Scott Peeves

I'd have a section at the very back of the catalog for ALL the watermarks in numerical order. That way I don't have to sit there flipping through pages to find the beginning of the country listing to find the watermark picture. Better yet, I could either tear out the watermark section or make a copy of it, so I wouldn't have to flip catalog pages at all.

Well, maybe one more.

I'd give all Stamp Bear members a 50% discount off list price.

k

Greetings Fellow SB Boarders
.
I dislike the fact that changes in basic set information are only shown when the change occurs. Thus, often it will take several columns, or even pages, to back track to find the watermark, perforation, different paper, or printing method. I ain't got time for dat.
.
Respectfully,

Gordon Lee

I agree with This

-  maybe the cut off should be 1950, as it finishes off major colonial areas such as Indochina and Netherlands Indies.  The current Classics catalogue already include British Commenwealth up to 1952.

Michael

I may be the only one who favors the 1940 cutoff. It's an issue of tradition, for those who like to collect the first 100 years. Also, it is intended to matched the Scott International Volume I. The 1953 cutoff for BC is to satisfy the BC collectors of pre-QEII. Can't make everybody happy on that one. I'm sure Scott would get an earful if they made changes to that. But as the older collectors die off, the 1940 cutoff traditional may very well also fade away. So, who knows?

Greetings Mr. MikeC99
.
Actually, one can find Scott watermarks 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 314, 373, and 384 displayed in the introduction section (titled: "British Colonial and Crown Agents Watermarks") at the beginning of every volume of Scott Standard Postage Stamp Catalog.
.
Respectfully,

Gordon Lee

Because it was pirated like crazy, and people were selling the pirated copies for a healthy profit. I actually did some research on this several years ago. I estimate well over 95% of the listings were certain pirated copies just from reading the listing description alone. Shrink wrapped meant nothing. I bought one from a dealer shrink-wrapped that I thought might be genuine, but turned out to be a pirated copy (he did offer a full refund when I presented evidence why it was an illegal copy). You can tell because pirated copies use burned CDs, not manufactured CDs. Plus, there was a spelling error on the CD jacket!!!

I stated many years ago that Scott was shooting themselves in the foot by selling the CDs at only $5 less than the print catalog price -- a ridiculous discount considering how much they saved in production costs. By selling at such a trivial discount, I posited that software pirates would easily profit and drain off legitimate sales. I was right. The only way I could ever get a genuine CD/DVD was by ordering directly from Amos or from a dealer that obtained stock directly from Amos (not from secondary sources).

In 2008, Amos shot themselves in the other foot by turning off the print function and introducing an easily over-ridden copy-protection that only served to cause problems for those who bought genuine copies.

This was once a huge pet peeve of mine that I stopped posting about after the demise of the software CD/DVDs.

They could have made huge inroads into the software catalog market. But instead, they employed a marketing strategy that was doomed to failure.

2622979751 k

You'd think Scott could put a one line note at the beginning of the BC country listings giving the BC watermark page in the introduction!