2025 Scott US Specialized Catalog Still On Back Order - Has Anyone Seen A Copy?

For the waiting 2025 owners, those that pre-ordered should get a rebate for lost ownership time.

For the purposes of this discussion I will stick with prognosticating on Amos.

I think the odds for there being a 2026 edition are at best 50/50. What would change from the current situation? Either the 2025's will arrive with the new factor seriously tarnished like a 2025 model year Kia available for purchase at full price four months before you can get a 2026 or they won't. If they never get printed by a company that has previously managed to do so through all kinds of economies for many decades you know that something is very wrong. Why would everything return to normal suddenly.

If I were Amos, and I am not, I would opt for total transparency right now and explain what has happened and what will be happening and ask for the support of the community. Their approach does nothing but fuel rumors and speculation. They are seriously tarnishing a brand that is synonymous with stamp collecting.

The biggest impact to collectors is the ultimate disposition of Scott's numbering system. Amos is the current owner, authority, and steward of that important aspect of stamp collecting. The company is under financial duress, and increasingly likely to sell their assets, including their numbering system. Who will own it next? I think there is a high likelihood of chaos for collectors, and maybe damage to the hobby.

I am not so sure that Scott's claim to copyright protection of their numbering system would stand up to intense legal challenge. If Chris Palermo reads this topic it would be interesting to hear his opinion on this.

Even if it did talk about an enforcement nightmare for the new owner.

It likely wouldn't.

I'd be interested to hear on what grounds it wouldn't... my understanding is that they have been pretty aggressive with unauthorized use in the past, so not sure why they wouldn't be doing the same in the future?

As someone who paid for his copy last August, I'm appalled at Amos's silence and lack of communication with their customers.

Sure, companies run into financial difficulties. But it's exactly at those times that you do everything possible to nurture and protect your loyal customer base.

Send me an email and explain what is happening and I'll likely be sympathetic and patiently wait.

But ignoring me. That's no way to run a business.

To add fuel to the fire, I see they are now soliciting advance orders for the 2026 standard catalogue which (supposedly) ships in early August, just over five months from now.

Who's buying?

They have been aggressive, and the law doesn't favor their position. The only reason they haven't lost on the issue in court is that no one has been willing to pay the cost of standing up to them.

If someone new acquired the numbering system, who is to say that it won't change .Amos has made many numbering decisions that are inconsistent. The new owner may revisit some of those decisions.

I might be missing something, but this isn't an open-and-shut case of copyright enforcement?

Values are copyrighted; the determination of what goes is and is not in the catalog is defensible -- right?

So, using the number "1" or "332a" would be infringement?

Catalog numbers themselves are generally not considered copyright protected because they are usually just a simple numerical identifier, not considered creative or original enough to qualify for copyright protection under most legal systems; however, the way a catalog is compiled and organized as a whole might be eligible for copyright protection as a compilation of information. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

If I list a stamp and describe it as "342a" with a perforation rate of 12 on thin paper and with aniline ink how can Scott have sole usage of that?

The Scott numbering system, flaws included, is the basis of philately in the US and much of the non-Gibbons world. Marketing managers know to never mess with the winning status quo. Make changes at your peril, and if you do, do so slowly.

Example: when Nabisco was sold to Kraft (and to other buyers), no one dared to change the very valuable and recognized brand name. Neither did they re-name any of the products. Do not shoot yourself in the foot.

The Gibbons world is very limited when compared to the Michel world.

An individual number, or a bunch of numbers used on eBay listings, auction catalogues, by red box dealers, whatever is all fair use, so




then they don't; you'd be allowed to list your 342a or whatever without problem, as obviously people do every day.

But we're talking about the future of Amos/Scott and the viability of the catalog and the entire numbering system as a going concern in the future. Not a one-off use of a single number or set of numbers.

A number itself can be used by others, but nobody else can lay claim to the catalogue itself or the choice of inclusion/exclusion thereof. If I started the "gvol21 Specialized Catalog of Classic Worldwide Stamps 1840-1940" and just copied the Scott listing (or most of it), it's copyright infringement.

I sure hope they continue making catalogs well in the future. I am not surprised that they probably have declining sales and orders have to be pre-orders. Encyclopedia Britannica faced similar issues years ago before switching to online completely.

I hope the specialized catalog comes out in late March/Early April as promised. I am sure they have libraries and other vendors that want it too.