 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Welcome to Musings and Miscellany at GBStamps.com! Here you will find my various musings plus some comments and opinions by others. You'll also find miscellaneous other topics here. Enjoy! |
Return to Musings and Miscellany
 |
| This folded sheet of 24 self-adhesive Christmas stamps is one of the many items that causes organization problems for catalogue editors. |
When is a self-adhesive stamp not a self-adhesive? When it is a commemorative. When does a self-adhesive remain a self-adhesive? When it is a Machin.
This anomaly apparently resulted from the editor’s fuzzy thinking while searching for a solution to the problem of how to list self-adhesives. Some catalogue editors felt that these newfangled items deserved to be listed separately from traditionally-gummed stamps. This may have been in response to the initial negative response that self-adhesives garnered from some collectors who decided that they would not include them in their collections. Over time, however, this policy has proven troublesome, and the Stoneham is a prime example of this.
At the back of the volume, past the booklets and booklet panes, is a section titled “Self-Adhesive Issues.” The first two pages of that section are subtitled “Single Self Adhesive Stamps.” Here are all the self-adhesive Machins, starting with the 1993 booklet with the horizontal format Machins and ending with the so-called universal or one-stop stamps of 2003-2004.
However, self-adhesive commemoratives issued as sheets are not here. They are lumped in with the lick-and-stick varieties in the main commemorative section.
The following pages of the “Self-Adhesive Issues” section are subtitled “Self Adhesive Issues.” (Yes, the title has a hyphen and the subtitle doesn’t. I guess the editor couldn’t make up his mind.) Here are found self-adhesive booklets and the business sheets of 100 self-adhesive non-denominated (NVI) Machins. Also here are the Christmas “booklets,” actually folded sheets of 12 or 24 Christmas commemoratives (an example is shown at left).
In summary, self-adhesive commemoratives are treated as you would expect — the sheet stamps are included with their water-activated siblings, and booklets, along with other convenience formats, are in the back of the book. The Machins, however, are not so fortunate, and all self-adhesive Machins, both sheet stamps and booklets, are relegated to the back of the book.
Okay, let’s move beyond self-adhesives. Both the Stoneham and the Concise follow the usual practice of grouping stamps by reign. Within each reign, the Concise lists all stamps chronologically, with the various definitive series grouped together. The Stoneham lists all definitives of each reign first, then the commemoratives. (Oddly, that is how the multi-volume Stanley Gibbons Specialised is organized).
I don’t have a strong preference between these two major organization schemes. However, if you are using the catalogue together with an album that has a stricty chronological organization, then the Concise might be the better choice.
Both of these schemes work for me. They both produce acceptable listings through King George VI, since there just aren’t that many stamps to deal with. The fun comes in the Elizabethan period.
 |
 |
| Catalog editors must decide how to organize long series of definitives. The Wildings (8d on the left) and especially the 40-year Machins (12p on the right) are both challenges. | |
The Concise starts with the first batch of Wildings, those with the Tudor Crown watermark. Then is the Coronation issue, followed by the first set of Castles, listing both Waterlow and De La Rue printings with St. Edward’s Crown watermark. After a few more commemoratives, the rest of the Wildings follow. In the middle of these, in their correct chronological placement, is the second set of Castles.
Since the Concise never shows the same design twice, there are no illustrations (other than the watermarks) accompanying this second and large group of Wildings-with-Castles-in-the-middle. It takes close reading to find what you want.
Many footnotes accompany these listings, but they, too, take close reading to grasp the useful and necessary information therein.
The Stoneham avoids these problems. Not only are definitives separated from commemoratives, but high values such as the Castles are separated from low values such as the Wildings. The Stoneham has a page of introductory notes about the Wildings (mostly on how to distinguish stamps from sheets, coils and booklets), followed by the listings. Then there’s a full page with a nice chart showing the differences between all the Castle printings and a step-by-step identification guide, and this is followed by the listings.
The Stoneham includes a very specialized listing of Wildings that extends over 11 pages. Gibbons squeezes their listing into four pages. If you want to use one of these catalogues as a guide to an extensive Wilding collection, the Stoneham should be your choice. If you want a simplified collection, either one will do.
The Machins are another story. The Machin Collectors Club has chosen what I consider to be an unsatisfactory organization scheme for its specialized Machin catalogue, and that scheme is reflected in the Stoneham. Although it is valuable to have all the Machins grouped together (with one glaring inconsistency that I’ll get to in a moment and with the exception of the hapless self-adhesives that are relegated to the back of the book), the organization within that section makes it very hard to find the listing for an individual stamp.
In the case of the Machins, I think a catalogue should help the reader narrow down the possible varieties to make identification easier. If the catalogue can tell you that the denomination you have was only printed by photogravure, then you don’t need to spend the time determining the printing method. The Stoneham is not helpful in this regard. Because of the way the listings are organized, you have to completely identify all the characteristics of the stamp before you can find it. For example, there are 19 varieties of the 2p Machin, which has been in continuous use since 1971, and each is listed in a different section. You have to thumb through a lot of pages to see what the possibilities are.
There are nine pages of helpful introductory notes to the Machins, but what would be really helpful is a step-by-step guide to how to use these listings for identification. The Stoneham is very good in this respect for so many of the look-alike series that pervade British stamps; it’s a shame that it stumbles in an area that should be its best.
The glaring inconsistency I mentioned earlier relates to high values. Consistent with the practice throughout the volume, the high value Machins are listed separately from and prior to the low values. First are the recess printings of 1969-1972 and then the large photogravure versions of 1977-1987. Finally are the small format engraved issues of 1999-2000. But where are the gravure issues of 2003?
This really stumped me when I first looked through the Stoneham. Surely a catalogue produced by the Machin Collectors Club could not have omitted these significant stamps. Eventually I found them. They were tucked in with the low values in the section containing the Machins produced by De La Rue on the ATN press. Indeed, these high values were printed on the ATN, but putting them here is inconsistent with the overriding rule of having a separate listing for high values. At least, that should be the overriding rule.
The Concise avoids most of these problems because its Machin listing does not have the depth of the Stoneham’s. The Concise doesn’t concern itself with different papers, gums, or types of phosphor. The result is a much smaller list with fewer organizational problems. The Concise also has an index that lists all the varieties by denomination and color, making it easy to find what the possibilities are for any stamp.
The Concise has three main groups of Machins: the predecimals starting in 1967, the decimals without elliptical perforations starting in 1971 and the decimals with elliptical perforations starting in 1993. Limited issues, such as the 1990 stamps featuring both Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria, and the horizontally oriented Machins used briefly for booklets and coils, are listed separately in their own chronological places. Some of the non-denominated (NVI) Machins are also interspersed in the main listings.
To allow for keeping the Machins together without causing numbering problems for other issues, Gibbons uses an ‘X’ prefix for the first group of decimal Machins and a ‘Y’ prefix for the second group. All other Machins have a number without a prefix.
This scheme makes the Machins relatively easy to find, though the ones scattered among the main listing take a bit of effort.
I should say a word (or a few) about numbering. The Concise uses simple, sequential numbers for all basic stamps, with the exception of the Machins noted above. Regionals, officials and booklets all have a prefix.
The Stoneham uses a prefix for everything. The Victorian issues start with ‘V,’ and the officials are listed after the regular issues with no change in numbering scheme. Edward VII gets an ‘E’ prefix, George V gets ‘G,’ Edward VIII gets ‘ED,’ and George VI gets ‘B’ (because he was known as “Bertie” to his family?). An assortment of prefixes is used for the Elizabethan era.
 |
| This image shows the green bar on the right side of the page in the Stoneham catalogue. This bar identifies the section that lists booklets. The blue and brown colors are on the edge of the following pages, showing how the colors can be used to open the catalogue directly to the desired section. |
It is also worth noting that the Stoneham, to its credit, has some sections that bring together all stamps in certain formats, even though these are already listed elsewhere. For example, there’s a separate section listing all presentation packs, even though each pack is also listed with the basic stamps. The same is true for booklet panes and miniature sheets. Even miniature sheets that don’t have corresponding sheet stamps, such as the 2005 End of World War II sheet, are listed in both the main commemorative section and the special miniature sheet section. If you collect these items separately, the extra listings are very handy.
Finally, each catalog has an aid to help readers quickly find what they are looking for. The Concise puts the year of issue of the stamps shown on each page at the top of each page. This is especially helpful when plowing through the nearly infinite number of QE II commemoratives.
In the Stoneham, each section has a one-inch colored bar along the outside margin of the page, and the color extends to the outside edge. So with the catalogue closed, it is possible to find, for example, the section containing complete booklets by flipping to the set of pages with the green bar on the edge. See the illustration at left.
We’ve finally reached the end of the round. This is a very important one. However, unlike the area of specialized Machin catalogues, where I have a very strong preference, the situation here is balanced.
Overall, I like the Stoneham. With the glaring exception of the Machins, I think it is easier to find what you are looking for in the Stoneham than in the Concise. (This is helped by the larger size and number of images in the Stoneham.) However, the Stoneham’s odd treatment of self-adhesives and misplacement of the recent Machin high values are big gaffes in my opinion. (See the reference to “consistency freak” above). So I am going to award this round to the Concise, with the hopes that the Stoneham improves in the next edition. Score: Stoneham 3, Concise 2.
Both catalogues, obviously, include all the basic stamps and basic back of the book items such as officials and postage dues.
The Stoneham includes several of the less common Victorian era back of the book categories such as telegraph stamps, circular delivery stamps (issued by private companies) and college stamps. The Concise doesn’t include these.
 |
| This 1d King George V definitive is attached to its margin with control N19. The number 19 indicates that the stamp was printed in 1919. |
The Stoneham includes a complete list of control singles (single stamps with the attached margin showing the control) with prices. Postage due stamps are included as well. Controls appeared in the sheet margin starting in 1882. Originally a control was a single letter, but starting in 1903, a number was added to the control letter to indicate the year. They were used by the printer to help control stocks of paper. Controls were discontinued in 1947. A control single is shown on the right.
Also found only in the Stoneham are extensive lists of Victorian stamps used abroad.
Within the basic listings, the Stoneham lists more varieties. Here are two examples. For the 1858-79 perforated Penny Reds, the Stoneham lists and prices inverted and reversed watermarks for each plate for which those varieties exist. The Concise only lists normal watermarks and simply notes that inverted watermarks exist. For the 1913 King George V 1/2d green, the Stoneham lists 17 different shades compared to the Concise’s five.
As I noted previously, the Stoneham also has more-detailed listings of the Wildings and the Machins than the Concise does.
One area in which I found the two catalogues about the same is in the missing colors, missing phosphors and other varieties of the early Queen Elizabeth II commemoratives.
Perhaps because they also produce the multi-volume Specialised catalogue, or perhaps because they’ve made different decisions about what their users are interested in, Gibbons has chosen to limit what is included in the Concise. Of course, if you are not interested in these types of varieties, or 17 different shades of a common definitive, these omissions may not matter to you.
However, since this round judges which catalogue is more inclusive, the Stoneham is victorious. Score: Stoneham 4, Concise 2.
I mentioned earlier that the Stoneham had some very nice identification guides for stamp issues that confuse collectors. The Concise does not have anything that is comparable.
 |
| A helpful identification guide in the Stoneham includes these illustrations of the two dies of the first King George V definitives known as “Downey Heads.” In addition to the differences highlighted by the arrows (which are part of the illustrations), it is easy to see differences in the King’s hair and in the shading around the fraction 1/2. |
The Stoneham has four enlarged photographs to help collectors distinguish between the De La Rue, Harrison and Somerset House printings of Edward VII stamps. This is followed by a full-page chart that gives general differences (gum color, quality of printing, etc.) and then specific differences for each denomination. In contrast, the Concise has five brief paragraphs of text with no illustrations.
For the Elizabethan pre-decimal Castles, the Stoneham has a similar chart plus a four-step procedure that collectors can use to identify an individual stamp. The Concise has some detailed paragraphs of text, but these are split among the two separate listings of the Castles.
Not surprisingly, the Stoneham also excels in its guide to identifying Machins. It has nine well-illustrated pages at the beginning of the Machin section. The Concise has a half-page plus some additional information in the introduction.
The Concise’s identification information is always in the same tiny print used for the listings. The Stoneham uses a slightly larger typeface for some of the identification sections and the regular, small print for others, but in all cases the information is laid out nicely in an easy-to-read format.
The Stoneham is the clear winner of this round. Score: Stoneham 5, Concise 2.
This is the final round, and certainly one of the most important. Collectors go to catalogues for information and guidance. The primary responsibility of a catalogue editor is to make sure that the information presented is correct.
I’m not talking about prices here. That was round three. In this round I’m concerned with the other information presented in the catalogue.
I didn’t search the two catalogues looking for mistakes. I did, however, discover a couple of fairly serious ones when using the Stoneham for research when writing an article for the Great Britain Collectors Club.
I was looking for the dates of issue of the first surface-printed high values of the Victorian era. The Stoneham shows the 5-shilling rose with the issue date of July 1, 1887, but both the Concise and Scott, as well as James Mackay writing in Under the Gum, give the date as July 1, 1867. Those dates are for plates 1 and 2. Plate 4 is shown correctly in both catalogues as issued in 1882. If the Stoneham’s dates were correct, it would mean that plate 4 was used before plate 1, an unlikely occurrence. This corroborates the conclusion that the Stoneham is incorrect.
Also, the 10/- grey green is shown as September 26, 1868 in the Stoneham but the Concise and Scott have the same day but in 1878.
I went back to my 1989 ninth edition of the Stoneham, and the same errors appear there. It’s hard to believe that these errors have not been caught previously.
Another error in the Stoneham is an incorrect illustration for the 5/- rose. That stamp was issued with two similar designs. The first, issued in 1867 (the one for which the Stoneham has the incorrect date) has white corner checkletters on a rose background. The 1884 version has a very similar design, but the check letters are rose on a white background. The coloring of the word “POSTAGE” at the top and “5 SHILLINGS” at the bottom is similarly reversed in the two stamps. The Stoneham incorrectly has an image of the latter stamp (with the rose check letters) for the 1867 issue, as well as repeating that image correctly for the 1884 issue. This error is not in the old ninth edition; it probably happened when the color images were incorporated to replace the old black and white ones.
The Stoneham is also guilty of sloppy editing when it comes to punctuation and sentence structure. For example, the first sentence in the identification guide for the Edward VII stamps reads, “It is recommended that identification is best carried out by a series of elimination’s and the following chart provides a degree of guidance.” This, too, was carried over from the ninth edition, though the incorrect apostrophe crept in sometime between that edition and the current one.
Such grammatical errors are not serious, but they do detract from the overall quality of the work.
As in the last round, there’s a clear winner. This time, though, it’s the Concise. Although the Concise wins this last round, it isn’t enough to win the match. Final score: Stoneham 5, Concise 3.
Using my criteria, with the caveats mentioned at the beginning, the Stoneham wins the shootout, although the match is close. If you are not bothered by the few errors and the organizational quirks, then the Stoneham is the one to get. Its lower price and better illustrations make it more collector-friendly.
If you also use, or expect to grow into, the comprehensive Gibbons Specialised catalogue, then the Concise may be a good choice because of its consistency with the larger work. You might also like the Concise for its small size, its better organization, and maybe even for its more simplified listings, if that’s how you choose to collect.
When I started putting together the shootout, I didn’t know which catalogue would win. I had taken some notes, but neither stood out as superior to the other. When the shooting was over, the Stoneham was victorious.
I’m glad that there was a winner (it would have been a bummer if it had been a tie), and that the Stoneham won. I was fond of the Stoneham back in its heyday, and it’s healthy for the hobby to have it return from oblivion and challenge the market leader.
I hope that the MCC will fix the Stoneham’s errors and its organizational quirks. Similarly, I hope that Gibbons will improve its illustrations. Those changes would make both catalogues better for collectors.
Match two will be held in the near future. This will pit the Simplified Stoneham against Gibbons’ Collect British Stamps. Will the outcome be the same, or will Gibbons come from behind to win the second match? We will soon find out.
Return to Part 1
Return to Musings and Miscellany
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Last update: May 24, 2007 |
 |
|
| Copyright © 2007 by Larry Rosenblum |