Letter to the Editor: Part 3.

Dear Sir:

In this look at the 2006 editon of The Unitrade Specialized Catalogue of Canadian Stamps, I will deal with printing varieties including color shifts and flaws and how both it and Darnell deal with this material.

Both the Unitrade and Darnell catalogues list color shifts as legitimate varieties. Thus both catalogues list the "raised rump" (SC#595viii, D# 622f) and the "blue tail" (SC# 595vii, D# 622g) varieties (see Scan#1) on the 15c Landscape definitive but only Darnell actually illustrates these two varieties.
Both also list the "Siamese Bears" variety which also occurs as a result of a color shift on the 25c Landscape (SC# 597aiii, D# 624e) with again only Darnell illustrating the variety. However, in this same series, Unitrade lists but does not illustrate a "double headed sheep" variety, resulting again from a color shift (SC# 595ix) which Darnell fails to mention in its regular 2005 catalogue.

On commemorative issues there also appears to be a lack of consistency between the two catalogues in the area of color shifts. While Darnell lists a "Hair touching barn" variety (D# 705a) on the 1974 Merritt stamp (as well as illustrating the variety: See Scan 2), Unitrade declines to assign the "hair over barn" variety a specific number or to illustrate it, merely mentioning its existence in a footnote.

Thus, the 2006 Unitrade continues the practice of the previous two editions in refusing to assign the "hair over barn" variety a specific catalogue number and consistently refuses to illustrate any of the color shift pbroblems on SC#655 or SC# 595.
This seems to be in line with the new policy statement in the introduction to the 2006 edition:
"As an example, we have specifically not included [in the 2006 edition] color shifts, perforation shifts, tagging shifts, fold-overs, paper creases, minor shade varieties and the like (unless they have already existed in a previous version of the catalogue). It would be impossible to define a point where this type of variety should or should not be listed".
It will be interesting to see if despite an expanded emphasis on illustrating other minor varieties, whether Robin Harris will continue to stick to his guns or whether the printing shifts, whether specifically listed or merely footnoted, will eventually be illustrated under some sort of "grandfather clause". Also, it is significant to note that Unitrade proposes to ignore many of the the very areas that the Darnell EFO is now highlighting.

In the area of minor printing flaws, Darnell has traditionally been more likely to list minor printing flaw varieties. However, in the 2006 Unitrade there seems to be an attempt to catch up in this situation. Thus the latest edition of Unitrade lists and illustrates 5 minor varieties on the RMC issues of 1976 (SC# 692-3). Darnell lists 7 minor varieties on this pair, but only illustrates 4 of them in their regular catalogue. On the 4 Inland Vessels issues of 1976 Unitrade now lists and illustrates 8 of the 28 constant varieties which it notes have been reported on these stamps whereas Darnell still only lists 2 varieties (with no illustrations) on these stamps and still fails to list the "flattened S" variety which it had previously stated in private correspondence several years ago would be listed.
While there may be differences between the two catalogues as to what constitutes a listable variety, it is the opinion of this writer that once a printing flaw or color shift is deemed worthy of listing as a separate variety in the respective catalogue there is not excuse for it not to be illustrated so that all can see and understand what the variety looks like. Every thirteen year old and every senior citizen who has paid $40+ for a catalogue should be able to see and understand what is being listed without having to pay an additional fee to a national stamp society in order to join a study group which might be able to explain the variety to him or have to buy an additional and expensive EFO catalogue to understand the regular catalogue listings. If stamp collecting as a hobby is in trouble it is because these same youngster and oldsters have no idea what the expensive catalogues are talking about and when I get emails from them I often have to admit that I don't definitely know either - I too can only make an educated guess where the catalogues do not illustrate the varieies!
While on the subject of expenses and the elitist bent of this hobby, I should point out that a number of years ago I quit the Royal and stopped participating in one of its study groups when a retired friend informed me that he could not join a study group in his area of interest as he could not afford the fee required to join the national society, which was a prerequisite for participation in the study group!

Continue to Letter #4.