Home Stamps Forum

Scott Valuing Supplement

Anyone have any opinions about the SVS? I think it is pretty useless for anything except personal use that is ones own honest grading of their own stamps(and they list no VF-XF grade). I bought the first issue and that was the last one I bought. Neat guide but fairly well useless for anything other than dealers.
On a somewhat related note did any of you Linn's subscribers read in the 7-31 issue the article,
" Numerical grading of stamps cause sparks to fly in U.S. stamp market ?" Wow,is that something new? One thing that struck me as I read through it is that the author seemed to make sure every time PSE was mentioned that Scott was too, as if they were right with PSE the whole step of the way into the current grading frenzy. The SVS is mentioned as if it was in the same league as the SMQ. Any of you out there use the SVS over the SMQ when valuing your stamps? Here is a quote from article,
"What PSE and Scott did create is a new rush for stamps in exceptional condition that has become virtually pandemic." Scott did!? Scott did not issue the first SVS until 3 years AFTER PSE issued it's first graded certs! Also it is stated in the article, "When Scott and PSE began valuing gem stamps at many multiples above the values for very fine stamps, the race was on." The SMQ(2002) predates the SVS(2003) so when exactly did the stamps start having such higher values? Was it when they were first in the SVS or when they were ACTUALLY 3rd-PARTY GRADED with a PSE cert and listed in the SMQ? All Scott has done is tag along. This is something everyone has been thinking that I am actually sayimg. Even the SMQ Oct.-Dec. 2005 tactfully states,"When one recognizes that Amos Press essentially cloned the Stamp Market Quarterly for their Scott Valuing Supplement, and the Philatelic Foundation is now grading stamps, it is abundantly clear that PSE is now in a recognized position of leadership." The author of the Linn's article goes on to state,"There are a lot more superb 10c Great Smokey Mountains Stamps around than there are 1907 Jamestown Exposition stamps,which are known for their notoriousl poor centering." OK, the author is making reference to the much talked about auction realization of $1400+(which is mentioned earlier in the article) for the Gem-100 #749. Comparing the numbers/population of a single common(but not by condition) gem-100 stamp to the number of gem-100's of the most poorly centered US issues is really moot. Yes there are probably far fewer possible Gem-100 #330's than there are Gem-100#749's. Guess what? A 330 in that grade will sell for MUCH MUCH more than the 749. Look at the recent sales of graded Columbians, the prices are astronomical compared to Scott values.The fact that fewer 330's exist in that grade has nothing to do with a 749 holding it's value. A gem-100 of the NP issue is still not a common find(depending on your own defininition) Also if you are experienced in graded collecting you know that you are much more likely to pay a lower price in a net price sale. The SMQ generally does not list the highest a stamp has sold at auction as the the SMQ value(except maybe an extreme rarity) and this is a good practice for real-world valuation. Many auction prices could be considered anomolies compared to more net prices for the same stamp in the same grade. He also says,"When it comes to grading,buyers and sellers tend to run in opposite directions(well there's a newsflash) but I hope that the precise PSE and Scott grading systems will lessen this problem." Actually regarding Scott the opposite is true. There is nothing "precise" about Scott's grading. It's the same basic system they (and everyone else) have always used: here is a picture of what we say is a superb stamp, you pull out your stamp to compare them and say, "Wow, my stamp looks pretty much the same , so it must be superb, it is now worth 5 times the VF value." This keeps the same old grading errors rolling along as they have for years. PSE's system is a completely different animal. Their price guide is for ALREADY GRADED STAMPS and so reflects that particular stamps TRUE/REALISTIC value although the SMQ is conservative in it's values on many issues. Granted PSE is not infallible but C'mon how can he say Scott's system is "precise" by comparison? OK I've ranted enough. Any thoughts? Anyone?

Comments

  • dougwtxdougwtx Posts: 566 ✭✭
    I favor both. They are "tools" that can help when making a purchase or selling. One of my stamp dealers uses the SVS to determine the selling price. We both agree to the grade and condition and then sells a little below the stated SVS value. SMQ is for PSE graded material; or that's how I look at it. This is the same as in the coin world. You have Greysheets, Redbooks, Trends, "Coin Prices", "Coin Values", etc as reference for non-graded material and then you have the PCGS Guide for PCGS graded coins. I like SVS because it has the lower grades as well.

    It seems a lot of sellers take advantage of the not-so-knowledgable collectors; stating a SMQ, SVS, or PCGS value for a raw item or using a PCGS Guide value for an NGC or ANACS or even worse, a low-tier grading party coin.

    Both guides seem to have a purpose; when both parties agree to the grade/condition of a raw stamp, then the SVS and Scott catalog can serve as a starting point for the negotiating.

    Give it time, and I won't be surprised if a another guide comes out similar to the Grey, Blue, and Green sheets.

    Just my $0.02...

  • I have not yet read the article, but I can offer a couple of comments by virtue of your extensive quotes from it.

    First off, the following appeared in the July-Sept 2003 issue of the SMQ:

    The Scott Valuing Supplement
    "In November, 2002, PSE held serious discussions with Amos Press (Scott Publishing Co.) about their taking over the Stamp Market Quarterly beginning with the April 2003 issue. Talks broke down over whether Scott would adopt a grading / pricing system which included faulty, as well as sound stamps. PSE’s system accounts for faults, and Scott was unwilling to embrace such a system, despite acknowledging that a majority of 19th century U.S. stamps have faults. We parted on friendly terms, with PSE intending to continue publishing the SMQ, and left the door open for further discussions.
    With this background, PSE was pleasantly surprised when Scott decided to undertake a graded price guide on their own. This guide, called the Scott Valuing Supplement, was first published in May, with plans to publish two issues per year. Obviously, Scott’s publication bears a rather close resemblance to the SMQ, the principal difference being that they cover only sound stamps. The PSE grading system now includes eleven regular plus four jumbo grades, and the SMQ covers eight of the regular grades. Scott’s system and prices cover six grades of sound stamps."

    I can also add that at the time of that discussion, Scott was unwilling to use the numerical grades. (While I didn't consider that a deal killer, I did consider their refusal to incorporate faults into the grading system a show stopper.) In their latest SVS (Spring 2007) Scott has begun using numerical grades. I would imagine the PF's decision to begin grading in Oct 2005 (using PSE's numerical system) influenced Scott's policy re. numerical grading.

    I'll confess it was an uphill struggle for the first several years of 3rd party grading. Most dealers and auctioneers were loathe to accept the opinion of anyone but themselves when it came to the stamps they were offering. What they were slow to realize was that stamps impartially graded to a consistent standard would prove extremely liquid, and enjoy wide demand – both ingredients for higher values.

    Speaking personally, I was glad to see both Scott and the Foundation adopt numerical grading. Even though PSE no longer enjoys a monopoly in that sector, I think the widespread acceptance of 3rd party grading will have a positive influence on the hobby. It will attract more collectors, and add much needed structure to the market.
    Michael Sherman
    Director of Numismatics
    PCGS
  • Mike,
    The article in Linn's was not so bad or anything. It just seems that anytime there is an article or reference to graded stamps in Linn's it is always a rehash of the same old stuff i.e. "Graded stamps are selling for a lot. This stamp Scott#(fill in the blank) sold for 35 x Scott. This stamp only has a Scott catalog of 40 cents. Will graded stamps hold their value? So and so a dealer says, ' I think it's a fluke, that stamp is common, I have tons of that stamp that will grade 98.' Many collectors are taking notice of graded stamps." And so on. It's like a continuing footnote that says the same thing over and over. I would think by now Linn's would have a regular weekly article of interest to graded collectors. I guess they are somewhat out of touch.
    Doug,
    I guess I can kind of see that the SVS is a tool. But aren't the prices fairly the same. I don't really see the need to use a guide that doesn't really differ except in the fact that there is no back-up to it's values other than "We're Scott, we know a lot". Why not just use the SMQ to estimate ungraded values? I don't understand why anyone would pay near the SVS for an ungraded stamp in an estmated grade, especially with how high the prices are in 95 and up. It takes so little to lower a stamp a grade or two and MANY dollars. Does the dealer guarantee the grade you agree on? I rarely pay near book value for ungraded stuff because I bare the risk and cost of submission.
  • dougwtxdougwtx Posts: 566 ✭✭
    Eldon,

    I do believe if I asked for a guarantee for a raw stamp to come back as a certain grade, they would. They have guaranteed their opinion on fault-free examples I have purchased. This particular dealer though has not got on the graded stamp bandwagon yet; although they do use PSE/PF/APS for regualr certs. We all know that very nicely centered, fault-free mint stamp are worth above the Scott VF value for early material.

    Many small shops do not have the SMQ, but they do have the Scott catalogs and most usually have a Valuing Supplement. I still have this thing in my head that SMQ is for PSE graded material; just as the PCGS Price Guide is for PCGS graded coins. If they are raw, then I prefer another reference to be used. If a raw stamp looks like a 98 and the dealer wants near the 98 value, then I will ask him to submit it; otherwise come down on the price quite a bit. I can usually find another example that is lower, but still to my collecting standards. I'm not into ultra high grade material.... not yet anyways.

    I too rarely pay book-value for any stamp, raw or graded.
Sign In or Register to comment.