Questions & Answers

Questions from Dr Robert Bell, Arizona U.S.A.

Postal History Commission responses included under the Questions in bold

2 October 2009

Q: Are there any other FIP Classes, other than Postal History and Traditional, that have gone or plan to go to Three Periods?

It appears the only other classes that might consider the Three Time Periods are Postal Stationery and Revenue. We do not know if these classes will look into adopting the three periods. For Postal Stationery the pre-GPU (pre 1875) period is very limited in material and for the Revenue class the Three Time Periods year ranges are not nearly as relevant as for the Postal History class or even the Traditional class.

Q: Are there any publications or links that give information/overview on the Three Period changes?

The PHB is not aware of such publications or links on the Three Time Periods.

Q: Who was the originator of the Three Period idea in FIP, and what year was that?

The Three Time Periods were successfully implemented for the first time at the FIP World Stamp Championship 2004 in Singapore, however, only in the Traditional Class and divided as follows: Class A) up to
1900 Class B) 1900-1940 Class C) after 1940. Class B had one Large Gold and five Golds, Class
C had four Golds.

-Q: Are you aware of other countries that are accepting the FIP rules as it pertains to the Three Periods for national exhibits? I have heard the Germany and New Zealand have or are introducing.

Most countries (the United States is an exception) use the FIP rules to judge their national exhibits and since the FIP Postal History judging rules have the Three Time Periods, ***** these countries may apply them. In 1995 our Chairman Kurt Kimmel introduced two time periods in Switzerland for the Traditional Class and the Postal History Class:
A) mainly before 1900 B) mainly after 1900 and these are judged by different Jury teams.

Q: What do you think are the advantages of the Three Periods?

As the 2004 Singapore experiment has shown, exhibits after 1900 if really well done have a better chance to achieve Gold and Large Gold if they are not compared with the "heavy-weight" Classic exhibits. Therefore, the grouping in Time Periods only makes sense if judged by different Jury teams. From a practical point of view we do not have enough jurors for three time periods. Also from a practical point of view, there are only few exhibits after 1945. With these practical limitations in mind the best solution is to let one Jury team judge the pre-UPU exhibits (pre – 1875) and another Jury team judge all the exhibits after UPU (post - 1875). It is easier for a juror to compare Inflation rate exhibits of Germany, Hungary, Poland, China (post – 1875) with each other than with German States or Austrian Empire exhibits (pre – 1875).

Q: What are the disadvantages?

The disadvantages of the Three Time Periods will be found once we have some experience in using the Three Time Periods.

Q: Do you think that the Three Periods level the playing field a little as it pertains to money in exhibiting?

The PHB will be interested in the evidence on this question once we have some experience. Over the last 25 or so years the Postal History class has risen from non-existence to high prominence in the exhibiting world and the PHB hopes the rule changes passed by the FIP Congress in Bucharest, Romania in 2008, including the Three Time Periods, will continue this favorable trend. Since the 2008 Congress most interest for the PHC has been about the new 2C subclass.

Q: Does FIP have period prizes?

The answer to your question is No. But the PHB would be in favor of the best exhibit of each sub-class and each time period receiving a Special prize if there are at least ten exhibits in each sub-class and time period. However, this will only be possible if the exhibits are grouped accordingly ad this can only happen if the exhibitors learn to send the application forms indicating clearly which sub-class and time period their exhibits belong to.

Q: Will it in time tend to take money out of exhibiting?

Certainly not. It is an established economic fact that whatever is popular becomes more expensive. Since Postal History has been introduced as an Exhibition Class it has become more popular than any other Class. We are convinced that with the new sub-classes and three time periods Postal History will attract even more collectors and exhibitors than currently.

12 December 2008

Dear Sir,

Some questions relating to the FIP Postal History exhibiting rules:

1. Presumably the Grand Prix will not go to post 1945 exhibits very often and importance will still be a factor in those awards. Am I correct?
2. Is postal history the only exhibiting category doing this so far?
3. Is this experimental or permanent?

11 January 2009

1. 1. If postal history exhibits are to be grouped into the three periods and separate jury teams for each period are formed to judge them, we are very hopeful that postal history exhibits after 1945 will get better awards in future if they merit them. We agree with Dr Bell that to assume the Grand Prix will go to post 1945 exhibits very often would not be realistic. If the GPN (Grand Prix National) system is maintained, a well prepared post 1945 postal history exhibit shown in the national class of "modern countries" such as Israel, People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc. might have a chance of winning a GPN. Nevertheless, we favour the new approach to give awards to the best of class or sub-class if there are at least ten exhibits in competition in the same sub-class according to our proposition to the FIP Board dated November 26, 2008, as published on our website under News. Importance remains at 10 points (or 10%) which we feel is appropriate. 20% was too much and 0% would lead to strange results which nobody could understand. The division into time periods should eliminate the obligation to compare post 1945 exhibits with important exhibits of the pre UPU period. The importance should be considered only within the same time period.
   

2. No, in fact the Traditional Class had these time periods before the Postal History Class. We adapted the same time periods as the Traditional Class although Postal History starts much earlier so that the pre UPU Postal History sub-class covers a very long and important time period. In fact at the Singapore 2004 exhibition the Traditional Class experimented successfully with these time periods and different jury teams. Actually both FIP Commissions (Traditional and Postal History) favour this new grouping of exhibits and have confirmed this in writing to the FIP Board and to the Operating Committees of the forthcoming International Exhibitions.
   
3. Who would have thought twenty years ago that a Thematic exhibit would proposed as candidate for the Grand Prix? Philately is alive and developing still. Therefore, we should not assume that this new grouping in time periods will be permanent. However, the time periods were accepted by the Postal History Commission at the Singapore 2004 Commission meeting and have been confirmed by the FIP Congress in 2008 so that they are in effect as from January 1, 2009. It is now up to the Federations and Organising Committees of Exhibitions to implement them.

29 August 2008

Dear Sir,

Regarding the new FIP postal history rules:

1. Given exhibits are now judged by time periods rather than geographic, does it mean that a good modern exhibit can now achieve FIP Gold/Large Gold? In other words, philatelic importance and rarity are weighted against the time period being exhibited in, not against other time periods (as modern material naturally cannot compete with the classics in importance and rarity).
2. In terms of sub-class 2C (Historical, social, special studies), should the postal material still detail traditional rates, routes and markings, or is it not necessary except when deemed interesting to do so etc.?
   

I am now preparing a postal history exhibit for 2009 given the new rules are in play (I would not have done so under the old rules). My period is after 1945 so is modern (hence my question one above). But the exhibit is more about the social and political climate that gave rise to the postal history being displayed over a 60 year period (basically it is on mail that has been interrupted in the Middle East due to war & politics, almost exclusively related to the existence of Israel). So for instance, of importance to me is why a cover was rejected by one country to be delivered, and the markings if any applied by the rejecting country. This is more important that the rate of the mail (although the route can be important, and the markings). To include the rate, would require a knowledge of every postal authority in the world for the past 60 years, as the mail is coming from everywhere!! Hence my question two. For my exhibit, the social climate + markings are the most important thing, followed by routes, and rates are meaningless as none of my interrupted mail is due to incorrect rates!

Your thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

3 September 2008

1. The new division of  Postal History exhibits by time periods should lead to better results of exhibits covering the postal history of the 20th century. As Mr Kibble correctly assumes the philatelic importance and rarity should be considered against the other exhibits of the same time period. Therefore, the goal remains that the Jury team of the period up to 1875 should be different from the one judging the period after 1945 & However, that does not mean that such exhibits shall get Gold and Large Gold easily. To achieve such medals with exhibits of the period before 1875 has been and shall remain a real challenge too.
2. We are pleased to learn that the new rules encourage Mr Kibble to prepare such an interesting exhibit. At this experimental stage, we feel that his approach should prove to be the best e.g. to mention rates, routes and markings when deemed interesting to do so. If Mr Kibble decides to show in the sub-class 2A (rates and routes) he has to study all the rates and routes in order to achieve high points for knowledge and research. Therefore, we feel that he should do better in the new class 2C if he can present his exhibit in a way which will be easy to understand by including related non-philatelic material in a moderate way in order to demonstrate the reason for a rejection of an exhibited letter or to illustrate the historical background leading to such a rejection e.g. at the begin of a new chapter. The chapter title with explanation and illustration should not exceed half a page so that also a related letter can be shown on the same page. We assume that the markings concern the rejections and, therefore, should be researched and commented.