The United States upright Jenny Invert pane has given great visibility to stamp collecting in recent months, to include great discussions on social media.
Linn's Stamp News got a lot of great reader feedback when it asked on Facebook what fans thought of the 2013 upright $2 Jenny Invert pane getting a listing in Scott Catalogue.
Here's what readers told us. Have an opinion to add? Submit a comment at the bottom of this story.
Jerry Derr: "Scott is really trying I think with their catalogs, adding more information and listings every year. I used to prefer Michel for their detail but I got some of their 2010 European catalogs and now before 1920 its hinged only pricing and after 1920 its never-hinged pricing only. That's just not realistic for the average collector. Scott is much more useful now for valuations."
David Eeles: "Although I dislike the production of intentionally created varieties, this issue certainly meets Scott's listing requirements - so a small letter seems to be appropriate. However, information about its limited and intentional creation should be included with the listing."
Wayne Youngblood: "I do not think the 'variety' merits listing (just a mention). Although valid for postage it was not created or sold as such. Aside from the fact it was a created and controlled marketing rarity, it was an entirely different press run created with an entirely different printing plate (these are fixed plates). I'd still like to know the relative cost of an entire press run for 100 sheets!"
Daniel C. Boyer: "This is overdue, as the policy that led to its not receiving a number is wrong. Scott's should take a purely descriptive, not proscriptive, approach. Whatever one might think about the, even, cynicism of stamps being deliberately issued in ultra-small quantities, a catalogue exists merely to list items and provide information about them, not to advance a particular editorial point of view or to try to influence collectors or issuers through sanction."
Matthew Healey: "You should put a big black blot next to it like we did in the 70s with intentionally limited issues from Eastern Europe."
Barry Cantin: "It absolutely should get a number. And, IMO, it was intentionally printed so it shouldn't be an 'A' number either. At least that's how I see it."
John Ranelletti: "Sorry, I think everything about the intentional 'Upright Jenny' is wrong on several levels. Just say'n …"
Casey Cook: "I think it definitely should get a catalogue number. If the real Jenny invert deserves a number, then so does this one."
Andy King: "Yet another number I don't have in my collection."
More from Linns.com: