Lars, many years ago, Scott did demote the 19th century reprints to the back-of-the-book. Dealers raised a big fuss saying that by taking the reprints out of the front of the book, the values for those would plummet and collectors would stand to lose a ton of money. Of course Scott caved and put the reprints back where they were in the front of the book. I agree that all the reprints belong back with the essays, proofs and similar items. But, I don't own Scott yet...
I know, and we had this very discussion years ago, but the Circus S/S is a game changer. I told you they HAD to give imperfs minor status and you told me Scott refused. They finally came to their senses. Now I'm telling you they HAVE to give MAJOR status to the Circus S/S stamps. (In this case the imperf should be the major). We may be discussing this again in 3 or 4 years!
Lars
Lars,
I agree with the necessity of having #s for all the imperf singles also. These are, after all stamps that are valid for postage. I do not have a copy of the 2016 catalog but I suspect that there are no separate #s for the imperf between versions either.
There was a major Scott # for the Legends of the West error sheet sold via lottery. The imperf press sheets were available to anyone and valid for postage. Go figure.
Tad
Well, Ho, Ho Ho! Santa came through this year and I now have a 2016 Specialized!
I was glad to see that Scott finally came to their senses and added minor catalog numbers for the no-die-cut issues, but they only issued one minor for a se-tenant block. Take the 2014 Circus Posters issue, for example:
In 2014 there were 8 different Circus Poster stamps issued in panes of 16. Scott #4898-4905.
Those who collect used stamps can find each die-cut stamp by catalog number, and those who collect mint might be interested in 4905a which is either a block of 8 or a pane of 16. So far so good, but the no-die-cut issue is only listed as an imperf block of 8 or pane of 16 (4905b). There are still no catalog numbers for those who wish to collect postally used singles.
But the most insane thing is how Scott treated the Circus Souvenir Sheet. This S/S was available imperf in press sheets and die-cut in the Yearbook.
(Ignore the catalog numbers on my pages - they are now obsolete).
This Souvenir Sheet was available via mail order in imperf uncut press sheets or WITH die-cuts in the Yearbook. There are 2 different designs that are similar to previously issued stamps, but different denominations. The Barnum and Bailey stamp is similar to #4898 Forever stamp, but MUCH larger, completely different sky color, additional text graphic at top, and it was issued for $1. The Circus Wagon stamp is similar to the old Transportation coil (#2452) except that it is 50c instead of 05c, it is self-adhesive instead of water-activated, and it's not a coil. Other than that they are the same stamp!
So we have postally valid stamps, issued by USPS, and available from USPS, sustantially different from anything else, and they don't get a major catalog number?!? What number did they get? The $1 version of 4898 is 4905e. The 50c version of 2452 is 4905d. With logic like that I could "complete" the 3rd Bureau on one page!
Some would argue that these stamps don't deserve major catalog numbers because they weren't available at the Post Office window. Scott # 3 and 4 weren't even valid for postage when issued! The 4c 2nd Bureau imperf 314A was privately issued. There are literally DOZENS of major catalog numbers for early US stamps that have only minor variations (often several stamps from the same plate), and yet the stamps from this S/S don't get a major, even though they have been through the mailstream:
Actually, I don't want Scott to issue a major catalog number for these. I want them to demote several early stamps (like #3 and #4). If they don't have the intestinal fortitude for that, they are hypocrites for denying major catalog status for the Circus S/S.
Just my humble opinion.
Lars
re: 2016 Scott Specialized US Catalog
Lars, many years ago, Scott did demote the 19th century reprints to the back-of-the-book. Dealers raised a big fuss saying that by taking the reprints out of the front of the book, the values for those would plummet and collectors would stand to lose a ton of money. Of course Scott caved and put the reprints back where they were in the front of the book. I agree that all the reprints belong back with the essays, proofs and similar items. But, I don't own Scott yet...
re: 2016 Scott Specialized US Catalog
I know, and we had this very discussion years ago, but the Circus S/S is a game changer. I told you they HAD to give imperfs minor status and you told me Scott refused. They finally came to their senses. Now I'm telling you they HAVE to give MAJOR status to the Circus S/S stamps. (In this case the imperf should be the major). We may be discussing this again in 3 or 4 years!
Lars
re: 2016 Scott Specialized US Catalog
Lars,
I agree with the necessity of having #s for all the imperf singles also. These are, after all stamps that are valid for postage. I do not have a copy of the 2016 catalog but I suspect that there are no separate #s for the imperf between versions either.
There was a major Scott # for the Legends of the West error sheet sold via lottery. The imperf press sheets were available to anyone and valid for postage. Go figure.
Tad