Options
Post from coin board on stamp collecting
MSherman
Posts: 86 mod
in Stamps Forum
On the coin board, there was recently a post on why stamp collecting seems to be losing popularity. I made a post on that thread, which I will repeat, verbatim here. I thought some of you may find it to be of interest.
***********************************************************************************************************************************************
Interesting thread.
I was in the coin business for about 25 years, and was tapped to run the stamp grading division of Collectors Universe (Professional Stamp Experts) about six years ago.
So as a "coin guy" in the stamp business, I have a few thoughts that may be of interest.
Much of what has already been said here is very true. Stamp collectors are by in large older people, more reserved, and less computer savvy. It's tough to interest younger people in stamps because they aren't used much anymore, and there is a lot of competition for one's time these days.
Philately is deeply rooted in its "traditions" and does not adopt to change readily.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with U.S. stamp collecting these days lies in its very structure. The Scott Numbering system is not hierarchically arranged, and many "whole numbers" represent very minor shade differences or plate positions. I don't want to get too technical, but it would be the equivalent of requiring all "complete" coin collections to collect by Overton, Sheldon or VAM numbers.
There is no concept of a "type set" or overview of U.S. stamps. If you collect, you need all the varieties, both major and minor, to be considered "complete". It remains frustrating, confusing at times, and virtually impossible to finish.
I have recently addressed this problem by coming up with a U.S. Design numbering system, that basically assigns a unique number to a distinct design, and leaves the technicalities to the specialists or those interested in minor varieties.
What follows is an email I recently sent to a major stamp dealer, explaining the idea:
********************************************
"For some time, Bill Litle and I have been discussing what we perceive to be an aging collector base in the stamp hobby, and a general decline in the number of participants.
While there are a myriad of reasons for this, one of the most crucial in our opinion is the overall complexity of the structure of stamp collecting, the focus on varieties and the lack of a hierarchy in collecting options.
As an example, in numismatics (a thriving and popular hobby by any measure) collectors of U.S. Coins may go about it in a wide variety of accepted ways. They may collect a type set, a date set, a date and mintmark set, a set that includes “major” or “Redbook” varieties or a detailed die variety set such as seen in the Sheldon Large Cents, the Overton Bust Halves or the VAM varieties for Morgans. In other words, they may specialize to their heart’s content if they have the interest, but also have a good roadmap to collecting in a less comprehensive manner.
Unfortunately, the present Scott Numbering System does not really offer that option. It seems that almost any variety, no matter how trivial or accidental, has been elevated to a “must own” status, and is now required for a set of U.S. Stamps.
What follows will be appearing in the next Stamp Market Quarterly when we introduce this idea to the philatelic community:
“In the Jan-Mar 2008 issue of the SMQ, we commented on the ongoing trend towards specialization in U.S. stamp collecting. Recent changes in the 2008 Scott catalog listings for the three cent issues of 1851 and 1857 have continued the unending march to ever-increasing detail and complexity in the hobby. While research and the discovery of new varieties is a fascinating and vital part of philately, our reservations came from how these cataloging changes impact the structure of collecting. We offered the view that a more flexible approach might bring some much needed new blood to the hobby.
The completion of a collection of U.S. stamps today requires the acquisition of a substantial number of nearly identical items. The differences are often very subtle – minute color shade variations, the type of paper used, the gauge of the perforations, a watermark only visible in special fluid, “secret” marks and even a stamp’s position on the printing plate to name a few. Many stamps with unique whole Scott catalog numbers are minor varieties of the same basic design.
As an example, recall the one cent blue imperforate Franklin stamp of 1851 discussed last issue. The Scott Catalog lists no fewer than five whole numbers for this stamp (5 through 9 inclusive) plus some letter suffixes and several different reliefs, types and plates within the whole numbers. These small variations notwithstanding, the basic stamp remains the one cent issue of 1851. For many collectors, one nice example of the type is sufficient. Yet, the structure of the present Scott Numbering system implies as much difference between Scott No. 8 and 9 as there is between Scott No. 9 and 10. Both are cataloged under unique, whole numbers. The catalog structure lacks any kind of hierarchical organization whereby varieties are subordinated to entirely different types.
Add to this the inconsistencies apparent in the present Scott system. Ponder why Scott Nos. 27, 28, 28A and 29 are different major numbers by virtue of subtle shade variations (brick red, red brown, Indian red and brown), whereas color differences in Scott No. 1, which can vary from pumpkin orange to black brown, are relegated simply to lower-case variety letters.
Tiny unintentional shade variations or plate engraving anomalies are sometimes elevated to “whole number” status, while at other times are completely ignored.
Keep in mind the Scott Numbering System was devised by ordinary human beings. Despite what some traditionalists may want to imagine, it did not descend from a mountain on two stone tablets. It is a product of lobbying, compromise, and personal favors accumulated over many years. In many areas, it is a patchwork, haphazard system.
While acquiring every major and minor variety of every U.S. stamp certainly appeals to some, a number of collectors have expressed the desire to collect a set of U.S. stamps by design type. Yet without a hierarchical organization and numbering scheme, the ability to define such a set is limited.
About a year ago, PSE began working on a more logical and intuitive organizational structure for regular U.S. stamp issues. Clarity and simplicity were the primary considerations. We are proposing a basic U.S. Design Number, which would represent a unique design, denomination and major color.
PSE has prepared a booklet and an album constructed around the U.S. Design Number, and has extended it through the first century of U.S. Regular issues and commemoratives (through 1947). It offers a fresh look at U.S. philately, and can serve as a flexible structure through which stamp collecting can be approached on a new level. Potential new collectors will have collecting alternatives – a “type set” of major design types or issues, a set which includes major varieties, and finally, a specialized set which would include all minor varieties as well. Collectors will be able to specialize as much, or as little, as they wish.
If you have an interest in learning more about this innovative and exciting new concept, or receiving a copy of our booklet, please contact us.”
I strongly believe a simplified approach to philately, more akin to coins or cards, whereby the collector can choose their level of specialization, could very well bring some much needed new blood to the hobby. Keep in mind, I’m not condemning variety collectors or those who research with microscopes. However, I feel that wing has hijacked the hobby, and is imposing their will on any and all new adherents. The bar now is extraordinarily high, and presents a formidable hurdle which demographics show that fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to undertake.
I’d be pleased to discuss this further with you on the phone, and send you a few pages from our album so that you may see this idea in greater detail. Virtually all whom I’ve spoken with so far find it intriguing. Of course, I don’t expect much support from the “old timers” in the hobby, but it’s really not about them anymore, is it?
Best,
Mike Sherman
President
PSE
********************************************
Anyway, I apologize for the length of this post. But if anyone here is interested in seeing or learning more about this idea, drop me an email at msherman@collectors.com.
***********************************************************************************************************************************************
Interesting thread.
I was in the coin business for about 25 years, and was tapped to run the stamp grading division of Collectors Universe (Professional Stamp Experts) about six years ago.
So as a "coin guy" in the stamp business, I have a few thoughts that may be of interest.
Much of what has already been said here is very true. Stamp collectors are by in large older people, more reserved, and less computer savvy. It's tough to interest younger people in stamps because they aren't used much anymore, and there is a lot of competition for one's time these days.
Philately is deeply rooted in its "traditions" and does not adopt to change readily.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with U.S. stamp collecting these days lies in its very structure. The Scott Numbering system is not hierarchically arranged, and many "whole numbers" represent very minor shade differences or plate positions. I don't want to get too technical, but it would be the equivalent of requiring all "complete" coin collections to collect by Overton, Sheldon or VAM numbers.
There is no concept of a "type set" or overview of U.S. stamps. If you collect, you need all the varieties, both major and minor, to be considered "complete". It remains frustrating, confusing at times, and virtually impossible to finish.
I have recently addressed this problem by coming up with a U.S. Design numbering system, that basically assigns a unique number to a distinct design, and leaves the technicalities to the specialists or those interested in minor varieties.
What follows is an email I recently sent to a major stamp dealer, explaining the idea:
********************************************
"For some time, Bill Litle and I have been discussing what we perceive to be an aging collector base in the stamp hobby, and a general decline in the number of participants.
While there are a myriad of reasons for this, one of the most crucial in our opinion is the overall complexity of the structure of stamp collecting, the focus on varieties and the lack of a hierarchy in collecting options.
As an example, in numismatics (a thriving and popular hobby by any measure) collectors of U.S. Coins may go about it in a wide variety of accepted ways. They may collect a type set, a date set, a date and mintmark set, a set that includes “major” or “Redbook” varieties or a detailed die variety set such as seen in the Sheldon Large Cents, the Overton Bust Halves or the VAM varieties for Morgans. In other words, they may specialize to their heart’s content if they have the interest, but also have a good roadmap to collecting in a less comprehensive manner.
Unfortunately, the present Scott Numbering System does not really offer that option. It seems that almost any variety, no matter how trivial or accidental, has been elevated to a “must own” status, and is now required for a set of U.S. Stamps.
What follows will be appearing in the next Stamp Market Quarterly when we introduce this idea to the philatelic community:
“In the Jan-Mar 2008 issue of the SMQ, we commented on the ongoing trend towards specialization in U.S. stamp collecting. Recent changes in the 2008 Scott catalog listings for the three cent issues of 1851 and 1857 have continued the unending march to ever-increasing detail and complexity in the hobby. While research and the discovery of new varieties is a fascinating and vital part of philately, our reservations came from how these cataloging changes impact the structure of collecting. We offered the view that a more flexible approach might bring some much needed new blood to the hobby.
The completion of a collection of U.S. stamps today requires the acquisition of a substantial number of nearly identical items. The differences are often very subtle – minute color shade variations, the type of paper used, the gauge of the perforations, a watermark only visible in special fluid, “secret” marks and even a stamp’s position on the printing plate to name a few. Many stamps with unique whole Scott catalog numbers are minor varieties of the same basic design.
As an example, recall the one cent blue imperforate Franklin stamp of 1851 discussed last issue. The Scott Catalog lists no fewer than five whole numbers for this stamp (5 through 9 inclusive) plus some letter suffixes and several different reliefs, types and plates within the whole numbers. These small variations notwithstanding, the basic stamp remains the one cent issue of 1851. For many collectors, one nice example of the type is sufficient. Yet, the structure of the present Scott Numbering system implies as much difference between Scott No. 8 and 9 as there is between Scott No. 9 and 10. Both are cataloged under unique, whole numbers. The catalog structure lacks any kind of hierarchical organization whereby varieties are subordinated to entirely different types.
Add to this the inconsistencies apparent in the present Scott system. Ponder why Scott Nos. 27, 28, 28A and 29 are different major numbers by virtue of subtle shade variations (brick red, red brown, Indian red and brown), whereas color differences in Scott No. 1, which can vary from pumpkin orange to black brown, are relegated simply to lower-case variety letters.
Tiny unintentional shade variations or plate engraving anomalies are sometimes elevated to “whole number” status, while at other times are completely ignored.
Keep in mind the Scott Numbering System was devised by ordinary human beings. Despite what some traditionalists may want to imagine, it did not descend from a mountain on two stone tablets. It is a product of lobbying, compromise, and personal favors accumulated over many years. In many areas, it is a patchwork, haphazard system.
While acquiring every major and minor variety of every U.S. stamp certainly appeals to some, a number of collectors have expressed the desire to collect a set of U.S. stamps by design type. Yet without a hierarchical organization and numbering scheme, the ability to define such a set is limited.
About a year ago, PSE began working on a more logical and intuitive organizational structure for regular U.S. stamp issues. Clarity and simplicity were the primary considerations. We are proposing a basic U.S. Design Number, which would represent a unique design, denomination and major color.
PSE has prepared a booklet and an album constructed around the U.S. Design Number, and has extended it through the first century of U.S. Regular issues and commemoratives (through 1947). It offers a fresh look at U.S. philately, and can serve as a flexible structure through which stamp collecting can be approached on a new level. Potential new collectors will have collecting alternatives – a “type set” of major design types or issues, a set which includes major varieties, and finally, a specialized set which would include all minor varieties as well. Collectors will be able to specialize as much, or as little, as they wish.
If you have an interest in learning more about this innovative and exciting new concept, or receiving a copy of our booklet, please contact us.”
I strongly believe a simplified approach to philately, more akin to coins or cards, whereby the collector can choose their level of specialization, could very well bring some much needed new blood to the hobby. Keep in mind, I’m not condemning variety collectors or those who research with microscopes. However, I feel that wing has hijacked the hobby, and is imposing their will on any and all new adherents. The bar now is extraordinarily high, and presents a formidable hurdle which demographics show that fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to undertake.
I’d be pleased to discuss this further with you on the phone, and send you a few pages from our album so that you may see this idea in greater detail. Virtually all whom I’ve spoken with so far find it intriguing. Of course, I don’t expect much support from the “old timers” in the hobby, but it’s really not about them anymore, is it?
Best,
Mike Sherman
President
PSE
********************************************
Anyway, I apologize for the length of this post. But if anyone here is interested in seeing or learning more about this idea, drop me an email at msherman@collectors.com.
Michael Sherman
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
0
Comments
<< <i>Sounds like an interesting idea IF you can tap into some group of people who might have an interest sparked by this approach to collecting. I would say someone in my age range(39) or 30's with some disposable income would find this interesting and not overly complicated. >>
That would include me, though sometimes I wonder about the disposable income part.
The concern for collecting varieties is one reason I won't bother with conventional albums with equal space demanded for numbers 5-9, for example. The type-set concept is simple, compelling and practical, but I had to be told about it. After all, the Scott album is the standard reference for collecting and it has overwhelming detail for the first few decades of stamps. The simple model should be marketed to develop acceptance as a real, no-excuses standard.
www.rfrajola.com
Our Guide to U.S. Design Numbers 1847-1947 was delivered today from the printer and is available for immediate shipping.
Please let me know if you would like a complimentary copy.
msherman@collectors.com
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
<< <i>For any and all who are interested:
Our Guide to U.S. Design Numbers 1847-1947 was delivered today from the printer and is available for immediate shipping.
Please let me know if you would like a complimentary copy.
msherman@collectors.com >>
Hi Mike,
I would like a copy.
Thanks,
George
I WOULD LOVE TO LOOK AT THE PROPOSED MATERIAL YOU ARE PRODUCING. I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER SENDING A COPY, I WOULD REIMBURSE YOUR COST. ALTHOUGH I AM A GARDEN VARIETY COLLECTOR, I WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A REVISION SHOULD IT IMPROVE THE STAMP COLLECTING EXPERIENCE. I WANT MY CHILDREN, AND GRANDCHILDREN, TO GET SOME HELP IN THE HOBBY AND END SOME OF THE FRUSTRATION I FOUND BUILT INTO THE SCOTT SYSTEM.
THANKS, BRIAN.
Please send me an email with your full name and address and I'll get a copy out to you. Requests made only on this board are tough, as I don't know where to send it.
msherman@collectors.com
Thanks.
Mike
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
Jerry
Click here for numismatic version of announcement
Click here for philatelic version of announcement
-donn-