Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
Are you saying that you use a Stanley Gibbons catalogue, or that you use Poppe Stamps to identify stamps in your collection or ones that you'd like to add to it?
If you're using Poppe Stamps as your only reference, you really aren't doing "research". Just having a catalogue number tells you nothing about a stamp except the fact that other stamps were issued before or after it was issued, or that someone decided at some point that a stamp is similar enough to other stamps to be listed near them. Stamp Catalogues identify differences between stamps based on design changes, shade and colour varieties, perforation varieties, different watermarks, paper types, printing methods, and usage. Poppe Stamps offers nothing except catalogue numbers and images.
Poppe Stamps is an online stamp shop, and they do a good job of it, although I find their prices high. You need a real catalogue, regardless of what catalogue that is.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
For collectors in the US, Scott is the most convenient, unless you're heavily specializing in Great Britain / Commonwealth, and can actually see the difference between "black" and "intense black". 
No comprehensive online catalog using Scott numbers, though.
Login to Like
this post
Catalogues and catalogue numbers, has and is a real issue for me. As I use USA ebay to sell and 95% of my sales are in Australia it makes for a very unusual situation.
Scott's catalogue users only described stamps by there catalogue numbers. I do not own a Scott's or a Micheal's and in Australia we even spell catalogue differently. After much thought about this issue I decided to describe my stamps by the year and or the name of the stamp and by watermark and or perforations and or perfins and a image to create a universal way for people from many countries to understand which stamp I am referring to, as I only sell and show Australian stamps.
But I have 33 different Australian stamp catalogues and I would have 7 different catalogue numbers after most stamps and then I would also need Scott's and Micheal's numbers as well being a total of 9 numbers after most stamps to get that universal flavour.
I will never learn about USA and Canada stamps, on stamp forums because all I see is a Scott's number. It is a very narrow way of describing a stamp by only using one (catalog) number in a universal world that the computer creates. How many people that use Scott's numbers only think in a non universal manner or even realise this situation?
It is a most interesting issue. KG5
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
The problem for me and for most of us, I would think, is the cost of the catalogs. I use a Scotts 2007 that I bought from a guy at our local stamp club at a much reduced rate, and I use an Australasian Stamp Catalog from 2007 also which is very good and provides a better coverage for Australian stamps than Scott does, but doesn't help with communication with anyone but Australian collectors in Australia. 
Regards ... Tim
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I never gave it a second thought that someone from USA or Canada etc would not understand Stanley Gibbons numbers. It was a real shock to the system when I realised that others had no idea what my numbers meant.
Login to Like
this post
Stamp Cataloguers:
Indeed, it is a most interesting issue and not devoid of humour either.
Because I use Scott stamp numbers, KG5, with uncanny and astonishing accuracy, has diagnosed my malady as thinking in a non-universal manner without my even knowing that I am doing so. The horror of it all is that I use other stamp catalogue numbers from time to time; and am therefore afflicted with thinking in a
multi-non-universal manner, but now I know that I know that I do so.
In an unprecedented occurrence, I'm going to support the advice of "Bobstamp", i.e. "You need a real catalogue…etc."
The user gets more than numbers from a stamp catalogue but (there is always a "but") if "CEODAN" has been collecting for many years using Stanley Gibbons stamp numbers, it is my opinion that he is not at any disadvantage to continue doing so, and to continue enjoying his hobby in his own manner.
CEODAN, the grass may look greener on the other side of the fence, but that may be because it's always raining over there.
John Derry
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
The answer to the original question, are you at a disadvantage, depends on what you are trying to do and who you are trying to communicate with.
Bear in mind that there are many catalogues in use around the world, not just Scott and SG. If you want to communicate the identification of a particular stamp, then either
(a) both you and your partner need to have a catalogue in common, in which you can use numbers, or
(b) you use descriptive listings, i.e., you need to list as many of the following as you need to identify a stamp uniquely: country, year, series, face value, description, variety.
Bear in mind that catalogue numbers can change from edition to edition. This only affects a tiny minority of cases, but it can happen. Also, the most recent stamps will not be in your catalogue anyway. For such reasons, I favour descriptive listings rather than catalogue numbers anyway.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Hi CEODAN
I do not think you stamp numbering is an issue but being on a USA forum a Scott's catalogue is going to be great to help you understand some of the stamp issues that are referred to here.
For stamp catalogues it is totally up to the collector. It is a very personal thing especially what numbers you use in your stamping books.
I like to start with a catalogue that has a colour image of every stamp the catalogue deals with before stepping up into the more technical explanation for varieties etc.
The way I have set out Australia KGV Stamps Revealed is a standard I would like to see more stamp catalogue makers use. Their is a colour image of the stamp with reference to perforations, watermarks, dies and shades.
Always Happy Stamping. KG5
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Stamporama is a "U.S.A. forum"? I kinda think not. The founder, Jerry Abern, was an American, but from the beginning it has been an international organization. Our web host, Roy Lingen, is a Canadian and was the creator of this web site. The volunteer committee has been a virtual United Nations. Among the first dealers in our auction were and still are two Canadians, Liz Jones and Lee Payette. Off the top of my head, I can recall members from India, the Philippines, Denmark, France, England, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa. One of the things I have always appreciated about Stamporama is that it is not tied to any one country, and in fact is remarkably free of national identity.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Hi Bob,
A couple of years ago I did a count of the different countries in which our members live and it totaled 66.
Regards ... Tim.
Login to Like
this post
That was nice to know. Thank you!
To Aussies you all look the same to us.
Login to Like
this post
Drinking too much Fosters again I see.
Login to Like
this post
looks like two intertwined threads here: nationality and catalogues
SOR is blessed with an international membership, as Bob noted. Our volunteer committee of 7 has 4 living in the US (1 a displace Aussie who we decided to keep), a Canadian, a Nederlander, and an Indian. Luckily for me, they all speak English, even the Aussie. And we have a great international membership participating in discussions and auctions. Jerry, an American, had a great vision indeed, and he saw past our own boundaries in a fabulous. Would that all Americans were as keen-sighted, accommodating, and welcoming. Borders to Jerry just meant different kinds of stamps were likely to be sighted.
As to catalogues, we Americans tend to use Scott more often than not. And, for genereal US, it's the most comprehensive. For rest of the world, and for many other specialty areas, there are many other, better catalogues.
while I use Scott primarily, when I need specific German questions, I look at Michel, and for my seals, I use Green's and Mosbaugh and Hixon's SCP.
I think this discussion points to the advantage of describing stamps with their content and year as well as their catalogue number.
David
Login to Like
this post
01:49:52pm
I would also like to point out that I have found many mis-described stamps on Poppe's website. I'm sure it is unintentional and they always fix it when I let them know.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks so much to all of you,it is obvious that you represent much experience and knowledge with the world of stamp collecting. I have never used a real catalog and now realize that I am missing out on some of the information available. I recently was contacted by a forum member interested in trading, but because he used Scott and I used Gibbons we we unable to communicate. I understand that many of you collect specific areas of interest, I'm not quite as sophisticated, I collect just about anything I come across and have been doing so for 60 years.With new friendship I believe this hobby will take me to new directions.
Dan
Login to Like
this post
Dan, nice to learn a little bit more about you, too.
There are many worldwide collectors among us, cherished as much as the specialists. We both contribute.
Yes, sometimes different catalogues can be a problem, but by specifying the year and design, it's easy to trade even without catalogues or without the same reference points.
David
Login to Like
this post
Catalogues are one of my perpetual challenges.
In the broadest sense, I use Scott for worldwide and Gibbons for anything BC related. For the most part, though, I deal with a seller on eBay who buys the Scott catalogues and "tears them apart" and sells the pages for individual countries... that way I can buy just the pages from countries I need (about 12, currently), not an entire set of catalogues.
Beyond that, in my areas of specialization, I use whatever the most prominent "local" catalogue is. For Sweden, Facit; for Norway, NK and HK; for Denmark AFA; for Switzerland Zumstein, and so forth. Whereas that can be expensive, I'd rather "drop the bucks" on specialized literature than on a pile of Scott catalogues, 90% of which I will NEVER use.
But then, I'm not a worldwide collector.
~Peter
Login to Like
this post
I've been hanging around Stampboards.com lately and they have a strong Gibbons bias. But as the forum was started by an Australian and I think the majority of the users there are Australian it makes sense.
I agree with the sentiment that we need to use more than the catalogue number to communicate with our fellow collectors, especially internationally. Makes the conversation richer, in my opinion.
I use Scott only because that's what I have access to, and that's what Canadian dealers use. But I use Facit for my Scandinavian stamps (2000 version -- it's time to upgrade!)
I have a problem with Scott in that I hate most of their prefixes. I'd rather airmails and semi-postals were just included in the main catalogue in chronological order. It causes much mental anguish deciding whether to sort my stamps in chronological order by date of issue (preferred) or catalogue number order. Sigh...
Mark
PS -- Scott just launched an iPad / iPhone app. At first glance it looks promising although I still don't think they considered how collectors use the catalogue. A checklist feature is sadly missing.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I'd heard about a Scott catalogue app, and now I"ve downloaded it. Thanks for mentioning it, Mark. Now, before I plunk down $29.99, is it worth it? I don't care about a checklist, but ease of use is paramount. Some philatelic — philadigital? — publications have been horrible. Linn's StampNews is just about unusable. If the Scott catalogues are actually friendly, I'm in for sure. Anybody tried one?
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Yes, thanks Mark for sharing this news. I wasn't expecting a Scott catalog for the iphone, but I think the concept is great. I like Bob raced to have a look to see what they had done. In poking around the Apple App Store, I accidentally downloaded the free version, which doesn't actually let you do anything, it is just for you to have a general look. What they have won't really help me. I am mostly a British Commonwealth collector, with a large side interest in US covers prior to 1900. I'll wait to see the rest of the catalog come out. There are a lot of countries missing that I'm interested in, but I'm sure that they will get there with them. They are also missing anything later than 1950 or there abouts. I have a Scott 2007 and so I miss not having the more current stamps in the catalog, but am not prepared to pay the $600 for a new edition. I do like the way you can pick and choose so that you can pay $29.99 for the section that you are interested in.
Regards ... Tim.
Login to Like
this post
Mark, Scott does have semi-postal and airmail stamps in the main postage listings. They also have those under separate B and C categories. A major inconsistency that needs to be handled one way or the other. Will they? Not until I buy Scott, I'm afraid.
Login to Like
this post
@Michael: They do? That's news to me. Maybe it's time to upgrade my catalogues since they didn't put airmails and semi postals in the regular listings in 1999!
Regarding the iPhone / iPad app: there's a deeper discussion of the app on the Delphi boards. It looks like they will offer app versions in time with the release of each 2013 volume. Also, a nice "home team" article about the app in the latest Linns.
two discussions from other forums:
http://www.stampcommunity.org/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=23208&
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=stamps&nav=messages&msg=45121.14&prettyurl=%2Fstamps%2Fmessages%3Fmsg%3D45121%2E14
The delphi forum seems to be monitored by Scott.
I need to upgrade my catalogues and the app shows promise, but I think I'll go for a set of 2011's on paper and then move to electronic for the 2021 set. I'm with Bob here -- most philelectronic publications are unusable. It'll take them a while to figure it out.
PS -- I just have to ask: Have you ever seen a more unreadable discussion forum than the delphi forums? I mean, why don't you cram a few more ads in there?!?!
(Modified by Moderator on 2012-03-06 19:55:04)
Login to Like
this post
Mark, Scott has had this inconsistency for decades. Check Italy as one example of this that's been around for a long time. It'll be in your 1999, along with many other countries.
Login to Like
this post
Scott has only placed a handful of airmails and semis in the main numbering sequence, and only cases where a set includes both regular postage and the special types.
My guess is that it seemed like a good idea for a couple years, but was then maddening since stamps of a particular function are scattered across different sections, and so they stopped. But by then it was too much trouble to reassign numbers, and so they've just preserved this bit of inconsistency.
Incidentally, I have a copy of the 1940 Scott catalogue, which is actually the one where they first introduced the prefixes for the different categories, and the introduction has a few paragraphs discussing their new system. (And yes, the 1940 cat groups Italian semis in mixed sets with regular postage, same as today.)
Login to Like
this post
Stan, with the older material, it is relatively small, but with modern material there is much more of the sets being combined under the regular postage section..
Login to Like
this post
Following up on the brief comments about the Scott iPad apps, I've purchased the complete Classic (1840-1940) catalogue. I'm really impressed, and so were several members of my stamp club at last night's meeting, even the most "Luditic" of the Luddites. Even our club treasurer, who considers all Apple products to be Rotten Apples, had not a negative comment to make.
The app isn't perfect — what app is?. There's no provision for a checklist, which I believe someone else here commented on, and the search engine is clunky and useful only if you already know the Scott catalogue number.
I would buy the U.S. Specialized catalogue right now if I could afford it.
I'll post more later, probably in the thread that Rodolfo has started. If you have questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Cool. Looking forward to your review Bob. I'm glad you're happy with the catalogue -- that sounds promising.
Now I need to find the thread you are referring to.
Mark
Login to Like
this post
I've posted comments about my iPad/Scott Classic catalogue experience to this discussion: "Philatelic Catalogues and Literature Discussion : Scott for iPad and iPhone are ready!" Click on this link:
http://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=20&id=5623#33314.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
04:14:49pm
I am going to throw a monkey wrench into this thread. I am well aware that Scott is considered the standard catalogue for the US market, and that Stanley Gibbons is the UK standard. However even though we do predominantly use Scott numbers in Canada, I was told that the Uni-trade catalogue is the Canadian standard. It is the only catalogue that I see for sale by Canada Post and I frequently see it sold by just about every Canadian vendor I have looked at.
To muddy it up a bit more, I have started using StampManage for cataloging my stamps (I have the benefit of starting from scratch here so is no big issue to use it for me) and the software (designed in Canada) has the Scott numbers already in the system, but also data entry fields for Stanley and Michael as well as a blank field for Other, which I will be using for my Uni-trade numbers.
Login to Like
this post
Don't believe everything you are told, Ross, keep an open mind, especially so in the world of "collectables". Otherwise, you will be told what you want to hear. Whatever stamp catalogue you're using and are happy with is the standard.
No one has ever suggested to me that Uni-trade was the standard catalogue for Canadian stamps until I read your comments. Canada Post is a commercial business trying to keep its head above water; it is not an authority on stamp catalogues.
Welcome back to stamp collecting. Look for the enjoyment, not the certainties (as there are none).
Respectfully,
John Derry
Login to Like
this post
04:48:18pm
From DRYER
"Canada Post is a commercial business trying to keep its head above water"
And here I thought Canada Post was a taxpayer funded cash sink 
Login to Like
this post
The 2008 Uni-Trade I have uses Scott numbers, so what's the diff?
Roger
Login to Like
this post
The Unitrade Catalog is more of a specialized Canadian Catalog than what you will find listed in Scott. Unitrade does use the Scott numbering system. Unitrade values are higher than Scott values in what I have always considered is similar in nature to the Harris, Brookman and Mystic catalogs (which also use the Scott Numbering system).
Login to Like
this post
Hi All
I use both Gibbon's and Scott's .Both have their short comings if you took idea's from them both you may get a decent catalogue(this is for their Stamps of the World catalogues)
I collect PNG and for some inexplicable Scott's is listing sets with one price ,it doesn't matter if its a two,four ,six stamp set ,It wouldn't be to bad if the stamps in the set have the same face value but when they range from 5t to 10K that's a big difference.How can anyone possibly price a stamp it's ridiculous.
They are both guilty of lumping stamps issued in different years under one listing and not the year they was printed .It's so frustrating at times.
It wouldn't take much to fix and it would only have to be done the once .
I think I had this gripe on another thread .I'll get off my soapbox now and retire.
Brian
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I think just about everyone agrees with you on the set values for stamps. Scott does this, because they say that the stamps are rarely offered as singles. hey just want to save space in the catalogs, if you ask me.
I do not agree with you that the stamps from sets should be listed in the year they were issued. I like the sets to be listed together. Makes it easier to find the stamps.
Login to Like
this post
I use Gibbons as Scott isn´t available in Denmark. And I agree with Brian, they should list the stamps under the year they were issued and not in one big set from when the first was issued. It doesn´t make sense you have to find a 2004 stamp under a 1933 heading. And in my book it doesn´t make it easier to find. 
Login to Like
this post
I only really have access to SG as well, but contrary to the opinions above, I like the fact that it lists a stamp under the year when the series started to be issued. I normally classify a stamp the same way.
In fact, one of my complaints is that SG does not do that consistently. E.g., it lists surcharges in the year of surcharge rather than the year of the original stamp, which makes it a pain because I have to scour the catalogue to find the surcharges. I can understand the reason behind it, but it's very annoying.
I guess it depends on what and how you collect. If you like to organize your collection by country and date of issue, you would prefer the catalogue to match. I collect worldwide definitive sets, and I hate it when the catalogue breaks sets up.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
07:35:40pm
The way to deal with his "contraversy" is to not be a slave to the catalog.
The absolutely greatest recent philatelic invention is/are the micro-printed dates in the margins or along the edges of so many country's stamps. They assist in arranging stamps by issue date and if some group of stamps looks like an extended series spread over several years, and you want to mount them all on the same page, remember it is your collection.
Login to Like
this post
Unfortunately as an American I'm pretty much forced to use the Scott Specialized as I only really collect in quality USA issues. I have the 2007 WW specialized catalog I use for identifying issues I may come across to sell or give to a dear friend who collects WW. It works well for my type of collecting............I've only seen one SG catalog in my life and I found it difficult to understand.
Perry
Login to Like
this post
I have so many catalogs it's crazy. Never thought about it until I seen this thread. I have a full set of 2000 Scott laying on the floor and a full set of 2006 Scott That I use. I purchased a 2011 when it came out volume 1 AB so I could have up to date prices for Australia. Have a Stanley Gibbons Australia, Papua, Norfolk Island, Australian States and a new Stanley Gibbons Great Britain Concise, and a few more so out of date can't use them.
All these stamp catalogs, 30 or so stamp albums 10 or so stock books, auction catalogs makes my stamp room a MESS! I forgot the 5 cover albums.
I wouldn't change a thing.
Login to Like
this post
09:37:40pm
Tooler, you fit perfectly in the Stamporama world!
Login to Like
this post
I use Scott catalogs primarily because I have used Bill Steiner's Stamp Album Web pages for many years. As his pages are arranged in Scott catalog order, I see no need for me to invest in others. My catalog library consists of a complete set (7 vols.) of 2001 Scott WW and US Specialized catalogs, 2005 US Specialized on CD, and 2007 Classic Specialized catalog both in print and CD. I bought the 2001 WW/US series and the 2005 US Specialized CD new. When I downsized my WW collection to the Classics, I purchased the 2007 Classic Specialized book and CD (both used) in 2011 for a fraction of what the new ones cost. As I'm not overly concerned with catalog values, they serve me well for identifying stamp issues.
I dare say that after deciding to go with the British Empire classics, I have been sorely tempted to obtain a Gibbons British Empire Classics catalog, which I may well do. Seems if I'm collecting British stuff, I may as well have a real British catalog...
Regards,
Len
Login to Like
this post
Len, the Gibbons Commonwealth & Empire Stamps is a great catalog. It used to cover from 1840 into the 1980s (1983 if my memory is right). When they reissued the catalog in 2008, the poor paper and photos were replaced by nice, glossy paper and color photos. The only other thing is that the catalog is now closed into a "classic"-type catalog, covering 1840 to 1970. If values, color images and glossy rather than newsprint-type paper don't matter that much to you, try to find an older version. You will save a bunch of money, and get at least another decade of listings.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Michael,
The SG "Part 1" catalogue (as it used to be called) covered all British Empire & Commonwealth stamps until the 2001 edition.
The 2002 to 2007 editions restricted the contents to stamps issued in the years 1840 to 1952 but since the 2008 edition the period has been extended to 1840 to 1970.
The later issues are included in SG's series of yellow Commonwealth catalogues which cover all periods for groups of related countries.
Login to Like
this post
Hey Nigel. Thanks for the clarification. I had an edition of Volume 1 that was older than that. I just don't remember how much older. I'm thinking late 1980s. I sold it, however, so I can't confirm how far the listings in it went. (Kim, did I sell you that book?)
Login to Like
this post
As I have gotten more into this hobby, I am more convinced I am limiting myself with my "slavery" to Scott. I have a Zumstein catalogue for Switzerland, and I realize from looking through it I have SO much more to learn about THAT country's philately.
I only wish I knew some German so I could understand it a little better. 
Pictures help, though.
Login to Like
this post
I agree with you fully. Take a look at the Michel German Specialized. There are many items Scott doesn't even touch. That's why I use Scott, Gibbons and Michel. I think it gives a nice oversight of most of what I run across. I don't want to get into the more specialized foreign (to the US) catalogs. Part of the reason is that I don't have room for them!
Login to Like
this post
In my case, since I am a member of the American Helvetia Philatelic Society (AHPS), the Zumstein and SBK catalogues are quoted and used in most of their newsletters and auctions. I realized if I was going to be a part of that group, I would need to have one of those catalogues handy. As it turned out, the society helped facilitate purchasing the Zumstein catalogue a few years back and my wife got it for me at Christmas a few years back. It definitely has aided my knowledge of Swiss philately!
Login to Like
this post
If you specialize in a country, then you definitely need a specialized catalog for it. The general catalogs won't do it justice.
Login to Like
this post
12:12:52pm
".... If you specialize in a country, then you definitely need a specialized catalog for it. The general catalogs won't do it justice. ...."
And even for a collector with world wide interests recent used versions that show up in auctions are a worth while investment.
And in this modern internet era you shouldn't let the language differences stop you. There are many general translation sites that can help with that.
I recently realized that I haven't even opened one of the several translation language dictionaries in some time when I moved one and noticed the accumulation of dust. "Achew ..."
Login to Like
this post
Does the standard Stanley Gibbons catalog give substantially more information on the early GB Queen Victoria issues?
Login to Like
this post
What do you mean by "standard"?
Gibbons issues catalogs of varying complexity from simplified to very specialized. Which catalog works best for you will be dependent on how much information are you looking for?
The Gibbons Great Britain Specialized Volume 1 covers only Queen Victoria. If you want extensive coverage that is probably for you. If you want a little less information, and also include the Commonwealth, then Gibbons Commonwealth and British Empire Stamps 1840-1970 catalog does a good job.
Login to Like
this post
It doesn't really matter what catalogue you use or quote. However bear in mind -
If you sell a stamp and quote only the cat. no. 50% of your potential customers don't know what you are talking about.
If you are looking for information - 50% of your potential informants don't know what you are talking about.
No catalogue contains all the information on a given issue. You have to glean information from a number of sources. Philately starts where the catalogue ends.
Therefore for maximum response take the time to give the fullest description possible in addition to the catalogue number so that everyone can participate.
Quod est demonstrandum.
Login to Like
this post
" Philately starts where the catalogue ends."
I like that.
Al
Login to Like
this post
I pencil in Scott numbers In my US album. For Great Britain it's Stanley Gibbons, and for Australia it's SG and ACSC (Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue (just purchased one of these)). That said, if you have a stamp with a plane on it, you want to refer to Stanley Gibbons, a catalogue that wonderfully describes aircraft including model numbers, even if the plane is a tiny spec on the stamp.
It is illuminating at times to refer to more than one catalogue for a stamp, as there will be different information, different colors describing the same stamp, etc. So, the more catalogues the merrier.
I pretty much collect only up to 1940, so the Scott Classic Specialized Catalogue is ideal for the countries I collect -- Scottwise.
Eric
Login to Like
this post
03:46:23pm
I have been collecting for many years but am new to organizes groups. My question is am I at a disadvantage having the majority of my collection cataloged using Stanly Gibbons numbers? I don't have access to Scott numbers, presently I us Poppe Stamps as my main research reference.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Are you saying that you use a Stanley Gibbons catalogue, or that you use Poppe Stamps to identify stamps in your collection or ones that you'd like to add to it?
If you're using Poppe Stamps as your only reference, you really aren't doing "research". Just having a catalogue number tells you nothing about a stamp except the fact that other stamps were issued before or after it was issued, or that someone decided at some point that a stamp is similar enough to other stamps to be listed near them. Stamp Catalogues identify differences between stamps based on design changes, shade and colour varieties, perforation varieties, different watermarks, paper types, printing methods, and usage. Poppe Stamps offers nothing except catalogue numbers and images.
Poppe Stamps is an online stamp shop, and they do a good job of it, although I find their prices high. You need a real catalogue, regardless of what catalogue that is.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
For collectors in the US, Scott is the most convenient, unless you're heavily specializing in Great Britain / Commonwealth, and can actually see the difference between "black" and "intense black".
No comprehensive online catalog using Scott numbers, though.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Catalogues and catalogue numbers, has and is a real issue for me. As I use USA ebay to sell and 95% of my sales are in Australia it makes for a very unusual situation.
Scott's catalogue users only described stamps by there catalogue numbers. I do not own a Scott's or a Micheal's and in Australia we even spell catalogue differently. After much thought about this issue I decided to describe my stamps by the year and or the name of the stamp and by watermark and or perforations and or perfins and a image to create a universal way for people from many countries to understand which stamp I am referring to, as I only sell and show Australian stamps.
But I have 33 different Australian stamp catalogues and I would have 7 different catalogue numbers after most stamps and then I would also need Scott's and Micheal's numbers as well being a total of 9 numbers after most stamps to get that universal flavour.
I will never learn about USA and Canada stamps, on stamp forums because all I see is a Scott's number. It is a very narrow way of describing a stamp by only using one (catalog) number in a universal world that the computer creates. How many people that use Scott's numbers only think in a non universal manner or even realise this situation?
It is a most interesting issue. KG5
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
The problem for me and for most of us, I would think, is the cost of the catalogs. I use a Scotts 2007 that I bought from a guy at our local stamp club at a much reduced rate, and I use an Australasian Stamp Catalog from 2007 also which is very good and provides a better coverage for Australian stamps than Scott does, but doesn't help with communication with anyone but Australian collectors in Australia.
Regards ... Tim
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I never gave it a second thought that someone from USA or Canada etc would not understand Stanley Gibbons numbers. It was a real shock to the system when I realised that others had no idea what my numbers meant.
Login to Like
this post
The past is a foreign country, they do things different there.
02 Mar 2012
08:02:08pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Stamp Cataloguers:
Indeed, it is a most interesting issue and not devoid of humour either.
Because I use Scott stamp numbers, KG5, with uncanny and astonishing accuracy, has diagnosed my malady as thinking in a non-universal manner without my even knowing that I am doing so. The horror of it all is that I use other stamp catalogue numbers from time to time; and am therefore afflicted with thinking in a
multi-non-universal manner, but now I know that I know that I do so.
In an unprecedented occurrence, I'm going to support the advice of "Bobstamp", i.e. "You need a real catalogue…etc."
The user gets more than numbers from a stamp catalogue but (there is always a "but") if "CEODAN" has been collecting for many years using Stanley Gibbons stamp numbers, it is my opinion that he is not at any disadvantage to continue doing so, and to continue enjoying his hobby in his own manner.
CEODAN, the grass may look greener on the other side of the fence, but that may be because it's always raining over there.
John Derry
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
The answer to the original question, are you at a disadvantage, depends on what you are trying to do and who you are trying to communicate with.
Bear in mind that there are many catalogues in use around the world, not just Scott and SG. If you want to communicate the identification of a particular stamp, then either
(a) both you and your partner need to have a catalogue in common, in which you can use numbers, or
(b) you use descriptive listings, i.e., you need to list as many of the following as you need to identify a stamp uniquely: country, year, series, face value, description, variety.
Bear in mind that catalogue numbers can change from edition to edition. This only affects a tiny minority of cases, but it can happen. Also, the most recent stamps will not be in your catalogue anyway. For such reasons, I favour descriptive listings rather than catalogue numbers anyway.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Hi CEODAN
I do not think you stamp numbering is an issue but being on a USA forum a Scott's catalogue is going to be great to help you understand some of the stamp issues that are referred to here.
For stamp catalogues it is totally up to the collector. It is a very personal thing especially what numbers you use in your stamping books.
I like to start with a catalogue that has a colour image of every stamp the catalogue deals with before stepping up into the more technical explanation for varieties etc.
The way I have set out Australia KGV Stamps Revealed is a standard I would like to see more stamp catalogue makers use. Their is a colour image of the stamp with reference to perforations, watermarks, dies and shades.
Always Happy Stamping. KG5
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Stamporama is a "U.S.A. forum"? I kinda think not. The founder, Jerry Abern, was an American, but from the beginning it has been an international organization. Our web host, Roy Lingen, is a Canadian and was the creator of this web site. The volunteer committee has been a virtual United Nations. Among the first dealers in our auction were and still are two Canadians, Liz Jones and Lee Payette. Off the top of my head, I can recall members from India, the Philippines, Denmark, France, England, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa. One of the things I have always appreciated about Stamporama is that it is not tied to any one country, and in fact is remarkably free of national identity.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Hi Bob,
A couple of years ago I did a count of the different countries in which our members live and it totaled 66.
Regards ... Tim.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
That was nice to know. Thank you!
To Aussies you all look the same to us.
Login to Like
this post
02:00:06am
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Drinking too much Fosters again I see.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
looks like two intertwined threads here: nationality and catalogues
SOR is blessed with an international membership, as Bob noted. Our volunteer committee of 7 has 4 living in the US (1 a displace Aussie who we decided to keep), a Canadian, a Nederlander, and an Indian. Luckily for me, they all speak English, even the Aussie. And we have a great international membership participating in discussions and auctions. Jerry, an American, had a great vision indeed, and he saw past our own boundaries in a fabulous. Would that all Americans were as keen-sighted, accommodating, and welcoming. Borders to Jerry just meant different kinds of stamps were likely to be sighted.
As to catalogues, we Americans tend to use Scott more often than not. And, for genereal US, it's the most comprehensive. For rest of the world, and for many other specialty areas, there are many other, better catalogues.
while I use Scott primarily, when I need specific German questions, I look at Michel, and for my seals, I use Green's and Mosbaugh and Hixon's SCP.
I think this discussion points to the advantage of describing stamps with their content and year as well as their catalogue number.
David
Login to Like
this post
Immediate Past President - West Essex Philatelic Society www.wepsonline.org
03 Mar 2012
01:49:52pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I would also like to point out that I have found many mis-described stamps on Poppe's website. I'm sure it is unintentional and they always fix it when I let them know.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
12:20:12pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Thanks so much to all of you,it is obvious that you represent much experience and knowledge with the world of stamp collecting. I have never used a real catalog and now realize that I am missing out on some of the information available. I recently was contacted by a forum member interested in trading, but because he used Scott and I used Gibbons we we unable to communicate. I understand that many of you collect specific areas of interest, I'm not quite as sophisticated, I collect just about anything I come across and have been doing so for 60 years.With new friendship I believe this hobby will take me to new directions.
Dan
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Dan, nice to learn a little bit more about you, too.
There are many worldwide collectors among us, cherished as much as the specialists. We both contribute.
Yes, sometimes different catalogues can be a problem, but by specifying the year and design, it's easy to trade even without catalogues or without the same reference points.
David
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Catalogues are one of my perpetual challenges.
In the broadest sense, I use Scott for worldwide and Gibbons for anything BC related. For the most part, though, I deal with a seller on eBay who buys the Scott catalogues and "tears them apart" and sells the pages for individual countries... that way I can buy just the pages from countries I need (about 12, currently), not an entire set of catalogues.
Beyond that, in my areas of specialization, I use whatever the most prominent "local" catalogue is. For Sweden, Facit; for Norway, NK and HK; for Denmark AFA; for Switzerland Zumstein, and so forth. Whereas that can be expensive, I'd rather "drop the bucks" on specialized literature than on a pile of Scott catalogues, 90% of which I will NEVER use.
But then, I'm not a worldwide collector.
~Peter
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I've been hanging around Stampboards.com lately and they have a strong Gibbons bias. But as the forum was started by an Australian and I think the majority of the users there are Australian it makes sense.
I agree with the sentiment that we need to use more than the catalogue number to communicate with our fellow collectors, especially internationally. Makes the conversation richer, in my opinion.
I use Scott only because that's what I have access to, and that's what Canadian dealers use. But I use Facit for my Scandinavian stamps (2000 version -- it's time to upgrade!)
I have a problem with Scott in that I hate most of their prefixes. I'd rather airmails and semi-postals were just included in the main catalogue in chronological order. It causes much mental anguish deciding whether to sort my stamps in chronological order by date of issue (preferred) or catalogue number order. Sigh...
Mark
PS -- Scott just launched an iPad / iPhone app. At first glance it looks promising although I still don't think they considered how collectors use the catalogue. A checklist feature is sadly missing.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I'd heard about a Scott catalogue app, and now I"ve downloaded it. Thanks for mentioning it, Mark. Now, before I plunk down $29.99, is it worth it? I don't care about a checklist, but ease of use is paramount. Some philatelic — philadigital? — publications have been horrible. Linn's StampNews is just about unusable. If the Scott catalogues are actually friendly, I'm in for sure. Anybody tried one?
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Yes, thanks Mark for sharing this news. I wasn't expecting a Scott catalog for the iphone, but I think the concept is great. I like Bob raced to have a look to see what they had done. In poking around the Apple App Store, I accidentally downloaded the free version, which doesn't actually let you do anything, it is just for you to have a general look. What they have won't really help me. I am mostly a British Commonwealth collector, with a large side interest in US covers prior to 1900. I'll wait to see the rest of the catalog come out. There are a lot of countries missing that I'm interested in, but I'm sure that they will get there with them. They are also missing anything later than 1950 or there abouts. I have a Scott 2007 and so I miss not having the more current stamps in the catalog, but am not prepared to pay the $600 for a new edition. I do like the way you can pick and choose so that you can pay $29.99 for the section that you are interested in.
Regards ... Tim.
Login to Like
this post
10:01:22pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Mark, Scott does have semi-postal and airmail stamps in the main postage listings. They also have those under separate B and C categories. A major inconsistency that needs to be handled one way or the other. Will they? Not until I buy Scott, I'm afraid.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
@Michael: They do? That's news to me. Maybe it's time to upgrade my catalogues since they didn't put airmails and semi postals in the regular listings in 1999!
Regarding the iPhone / iPad app: there's a deeper discussion of the app on the Delphi boards. It looks like they will offer app versions in time with the release of each 2013 volume. Also, a nice "home team" article about the app in the latest Linns.
two discussions from other forums:
http://www.stampcommunity.org/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=23208&
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=stamps&nav=messages&msg=45121.14&prettyurl=%2Fstamps%2Fmessages%3Fmsg%3D45121%2E14
The delphi forum seems to be monitored by Scott.
I need to upgrade my catalogues and the app shows promise, but I think I'll go for a set of 2011's on paper and then move to electronic for the 2021 set. I'm with Bob here -- most philelectronic publications are unusable. It'll take them a while to figure it out.
PS -- I just have to ask: Have you ever seen a more unreadable discussion forum than the delphi forums? I mean, why don't you cram a few more ads in there?!?!
(Modified by Moderator on 2012-03-06 19:55:04)
Login to Like
this post
12:51:49pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Mark, Scott has had this inconsistency for decades. Check Italy as one example of this that's been around for a long time. It'll be in your 1999, along with many other countries.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Scott has only placed a handful of airmails and semis in the main numbering sequence, and only cases where a set includes both regular postage and the special types.
My guess is that it seemed like a good idea for a couple years, but was then maddening since stamps of a particular function are scattered across different sections, and so they stopped. But by then it was too much trouble to reassign numbers, and so they've just preserved this bit of inconsistency.
Incidentally, I have a copy of the 1940 Scott catalogue, which is actually the one where they first introduced the prefixes for the different categories, and the introduction has a few paragraphs discussing their new system. (And yes, the 1940 cat groups Italian semis in mixed sets with regular postage, same as today.)
Login to Like
this post
03:36:20pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Stan, with the older material, it is relatively small, but with modern material there is much more of the sets being combined under the regular postage section..
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Following up on the brief comments about the Scott iPad apps, I've purchased the complete Classic (1840-1940) catalogue. I'm really impressed, and so were several members of my stamp club at last night's meeting, even the most "Luditic" of the Luddites. Even our club treasurer, who considers all Apple products to be Rotten Apples, had not a negative comment to make.
The app isn't perfect — what app is?. There's no provision for a checklist, which I believe someone else here commented on, and the search engine is clunky and useful only if you already know the Scott catalogue number.
I would buy the U.S. Specialized catalogue right now if I could afford it.
I'll post more later, probably in the thread that Rodolfo has started. If you have questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Cool. Looking forward to your review Bob. I'm glad you're happy with the catalogue -- that sounds promising.
Now I need to find the thread you are referring to.
Mark
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I've posted comments about my iPad/Scott Classic catalogue experience to this discussion: "Philatelic Catalogues and Literature Discussion : Scott for iPad and iPhone are ready!" Click on this link:
http://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=20&id=5623#33314.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Back in the hobby after a 25+ year absence. Currently with VERY few stamps, no albums, no tools, no supplies and LOTS of time! I love a challenge!!! LOL
23 Apr 2012
04:14:49pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I am going to throw a monkey wrench into this thread. I am well aware that Scott is considered the standard catalogue for the US market, and that Stanley Gibbons is the UK standard. However even though we do predominantly use Scott numbers in Canada, I was told that the Uni-trade catalogue is the Canadian standard. It is the only catalogue that I see for sale by Canada Post and I frequently see it sold by just about every Canadian vendor I have looked at.
To muddy it up a bit more, I have started using StampManage for cataloging my stamps (I have the benefit of starting from scratch here so is no big issue to use it for me) and the software (designed in Canada) has the Scott numbers already in the system, but also data entry fields for Stanley and Michael as well as a blank field for Other, which I will be using for my Uni-trade numbers.
Login to Like
this post
The past is a foreign country, they do things different there.
23 Apr 2012
04:28:31pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Don't believe everything you are told, Ross, keep an open mind, especially so in the world of "collectables". Otherwise, you will be told what you want to hear. Whatever stamp catalogue you're using and are happy with is the standard.
No one has ever suggested to me that Uni-trade was the standard catalogue for Canadian stamps until I read your comments. Canada Post is a commercial business trying to keep its head above water; it is not an authority on stamp catalogues.
Welcome back to stamp collecting. Look for the enjoyment, not the certainties (as there are none).
Respectfully,
John Derry
Login to Like
this post
Back in the hobby after a 25+ year absence. Currently with VERY few stamps, no albums, no tools, no supplies and LOTS of time! I love a challenge!!! LOL
23 Apr 2012
04:48:18pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
From DRYER
"Canada Post is a commercial business trying to keep its head above water"
And here I thought Canada Post was a taxpayer funded cash sink
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
The 2008 Uni-Trade I have uses Scott numbers, so what's the diff?
Roger
Login to Like
this post
07:42:04pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
The Unitrade Catalog is more of a specialized Canadian Catalog than what you will find listed in Scott. Unitrade does use the Scott numbering system. Unitrade values are higher than Scott values in what I have always considered is similar in nature to the Harris, Brookman and Mystic catalogs (which also use the Scott Numbering system).
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Hi All
I use both Gibbon's and Scott's .Both have their short comings if you took idea's from them both you may get a decent catalogue(this is for their Stamps of the World catalogues)
I collect PNG and for some inexplicable Scott's is listing sets with one price ,it doesn't matter if its a two,four ,six stamp set ,It wouldn't be to bad if the stamps in the set have the same face value but when they range from 5t to 10K that's a big difference.How can anyone possibly price a stamp it's ridiculous.
They are both guilty of lumping stamps issued in different years under one listing and not the year they was printed .It's so frustrating at times.
It wouldn't take much to fix and it would only have to be done the once .
I think I had this gripe on another thread .I'll get off my soapbox now and retire.
Brian
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
12:48:46pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I think just about everyone agrees with you on the set values for stamps. Scott does this, because they say that the stamps are rarely offered as singles. hey just want to save space in the catalogs, if you ask me.
I do not agree with you that the stamps from sets should be listed in the year they were issued. I like the sets to be listed together. Makes it easier to find the stamps.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I use Gibbons as Scott isn´t available in Denmark. And I agree with Brian, they should list the stamps under the year they were issued and not in one big set from when the first was issued. It doesn´t make sense you have to find a 2004 stamp under a 1933 heading. And in my book it doesn´t make it easier to find.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I only really have access to SG as well, but contrary to the opinions above, I like the fact that it lists a stamp under the year when the series started to be issued. I normally classify a stamp the same way.
In fact, one of my complaints is that SG does not do that consistently. E.g., it lists surcharges in the year of surcharge rather than the year of the original stamp, which makes it a pain because I have to scour the catalogue to find the surcharges. I can understand the reason behind it, but it's very annoying.
I guess it depends on what and how you collect. If you like to organize your collection by country and date of issue, you would prefer the catalogue to match. I collect worldwide definitive sets, and I hate it when the catalogue breaks sets up.
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..
27 Apr 2012
07:35:40pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
The way to deal with his "contraversy" is to not be a slave to the catalog.
The absolutely greatest recent philatelic invention is/are the micro-printed dates in the margins or along the edges of so many country's stamps. They assist in arranging stamps by issue date and if some group of stamps looks like an extended series spread over several years, and you want to mount them all on the same page, remember it is your collection.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Unfortunately as an American I'm pretty much forced to use the Scott Specialized as I only really collect in quality USA issues. I have the 2007 WW specialized catalog I use for identifying issues I may come across to sell or give to a dear friend who collects WW. It works well for my type of collecting............I've only seen one SG catalog in my life and I found it difficult to understand.
Perry
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I have so many catalogs it's crazy. Never thought about it until I seen this thread. I have a full set of 2000 Scott laying on the floor and a full set of 2006 Scott That I use. I purchased a 2011 when it came out volume 1 AB so I could have up to date prices for Australia. Have a Stanley Gibbons Australia, Papua, Norfolk Island, Australian States and a new Stanley Gibbons Great Britain Concise, and a few more so out of date can't use them.
All these stamp catalogs, 30 or so stamp albums 10 or so stock books, auction catalogs makes my stamp room a MESS! I forgot the 5 cover albums.
I wouldn't change a thing.
Login to Like
this post
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
21 Apr 2013
09:37:40pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Tooler, you fit perfectly in the Stamporama world!
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I use Scott catalogs primarily because I have used Bill Steiner's Stamp Album Web pages for many years. As his pages are arranged in Scott catalog order, I see no need for me to invest in others. My catalog library consists of a complete set (7 vols.) of 2001 Scott WW and US Specialized catalogs, 2005 US Specialized on CD, and 2007 Classic Specialized catalog both in print and CD. I bought the 2001 WW/US series and the 2005 US Specialized CD new. When I downsized my WW collection to the Classics, I purchased the 2007 Classic Specialized book and CD (both used) in 2011 for a fraction of what the new ones cost. As I'm not overly concerned with catalog values, they serve me well for identifying stamp issues.
I dare say that after deciding to go with the British Empire classics, I have been sorely tempted to obtain a Gibbons British Empire Classics catalog, which I may well do. Seems if I'm collecting British stuff, I may as well have a real British catalog...
Regards,
Len
Login to Like
this post
03:00:16pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Len, the Gibbons Commonwealth & Empire Stamps is a great catalog. It used to cover from 1840 into the 1980s (1983 if my memory is right). When they reissued the catalog in 2008, the poor paper and photos were replaced by nice, glossy paper and color photos. The only other thing is that the catalog is now closed into a "classic"-type catalog, covering 1840 to 1970. If values, color images and glossy rather than newsprint-type paper don't matter that much to you, try to find an older version. You will save a bunch of money, and get at least another decade of listings.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Hi Michael,
The SG "Part 1" catalogue (as it used to be called) covered all British Empire & Commonwealth stamps until the 2001 edition.
The 2002 to 2007 editions restricted the contents to stamps issued in the years 1840 to 1952 but since the 2008 edition the period has been extended to 1840 to 1970.
The later issues are included in SG's series of yellow Commonwealth catalogues which cover all periods for groups of related countries.
Login to Like
this post
08:49:54pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Hey Nigel. Thanks for the clarification. I had an edition of Volume 1 that was older than that. I just don't remember how much older. I'm thinking late 1980s. I sold it, however, so I can't confirm how far the listings in it went. (Kim, did I sell you that book?)
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
As I have gotten more into this hobby, I am more convinced I am limiting myself with my "slavery" to Scott. I have a Zumstein catalogue for Switzerland, and I realize from looking through it I have SO much more to learn about THAT country's philately.
I only wish I knew some German so I could understand it a little better. Pictures help, though.
Login to Like
this post
11:22:30pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I agree with you fully. Take a look at the Michel German Specialized. There are many items Scott doesn't even touch. That's why I use Scott, Gibbons and Michel. I think it gives a nice oversight of most of what I run across. I don't want to get into the more specialized foreign (to the US) catalogs. Part of the reason is that I don't have room for them!
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
In my case, since I am a member of the American Helvetia Philatelic Society (AHPS), the Zumstein and SBK catalogues are quoted and used in most of their newsletters and auctions. I realized if I was going to be a part of that group, I would need to have one of those catalogues handy. As it turned out, the society helped facilitate purchasing the Zumstein catalogue a few years back and my wife got it for me at Christmas a few years back. It definitely has aided my knowledge of Swiss philately!
Login to Like
this post
02:57:23am
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
If you specialize in a country, then you definitely need a specialized catalog for it. The general catalogs won't do it justice.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
17 Aug 2013
12:12:52pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
".... If you specialize in a country, then you definitely need a specialized catalog for it. The general catalogs won't do it justice. ...."
And even for a collector with world wide interests recent used versions that show up in auctions are a worth while investment.
And in this modern internet era you shouldn't let the language differences stop you. There are many general translation sites that can help with that.
I recently realized that I haven't even opened one of the several translation language dictionaries in some time when I moved one and noticed the accumulation of dust. "Achew ..."
Login to Like
this post
12:03:59pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
Does the standard Stanley Gibbons catalog give substantially more information on the early GB Queen Victoria issues?
Login to Like
this post
12:31:11pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
What do you mean by "standard"?
Gibbons issues catalogs of varying complexity from simplified to very specialized. Which catalog works best for you will be dependent on how much information are you looking for?
The Gibbons Great Britain Specialized Volume 1 covers only Queen Victoria. If you want extensive coverage that is probably for you. If you want a little less information, and also include the Commonwealth, then Gibbons Commonwealth and British Empire Stamps 1840-1970 catalog does a good job.
Login to Like
this post
07:03:04pm
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
It doesn't really matter what catalogue you use or quote. However bear in mind -
If you sell a stamp and quote only the cat. no. 50% of your potential customers don't know what you are talking about.
If you are looking for information - 50% of your potential informants don't know what you are talking about.
No catalogue contains all the information on a given issue. You have to glean information from a number of sources. Philately starts where the catalogue ends.
Therefore for maximum response take the time to give the fullest description possible in addition to the catalogue number so that everyone can participate.
Quod est demonstrandum.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
" Philately starts where the catalogue ends."
I like that.
Al
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott vs Stanley Gibbons
I pencil in Scott numbers In my US album. For Great Britain it's Stanley Gibbons, and for Australia it's SG and ACSC (Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue (just purchased one of these)). That said, if you have a stamp with a plane on it, you want to refer to Stanley Gibbons, a catalogue that wonderfully describes aircraft including model numbers, even if the plane is a tiny spec on the stamp.
It is illuminating at times to refer to more than one catalogue for a stamp, as there will be different information, different colors describing the same stamp, etc. So, the more catalogues the merrier.
I pretty much collect only up to 1940, so the Scott Classic Specialized Catalogue is ideal for the countries I collect -- Scottwise.
Eric
Login to Like
this post