remark from the last sentence of your recent posting!"
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
19 Jan 2025
12:00:15pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I'm going to make a suggestion that probably will not "go over" very well and probably should be ignored by the powers that be. What if we had the choice whether to either "like" or "dislike" a post? I'm only half serious about this because it could result in bad feelings but it might be worth discussion! What do the rest of you think? I'm not saying we should do it but it might be worth thinking about! Or maybe not!!!
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I'm going to make a suggestion that prob ...
It's been brought up before. I'm against it. Could promote a "ganging up" or "piling on" mentality. If you like something, like it; if not, ignore and move on. In cases like this one, grab the popcorn!
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Back when I had a bunch! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
19 Jan 2025
01:25:04pm
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
"If you like something, like it; if not, ignore and move on. In cases like this one, grab the popcorn!"
I only brought it up as something to discuss, it's probably a really bad idea. There are times when I've commented on things I really should have ignored. Sometimes a "dislike" is less harmless than an actual response!!
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I, for one, appreciate the informative history of the making of Scott's early numbering system. I know the name Ashcroft, but not the man's association with Scott.
I also appreciate the theory behind the content, and it sounds quite reasonable: creating artificially smaller piles of some stamps.
Scott has always had a clumsy grasp of consistency, and all these major numbers from a single (or even sets of) plate that shows no more than the inconstant nature of plate-making in the days when they were hand-made.
And if your theory is correct, rat is just another name for grifter or self-serving editor. Obviously, Stanley didn't have the same stock of German material as the folks who brought us Michel.
David
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
"Seems like you've researched this!"
Yes, I have, and I have researched many other facets of my hobby. That's part of the fascination for me.
"Why not write a letter to Scott Cat.?"
Why in the world would I do something that futile?
"Be an adult don't include your childress remark from the last sentence of your recent posting!"
I'm afraid I don't know what a "childress remark" is. My dictionary goes from child-resistant to childs play. No listing for childress. I assume it was intended as an insult since you said to be an adult. I don't know what is improper about calling Ashbrook out for being a grifter. That is my opinion, and I am not the only one with that opinion. If you don't understand the phrase "I smell a rat" that's on you, not me.
If you are trying to bait me with name calling, I really don't have the patience to deal with that.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
I've written to Scott Cat. in the past and working on one now.
It's only futile if you don't write, give it a try, you never know!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #13? 14? 15? 16? Arrgggh!
Here's some food for thought:
1928 - Scott Specialized 5th Edition - price $2.00 = 100 stamps or 10 gallons of gas or 6 gallons of milk
Major catalog numbers for 1851-57 series = 7*
That includes 3 types for 1c - really should be one
* excluding imperf listing for 24c, 30c and 90c that turned out to be proofs
Major catalog numbers for 1857-61 series = 15
That includes 3 types for 1c - really should be two
Three different colors for 5c Type I - really should be one
Missing type difference for 12c - I had been including Type II as a minor but it was finally elevated between 2008 and 2016
So Scott had 22 major catalog numbers. I think it should have been 18. But at least we are in the ballpark.
2016 - Scott Specialized 94th Edition - price $124.99 = 255 stamps or 58 gallons of gas or 39 gallons of milk
Major catalog numbers for 1851-57 series = 20
Major catalog numbers for 1857-61 series = 27
So we went from a total of 22 to a total of 47.
I simply choose not to accept that. And I'm free to do as I please with my own collection. Being able to create my own pages where needed has been liberating. Nice hobby!
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.