The More I Use The Scott Catalog, The More I Hate It

IIRC the Scott US specialized gives more precise dates of issue (or at least earliest known use dates)

But US definitive of the late 90s-ealry 2Ks are definitely a challenge due to all the different printers involved and lack of standardizing production requirements among the printers.

It has improved in the past decade but even still the 2022 flag stamps come in six separate Scott numbers due to two printers placing their microprint USPS in different locations.

I guess they could organize by image instead of format, the way Michel does, but the result will still be lots of different listings.

Ok, I've been at this for well over an hour now, and I still don't have all the Scott major numbers for 2001. I've been trying to use my Scott catalog, colnect.com, the bardo stamps website, and my copies of the Mystic 2001 stamp pages and Scott Minuteman pages.

The Scott Minuteman pages seem to be missing a few major catalog numbers, and so do the Mystic pages.

This should not be this hard.

Or what about this website?


stampsmarter.org

colnect.com/en/stamps/list/country/225-United_States_of_America/year/2001/emission/1-Definitive/sort/by_sn

This is all USA definitive stamps issued in 2001 sorted by Scott number from Colnect. This *should* have all of the major number listings for 2001 in numerical order.

That's why I don't reach for my Scotts very often. I've got a 2017 set sitting on the shelf but if I'm curious, I always go to online sources because they are searchable the way that you describe. I guess the big volumes are only really useful if I want to bludgeon an intruder with something the size of an old-school phone book.

And If you only want the stamps, not the panes and booklets and souvenir sheet


colnect.com/en/stamps/list/country/225-United_States_of_America/year/2001/emission/1-Definitive/format/1-Stamp

Andy Pastuszak , with all respect, I think you may have more of a beef with the USPS and the corporations who do the printing for them than you do with Scott. I'm by no means a die-hard defender of Scott and Amos Publishing, and I don't own any stock in them or anything like that¹. The last set of catalogs I bought is from 2015, though from time to time I do buy pages off of that guy who cuts them out of copies that he buys, so I guess I am supporting them in some fashion. But:

Is Amos even informed every time a printer fires up another order with, for instance, the microprinting moved ¼ of an inch? I suspect that they have to discover much of this stuff themselves.

Is the USPS even informed of subtle alterations in the printing or design? I suspect they know about most of them for security reasons, especially with counterfeiting going through a revival as a profession. But I'm not sure how that plays out in practice. They may not even want Amos, or the APS, or you and me to be too clued in on all that. 

Personally, I don't have a big problem following the logic behind that page you scanned, the infamous page 110. My problem is more like trying to decide if I care. But some people get passionate about it. And those are the people who I'm sure Amos considers as supporting their company: the people who buy every new catalog every year and every copy of Linn's - and the dealers who cater to their interests in the lacunae of printing types. I'm fine with that.


_____
¹ Is Amos publicly traded? Could I buy stock in them, like if I thought their business model is really great? I guess I could go look it up, but I don't think I'll get around to it.

Scott's practice to group definitives goes back to US Scott No. 1 and No. 2. This comes up a lot in the First Issue Collector's Club where the first country issue is not often the stamp that is assign number 1. It is usually the lowest denominated value of the set. Gibbons does the same.

So, printed albums usually group by catalog number not by year so definitives (regular issues) can appear earlier than the commemorative stamps in the album. But then some definitive sets (Prominent Americans and Transportation coils) appear in 3 groups.

I see the issue as much as collector problem as much as the catalog maker. The specialist societies can create works (Scott usually allows their number use) but societies like the United States Stamp Society does not emphasize modern issues as much except plate numbers in their Durland catalog but it does not include dates. The works at stampsmarter was done outside any society.  

Colnect should come close to be able to generate what you want if someone takes the time to have the information added. Scott has the support of specialists to feed information but then Scott decides what to list based  upon constraints they impose. I believe since Colnect does not mention Scott it complicates the challenge plus they would not want to sue in a foreign court that is less restrictive on copyrights.  I am sure they are aware of Colnect.

As for the Scott licensing debate, I understand Scott's position since I worked for a company known for Intellectual property. and dealt with licensing agreements.  As project lead I had to engage the Legal group to obtain rights to use other software in our software. My only wish is they were more open on licensing terms. I thought the Krause lawsuit settled that. They are hesitant to license works for free that can be easily replicated.