Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
They do this for other countries (Argentina for example) as well and I never understood why.
Perhaps this is another way of the Scott-editors to save paper, ink and money, like they continue not to show all designs for sets, even when the designs sometimes look completely different.
Login to Like
this post
Is it possible that this practice saves time and therefore labor costs? Perhaps the assumption is made that the stamps have minumum and equal value and that valuations can be made by dividing the value of the set by the number of stamps. I dunno. Scott's pricing practices are often mysterious.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Apparantly if they have ever stated a rationale, noone is aware of it. Seems strange because they always seem to list individual prices for definitives. If all stamps in a set that is not priced individually are considered equal you'd think they would indicate that somewhere in the section they have on "valuation" in the front of each catalog. Also, there are are issues in which there are, for example, four stamps of different designs produced in a pane that they will give a price for the pane and then add an note that says each single = XXcents. As it is, this practice certainly makes it more difficult to trade stamps based on Scott catalog values!
Login to Like
this post
I have used the interpolation value to come up with trading values for the newer stamps where the set only is priced. If a five stamp set is valued at $4.00 and the denominations are 10, 20, 35, 95, 150 I add the demominations together (10 + 20 + 35 + 95 + 150 = 310), divide 4.00 by 410 = .00976) and multiply that times the denom I have (i.e. 95 x .00976 = 93 cents). While it is not exact, I assume then that the 95 denomination catalogs 93 cents and trade it at that value. I figure for the newer stuff that is close enough. What with rounding and all it probably makes the sum of the parts worth more than the whole. For stamp by stamp traders it is a pain in the --- neck but it works.
stampmanjack (Jack Leiby)
Login to Like
this post
Larryd and Jan Simon: Would you please supply me with Scott catalogue number of a few of the sets that started this discussion, and the year of the catalogue(s) that were used? I sent an e-mail to the editor of the Scott Catalogues, and he needs to know just which stamps we are talking about.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Bob - there's hundreds if not thousands of listings in Scott catalogues that only give a value for a set.
An example;
Aruba
Almost all listings from 2001 to the present are listed valued as sets
205-206, 207-210, 215-216,217-219, 220-221, 222-224, 225-227, 228-230, 231-232, 233-236, 237-240, 241-243, 244-247, 248-251, 252-254, 255-256, 257-260, 261-263, 264a-e, 265-267, 268-271, 272-275, 276-278, 279-281, 282-283, 287-289, 290-292, 293-295, 297-299, 300-303, 316-319, 320-323, 324-326, B59-B60, B61-B63, B64-B66, B67-69, B70-72, B73-B75
In most cases each stamp of these sets has a different face value.
This is only an example of one small country. There are many, many others where there is only a price for a complete set.
Liz
Login to Like
this post
Bob, I am surprised about the editor's reaction. As Liz pointed out, this is no isolated incident, it looks like policy.
I can look for you later today for some examples to add to Liz' list, but if this editor does not understand what we refer to, I do not know what he normally does with his catalogues since it is so widespread across all volumes.
Jan-Simon
Login to Like
this post
The same types of listings occur in Latvia and Swaziland. I don't have numbers, but those are the most recent examples I've come across as well.
Andrew
Login to Like
this post
I do not have a Volume 4 catalogue except for the 2004 edition.
Here's some more examples;
Jamaica - #93-933, 934-937, 945-948, 952-855, 957-958, 961-964, 966-968
Lithuania - #390-392, 393-395, 396-397, 398-399, 671-672, 673-674, 677-679, 680-681, 686-687, 688-690, 693-694, 695-696, 700-701, 704-708, 707-708, 711-712, 713-715, 716-718, 720-721, 724-725, 728-729, 731-732, 734-735.
Again, all stamps in each of these sets are different values, i.e. 930-993 $10, $25, $30, $50
Liz
Login to Like
this post
The Aruba numbers are from the 2009 Scott catalogue.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks.. I'll pass this information on to the Scott editor.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
I have just checked in the 2008 edition: all sets for Argentina since the year 2000 only have a set price. Before that the picture is a bit sketchy: sometimes there are prices for both bookletpanes and their single stamps, sometimes only prices for blocks of 4...
Jan-Simon
Login to Like
this post
As others have indicated, this phenomenon is by no means restricted to British island nations; it's a feature that's pervasive, even in countries that have quite conservative stamp-issuing programs. For example, the 2009 Scott catalog lists a set of Luxembourg issued to commemorate industrial products made in that country on 10/1/2003 (1121-1123) with a value of $5.00, mint or used. The set has face values of 60c, 70c and 80c, with different designs (described, not illustrated) for each. No values are given for singles (I acquired the middle value postally used in Kiloware). On the same date, Luxembourg issued two stamps in a definitive series (1072 and 1073)for which Scott lists minimum (20c) values. Obviously someone wishing to trade (or sell) stamps of Luxembourg would be much better served to have some indication of a price for each of the singles in the commemorative set (and there are many others in the same category among 21st century issues).
Stampman Jack's approach to the problem of valuing these kinds of issues (interpolation) certainly has appeal, provided your trading partner finds that method acceptable...which means establishing a common ground with each trading partner rather than just trading by "Scott value." Also, it requires some familiarity with the currency for the countries involved (eg., how many pence are there in a British pound anyway!).
In any event, if Scott is unable or unwilling to provide values for singles of commemorative sets, it would be helpful to provide us with some standard means of valuing them described in the valuation section in the front of each catalog.
Login to Like
this post
The "stampman Jack" method certainly has its good points, but it only works if the stamps in a set have been issued in equal numbers. Often you see that there are different values in a set because of the different types of mail they are meant for. First class / second class, inland / abroad... etc. In those cases one type is more common than the others, and therefore has a lower c.v.
If you take for example the Luxembourg set described by Larry, who knows if the 60c is used exactly as much as the 80c? If it is used less, it will be worth more, even though it has a lower nominal value...
Jan-Simon
Login to Like
this post
Jan-Simon raises an interesting point when he asks "who knows if the 60c is used exactly as much as the 80c?" I've only recently become interested in new issues and have been scanning the updates that appear in Scott Monthly (which I now have access to online as part of my Linn's subscription). Scott can begin reporting values on stamps as early as six months from their release; sometimes while they are still available via new issue services. It seems to me that it will be many years before the relatively scarcity/availability of recent issues can be known, and that except in very unusual cases of an error or runaway demand there would be very little market data on which to base a catalogue value. How then would Scott (or others) arrive at values for new issues?
Ralph
Login to Like
this post
There's far more to this than Jan-Simon's insightful comment, including Scott's US-centered valuation (these prices, especially for non-US material, often bear little relation to prices being charged in the issuing countries). Ralph also makes an excellent point about relative scarcity, although I think that Scott is very slow to acknowledge rarity caused by USPS issuing policies (think, for instance, of the 29c boar issued nationally 1 day before a rate increase; or the $2 Madison, part of the BPE SS, valued used at half the mint; try to find contemporary usages for either, and I DARE you to find one of the boar on commercial cover used in period, yet it's 20c).
David
Login to Like
this post
As I said I would earlier in this thread, I contacted Scott, providing them with examples of sets of stamps which are priced only as sets. I received a response, some months ago, actually; my apologies for not passing it on sooner. Here is the response (from James Kloetzel):
"The stamps of quite a few countries that issue stamps in large quantities are listed as sets in order to conserve space in the catalogues. In many cases, all of the stamps have the same denomination, and in these cases it is easy to determine a catalogue value by dividing the number of stamps into the total set value. In many other cases, however, the denominations within the set differ. In these cases, it really is necessary to determine what percentage of the total face value of the set is represented by the stamp in question. If a stamp has a denomination of, say, 10c and it is within a five stamp set with a total face value of $1 and a catalogue value of $2, its denomination makes it worth 10 per cent of the total face value and its catalogue value would be 10 per cent of the total catalogue value, in this case 20¢. If the high value from the same set has a denomination of 60c, it represents 60 per cent of the total face value, and its catalogue value would be 60 per cent of the total $2 catalogue value, or $1.20.
"We are aware that this places an extra burden on catalogue users, but we feel that this burden is offset by not having to add extra volumes to the catalogues because of the sheer number of stamps being issued by many countries.
"We hope this explanation is somewhat helpful."
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Hi there everyone,
Just thought i would add my bit of info.As an Aussie i am not familiar with the Scott catalogue, but as i am purchasing catalogues at the moment, the ones available most often here are the Stanley Gibbons catalogues from the U.K.
I would suggest looking in one of those, The British Empire Catalogue 1840 -1970, then there is the British Commonwealth Countries catalogue. They are a bit pricey but quality and once i receive mine i am sure i will not look back.
Regards
Arty
Login to Like
this post
I had obtained some on-paper kiloware which had fairly recent stamps from several of the island nations of the former British Commonwealth (Falklands, Fiji, etc.). There were quite a few singles which, although listed in Scott, were not priced as singles. The only valuations I could find, mint or used, was for a complete set. Seems to me if singles are being used to pre-pay postage there ought to be values for them; has Scott ever indicated a rationale for only pricing certain issues by the set?
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
They do this for other countries (Argentina for example) as well and I never understood why.
Perhaps this is another way of the Scott-editors to save paper, ink and money, like they continue not to show all designs for sets, even when the designs sometimes look completely different.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Is it possible that this practice saves time and therefore labor costs? Perhaps the assumption is made that the stamps have minumum and equal value and that valuations can be made by dividing the value of the set by the number of stamps. I dunno. Scott's pricing practices are often mysterious.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Apparantly if they have ever stated a rationale, noone is aware of it. Seems strange because they always seem to list individual prices for definitives. If all stamps in a set that is not priced individually are considered equal you'd think they would indicate that somewhere in the section they have on "valuation" in the front of each catalog. Also, there are are issues in which there are, for example, four stamps of different designs produced in a pane that they will give a price for the pane and then add an note that says each single = XXcents. As it is, this practice certainly makes it more difficult to trade stamps based on Scott catalog values!
Login to Like
this post
09:17:25pm
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
I have used the interpolation value to come up with trading values for the newer stamps where the set only is priced. If a five stamp set is valued at $4.00 and the denominations are 10, 20, 35, 95, 150 I add the demominations together (10 + 20 + 35 + 95 + 150 = 310), divide 4.00 by 410 = .00976) and multiply that times the denom I have (i.e. 95 x .00976 = 93 cents). While it is not exact, I assume then that the 95 denomination catalogs 93 cents and trade it at that value. I figure for the newer stuff that is close enough. What with rounding and all it probably makes the sum of the parts worth more than the whole. For stamp by stamp traders it is a pain in the --- neck but it works.
stampmanjack (Jack Leiby)
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Larryd and Jan Simon: Would you please supply me with Scott catalogue number of a few of the sets that started this discussion, and the year of the catalogue(s) that were used? I sent an e-mail to the editor of the Scott Catalogues, and he needs to know just which stamps we are talking about.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
02:01:57pm
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Bob - there's hundreds if not thousands of listings in Scott catalogues that only give a value for a set.
An example;
Aruba
Almost all listings from 2001 to the present are listed valued as sets
205-206, 207-210, 215-216,217-219, 220-221, 222-224, 225-227, 228-230, 231-232, 233-236, 237-240, 241-243, 244-247, 248-251, 252-254, 255-256, 257-260, 261-263, 264a-e, 265-267, 268-271, 272-275, 276-278, 279-281, 282-283, 287-289, 290-292, 293-295, 297-299, 300-303, 316-319, 320-323, 324-326, B59-B60, B61-B63, B64-B66, B67-69, B70-72, B73-B75
In most cases each stamp of these sets has a different face value.
This is only an example of one small country. There are many, many others where there is only a price for a complete set.
Liz
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Bob, I am surprised about the editor's reaction. As Liz pointed out, this is no isolated incident, it looks like policy.
I can look for you later today for some examples to add to Liz' list, but if this editor does not understand what we refer to, I do not know what he normally does with his catalogues since it is so widespread across all volumes.
Jan-Simon
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
The same types of listings occur in Latvia and Swaziland. I don't have numbers, but those are the most recent examples I've come across as well.
Andrew
Login to Like
this post
06:08:24am
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
I do not have a Volume 4 catalogue except for the 2004 edition.
Here's some more examples;
Jamaica - #93-933, 934-937, 945-948, 952-855, 957-958, 961-964, 966-968
Lithuania - #390-392, 393-395, 396-397, 398-399, 671-672, 673-674, 677-679, 680-681, 686-687, 688-690, 693-694, 695-696, 700-701, 704-708, 707-708, 711-712, 713-715, 716-718, 720-721, 724-725, 728-729, 731-732, 734-735.
Again, all stamps in each of these sets are different values, i.e. 930-993 $10, $25, $30, $50
Liz
Login to Like
this post
06:11:36am
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
The Aruba numbers are from the 2009 Scott catalogue.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Thanks.. I'll pass this information on to the Scott editor.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
I have just checked in the 2008 edition: all sets for Argentina since the year 2000 only have a set price. Before that the picture is a bit sketchy: sometimes there are prices for both bookletpanes and their single stamps, sometimes only prices for blocks of 4...
Jan-Simon
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
As others have indicated, this phenomenon is by no means restricted to British island nations; it's a feature that's pervasive, even in countries that have quite conservative stamp-issuing programs. For example, the 2009 Scott catalog lists a set of Luxembourg issued to commemorate industrial products made in that country on 10/1/2003 (1121-1123) with a value of $5.00, mint or used. The set has face values of 60c, 70c and 80c, with different designs (described, not illustrated) for each. No values are given for singles (I acquired the middle value postally used in Kiloware). On the same date, Luxembourg issued two stamps in a definitive series (1072 and 1073)for which Scott lists minimum (20c) values. Obviously someone wishing to trade (or sell) stamps of Luxembourg would be much better served to have some indication of a price for each of the singles in the commemorative set (and there are many others in the same category among 21st century issues).
Stampman Jack's approach to the problem of valuing these kinds of issues (interpolation) certainly has appeal, provided your trading partner finds that method acceptable...which means establishing a common ground with each trading partner rather than just trading by "Scott value." Also, it requires some familiarity with the currency for the countries involved (eg., how many pence are there in a British pound anyway!).
In any event, if Scott is unable or unwilling to provide values for singles of commemorative sets, it would be helpful to provide us with some standard means of valuing them described in the valuation section in the front of each catalog.
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
The "stampman Jack" method certainly has its good points, but it only works if the stamps in a set have been issued in equal numbers. Often you see that there are different values in a set because of the different types of mail they are meant for. First class / second class, inland / abroad... etc. In those cases one type is more common than the others, and therefore has a lower c.v.
If you take for example the Luxembourg set described by Larry, who knows if the 60c is used exactly as much as the 80c? If it is used less, it will be worth more, even though it has a lower nominal value...
Jan-Simon
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Jan-Simon raises an interesting point when he asks "who knows if the 60c is used exactly as much as the 80c?" I've only recently become interested in new issues and have been scanning the updates that appear in Scott Monthly (which I now have access to online as part of my Linn's subscription). Scott can begin reporting values on stamps as early as six months from their release; sometimes while they are still available via new issue services. It seems to me that it will be many years before the relatively scarcity/availability of recent issues can be known, and that except in very unusual cases of an error or runaway demand there would be very little market data on which to base a catalogue value. How then would Scott (or others) arrive at values for new issues?
Ralph
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
There's far more to this than Jan-Simon's insightful comment, including Scott's US-centered valuation (these prices, especially for non-US material, often bear little relation to prices being charged in the issuing countries). Ralph also makes an excellent point about relative scarcity, although I think that Scott is very slow to acknowledge rarity caused by USPS issuing policies (think, for instance, of the 29c boar issued nationally 1 day before a rate increase; or the $2 Madison, part of the BPE SS, valued used at half the mint; try to find contemporary usages for either, and I DARE you to find one of the boar on commercial cover used in period, yet it's 20c).
David
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
As I said I would earlier in this thread, I contacted Scott, providing them with examples of sets of stamps which are priced only as sets. I received a response, some months ago, actually; my apologies for not passing it on sooner. Here is the response (from James Kloetzel):
"The stamps of quite a few countries that issue stamps in large quantities are listed as sets in order to conserve space in the catalogues. In many cases, all of the stamps have the same denomination, and in these cases it is easy to determine a catalogue value by dividing the number of stamps into the total set value. In many other cases, however, the denominations within the set differ. In these cases, it really is necessary to determine what percentage of the total face value of the set is represented by the stamp in question. If a stamp has a denomination of, say, 10c and it is within a five stamp set with a total face value of $1 and a catalogue value of $2, its denomination makes it worth 10 per cent of the total face value and its catalogue value would be 10 per cent of the total catalogue value, in this case 20¢. If the high value from the same set has a denomination of 60c, it represents 60 per cent of the total face value, and its catalogue value would be 60 per cent of the total $2 catalogue value, or $1.20.
"We are aware that this places an extra burden on catalogue users, but we feel that this burden is offset by not having to add extra volumes to the catalogues because of the sheer number of stamps being issued by many countries.
"We hope this explanation is somewhat helpful."
Bob
Login to Like
this post
03:20:50am
re: Scott Catalogue Listing policies, especially regarding sets
Hi there everyone,
Just thought i would add my bit of info.As an Aussie i am not familiar with the Scott catalogue, but as i am purchasing catalogues at the moment, the ones available most often here are the Stanley Gibbons catalogues from the U.K.
I would suggest looking in one of those, The British Empire Catalogue 1840 -1970, then there is the British Commonwealth Countries catalogue. They are a bit pricey but quality and once i receive mine i am sure i will not look back.
Regards
Arty
Login to Like
this post