Marking of Exhibits

[howard H]

Tony Walker has sent me the paper below. I will be publishing a brief synopsis in the next newsletter but thought some might like a preview.
Best wishes,
Howard

Howard Hughes
Newsletter Editor

ANCIENT AND MODERN

An analysis of the FIP Criteria for the Evaluation and Judging of exhibits
with particular reference to ‘Modern’ philatelic material


INTRODUCTION

Is there perhaps an unwritten rule in international competitive philately that modern issues and some other exhibition subjects cannot win a Large Gold medal ? This question arises from the experience with an exhibit of GB QEII definitives (1967 – 1971) in the international shows over the last 10 years. The exhibit won a Gold medal with Felicitations in Amsterdam in 2002 (91 points) and another in Prague in 2008 (90 points). However during the course of researching the subject and seeking views from other philatelists, the same question would appear to apply to most of the other Exhibition Classes, so the debate has a wider context.

This article is written, not with any ‘sour grapes’ but to try and clarify the points position for the benefit of the increasing numbers of ‘modern’ collectors and others, who are becoming increasingly disillusioned about what could be described as an apparent ‘glass ceiling’ applied to some areas and classes in FIP Competitive philately. The objective of this article is to offer constructive criticism and to precipitate an objective debate on the matter. There does appear to be anomalies in the interpretation of certain of the FIP judging criteria and by reference to the FIP Regulations and Guidelines, the article seeks to avoid as far as possible, a personal or subjective analysis, but personal experience will inevitably and rightly contribute to the debate as we approach the London Festival of Stamps 2010.

Two very distinguished philatelists, one a senior judge quite independently congratulated the exhibitor on the Gold at Prague, with the added comment ‘but of course you’ll never win a Large Gold’. Similar observations were made at London 2000 (LV), you’ll never win a Gold medal), and at Stampex and ABPS on previous occasions when a Gold medal had been awarded. The judges’ critique at Prague was most complimentary about the Gold medal and added “…but it would be extremely difficult to obtain a higher award”.

In the context of GB Traditional Class (i.e. stamps), ‘modern’ means QEII and probably GVI. Exhibitors should have no problems with the rules and regulations for competitions. If one disagrees with them, do not compete, or accept that you will be marked down if you transgress them. A careful study of the FIP rules regarding the Traditional Class showed there is no caveat about modern issues. If there had been a rule ‘Post WWII issues will not be considered of sufficient importance or value to merit a Large Gold medal award’, competitors would know where they stood. You may not agree with the rule – who agrees with all the rules of anything anyway, but knowing how philately is structured such a rule would not be altogether surprising.

Why not make it a published rule? Obviously FIP would need to provide the reasoning behind such a move, so an examination of the current FIP Regulations and Points breakdown was undertaken to find the possible justification for the Gold medal ceiling :



CONDITION AND RARITY

The schedule below is a direct quote from the ‘Special Regulations for the Evaluation of Traditional Philately at F.I.P. Exhibitions’, page 77 of the 1995 edition (revised 1999), clause 5.2. For information, a Gold medal is awarded for 90 to 94 marks and a Large Gold for 95 and above.



Condition and rarity 30 marks
Treatment and Importance 30 marks
Philatelic and related Knowledge Personal Study and Research 35 marks
Presentation 5 marks

Total 100 marks


The ‘General Regulations of the F.I.P. for the Evaluation of Competitive Exhibits at F.I.P. Exhibitions (GREV)’, Article 4, paragraph 4.6, page 3 states :

“The criteria of ‘Condition and Rarity’ require an evaluation of the quality of the displayed
material considering the standard of the material that exists for the chosen subject, the
rarity and the relative difficulty of acquisition of the selected material”.




Condition

This refers to the quality of the item, four good clean, clear and even margins etc. on an imperforate 1d Black for instance with light but distinct cancellation not detracting from the appearance of the stamp and so on. In the non-cancelled field one assumes unmounted mint scores more highly than mounted mint, which in turn scores more highly than unused (no gum, no cancellation). It seems reasonable to be somewhat less demanding on condition/quality with mint examples of the line-engraved than one would be with mint modern GB, after all they have been around for over 150 years. So a top quality unmounted mint 1d black (do judges consider u/m mint, m/mint, with gum etc when judging 1d Blacks?) might rate 100% for condition and a comparable (in terms of condition) top quality modern stamp less than 100%, although the latter would be impossible to obtain in better condition. Remember we are discussing condition, not rarity. If so, this starts to show why a modern GB entry will never get a Large Gold, it is not being marked against a possible 100% in the Condition category but maybe out of 90 to 94%.

This suggestion however does not find support in the written regulations. The FIP Regulations : Guidelines for judging a Traditional Philately Exhibit, Article 4 Criteria for Evaluating Exhibits paragraph 4.6, page 80 has only four lines of guidance which are reproduced here :

“The condition of material is essential to a good traditional exhibit. Exhibitors are encouraged
to show unique or nearly unique material that does not occur in fine condition, but are cautioned
from including other items of a condition that may disfigure the exhibit”

There is no qualification regarding age and condition, so it should be a level playing field in the ancient v modern debate. Top quality should mean just that, particularly in mint stamps irrespective of age, unless stated otherwise in the rules. You have to be quite strict to separate condition from rarity, which is addressed next.

There must be a small number of absolutely pristine mint 1d Blacks (say), which could compare like for like with a modern equally pristine stamp. Not enough to mean every other 1d Black not measuring up to this standard would therefore be marked down as a result. This would cause great consternation amongst the Large Gold medal winners, not only in GB but in all the classic issues, so condition may be relaxed a bit as the material gets older, it should not become more prescriptive as the material becomes more modern to the extent of making it impossible for a top mark for condition to be given.

Rarity

Superficially this is self explanatory. There are probably accepted definitions of rarity, perhaps rare is up to 10 copies known. Here’s a suggestion, just to get the ball rolling :

Unique Only one copy known, or possible (i.e. original artwork)
Rare 2 to 10 copies known
Scarce 11 to 20 say, and so on.

The same theory could apply here as suggested for condition, namely because a rare item is over 150 years old it must be more rare than a modern item with the same number of recorded examples. One assumes this is based on the premise there is still time for more examples of the modern rarity to surface, whereas in 150 years surely there cannot be more still languishing in the attic. There does seem to be for instance a regular supply of pre-issue QV, EDVII and GV material, trial printings, before and after hardening, proofs, essays and so on. Try finding that material or its equivalent in QEII.

It is questionable whether marking an item down because there might be more copies to surface is justifiable, unless again this is mentioned in the rules, which it isn’t.

For unique items there can be no dispute in this regard. As anyone who collects modern GB will tell you, unique items of QEII material and perhaps to a lesser degree GVI (?) are extraordinarily hard to come by, and if rarity is based on such items that have come onto the market they should be rated (and marked) on an even footing. This makes the interpretation of ‘Rarity’ as defined in the F.I.P. General Regulations above as “… the relative difficulty of acquisition of the selected material” a very interesting one, and suggests it may favour the modern collector to the detriment of the classics, if that is, it was applied as written. Which it is not.

A recent modern GB exhibit, using the breakdown above, contained 31 unique items, 18 where between 2 and 5 were known, 9 with 6 to 10 copies known and 13 scarce. A total of 71 items. The condition of the material, unmounted mint wherever stamps were displayed, was immaculate, as it should be. The marks awarded for Condition and Rarity equated to 90% of the possible i.e. 27 out of 30, the minimum standard for a Gold medal.

Perhaps in the line-engraved issues, especially pre 1900, every stamp is considered at least uncommon, whereas in a modern exhibit there will be included a number of items decidedly commonplace, to give sequence, continuity and comprehension to the story (an FIP requirement). Would these commonplace items drag the marks down? According to the F.I.P. regulations (Article 4 paragraph 4.1 page 79) “…In general the common values may be represented by a token showing, while the better material of the same issue should be shown in depth”. Something of a catch 22 situation here. Show all values and the ‘normal’ stamps for continuity and completeness and be marked down. Leave them out and be marked down for not being complete.




Value and price.

This is coyly omitted from any of the guidance notes apart from in the Postal History section (para 5.3.2, page 49) where it states ‘Rarity is directly related to the philatelic items shown…. not the value’, so value should not strictly be considered an element in the award of points. Perhaps this does not however apply to the Traditional Class? Is value nevertheless implicitly taken into account by the judges? Maybe not, but imagine 8 frames of line-engraved valued at £1.5million alongside a modern exhibit worth a fraction of that. Can they really be judged on a level playing field? Should they be? If someone spends that kind of money they will expect to gain a top award, if they do not it would not be good for them or the trade, and in consequence philately as a whole would suffer, wouldn’t it? Is it relevant that many of the leading dealers stock nothing after GV?

If a collector buys an item for £25k one could say it must be far more important and rare than an item costing £1k or even less. This is a naïve assumption. Take an extreme example. An official postal rate in the current reign was in force for 10 days only. It is possible with great difficulty to find used examples, at a comparatively modest cost compared to the figures mentioned. Such an item is much more rare than say the 1d Black Plate X1 used on cover or a scarce Mulready, and one could argue a strong case that it is more important because of the snapshot in time it represented.

There is no reason within the Guidance Notes to downgrade the total marks attainable for a modern issue for Condition and/or Rarity simply because it is modern. If anything one could make a case for the reverse on the subject of rarity, but not on value and price which apparently should not be a judging criterion anyway. Perhaps that is where the modern exhibit is marked down in the interests of philately as a whole.




TREATMENT AND IMPORTANCE


At the start this article introduced the subject by stating : ‘Is there an unwritten rule in international competitive philately that modern issues cannot win a Large Gold medal ?’, and outlined experience to support this statement within the Traditional Class of exhibits. It continued with a detailed analysis of the appropriate F.I.P. Regulations concerning Condition and Rarity (30 points), seeking any indication which might substantiate that statement. None was found, indeed one could interpret the Guidance Notes on Rarity to be to the advantage of modern issues. The question of Value and Price was also examined, but as it is not a judging criteria nor mentioned in any of the Notes, apart from those for Postal History where it specifically states value is not a consideration, in theory it is irrelevant. However it may be one of the reasons behind the ‘unwritten rule’.

Treatment and Importance account for 30 marks as shown below :

Condition and rarity 30 marks
Treatment and Importance 30 marks
Philatelic and related Knowledge Personal Study and Research 35 marks
Presentation 5 marks

Total 100 marks

Treatment

It is not exciting for the reader to quote F.I.P. Regulations and Guidelines verbatim, but it is necessary in order to set the context of the discussion. Article 4, paragraph 4.3 page 3 states ‘The criterion of Treatment… requires an evaluation of the completeness and correctness of the selected material made by the exhibitor to illustrate his chosen subject’. Specifically for the Traditional Class (paragraph 4.3 page 79) the Guidelines state ‘Treatment…. reflects the degree to which the exhibitor is able to create a balanced exhibit characteristic of the area he has chosen’.

To assess the completeness, correctness, balance and characteristics of the subject exhibited, the judges must have a good understanding of the material on show, either through the particular knowledge of one judge or the collective experience of them all. In the classical material, exhibited and displayed for 150 years this understanding has been built up, passed on and can be readily applied to this material, much of which is recycled under different names over the years. The dearth of modern stamps at international level added to the relatively short time (about 60 years maximum) they have been on the circuit makes a knowledgeable assessment of their Treatment and indeed other judging criteria, extremely difficult. With only the odd one or two modern entries at international level, the judging panel understandably is likely to be chosen from judges conversant with and probably collectors of the numerically dominant early issues.

In time ‘modern’ knowledge will be more widely available at F.I.P. level, however presently it rests largely with the collectors rather than with the judges, the former realising the complexity and technical characteristics of the Machins for instance, are equally as challenging and minutely researched as the line-engraved issues.

Earlier in this article a suggestion was made for a written rule which stated : ‘Post WWII issues will not be considered of sufficient importance or value to merit a Large Gold medal’. Perhaps until such time as there are significant numbers of modern stamps on international display and the expertise has developed to assess them, this rule is not a bad idea, although the wording may not be correct. After all F.I.P. could hardly say ‘Until an adequate resource of knowledge of post WWII material has been established, such material cannot be considered for a Large Gold medal’. . It would not be satisfactory or perhaps fair, but at least it would be an honest reflection of the current situation.

Importance

This area of judging has been intimated as one where modern material is likely to be marked down, presumably because it is modern and has not stood the test of time. However there is no mention of this in the F.I.P. Guidelines which state in Article 4 paragraph 4.4 page 3, ‘Philatelic Importance requires an evaluation of (the) philatelic significance of the subject chosen….. in terms of its scope, degree of difficulty of the subject, and the philatelic interest of the exhibit’.

In the F.I.P. Guidelines for the Traditional Class, Article 4 paragraph 4.4 page 80 this note is expanded upon : ‘Importance of the exhibit involves two measures of material. The exhibitor usually selects a time period or set of issues of a country or countries. The first measure is how much of the key material is present in the selected subject. The second measure is a rating of how important the subject is considered to be within all philately’.

To be able to assess how much of the key material is present in any one exhibit presupposes a knowledge of what material is available, and considering the massive scope of an FIP Traditional Class competition, this asks a great deal of the judges. This is usually recognised by the organisers who often split this Class geographically into: (1) the Country staging the event, (2) Europe (say) and (3) Other Countries around the world, as in the case of Prague in 2008. Judges are then selected presumably to best meet the challenge in these three different areas.

This perhaps explains why Large Gold medals are often awarded to exhibits of the host nation philately, or to ‘famous’ collections with an established reputation where the judging is likely to be the most informed. It is improbable an entry of GB QEII definitives however much of the key material is present, would challenge for a Large Gold in these circumstances. Even a Gold medal would be a major achievement. It follows from this analysis the best chance of a major award for modern philately would be at an F.I.P. event in the country which was the staging the show. Only maybe. At London 2000 a GB QEII Machin exhibit was awarded a Large Vermeil, and was accompanied by many compliments and an equal number of observations ‘However you’ll never win a Gold medal with modern material’. Although subsequently proved wrong on two occasions, the glass ceiling has simply moved up a notch. Some time later a similar but expanded modern GB exhibit at Prague (see Rarity in this article) containing most of the known ‘key material’ for the period covered, and notoriously difficult to come by, just squeezed into the 90% mark (27 out of 30)..

On the second measure, the Traditional Class Guidelines go on to quote examples to illustrate the point :
‘… an exhibit may contain all the known varieties of the issues of Staffa…. and would score high in the first measure (how much of the key material is present), but low in the second measure.’ Whereas, the notes continue : ‘Another exhibit could be missing a number of key pieces of a major country such as the first issues of France. In the first measure it would score a medium to high range, depending on what was present, but would score quite high on the second since it is an area of accepted difficulty and desirability.’

Although philately is now pursued by dwindling numbers, few would dispute the enthusiasm displayed by modern GB collectors for say the Machin series and their desire to maintain a high level of completeness, coupled with a widespread network of specialists studying the complex technical aspects of the series. In terms of published articles, society numbers, magazine and newsletter items, modern subjects more than hold their own with the earlier line-engraved. With over 230,000,000,000,000,000 printed, no other printed item can boast a higher number, this series wins out on quantity, but perhaps not on quality? Yet it is described as a ‘Modern Classic’, and ‘Timeless’, and has seen in its 40 year life, extraordinary changes in the technology of stamp production, postage rates and postal services, making a comprehensive or complete collection virtually impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult. Is this issue important, desirable, hard to complete? Ask any modern collector for an informed answer, and probably many of the traditional collectors also.

Reflecting on the implications of this analysis it is becoming clearer why modern material is unlikely to be awarded a Large Gold medal. Primarily the knowledge and expertise for the objective evaluation of this material has not yet been accumulated in the judging fraternity. This almost certainly applies throughout the modern philatelic world, not just in the UK, and is in no way a criticism of the judges, but a statement of fact due to the circumstances described above. It will change in time no doubt, but meantime modern exhibits will suffer as a result.



PHILATELIC KNOWLEDGE, PERSONAL STUDY AND RESEARCH

Of the four marking sections (Presentation has still to be discussed), the elements above are perhaps the least difficult to judge in an exhibit, yet they have given rise to some of the most specific criticism of the award of points, especially in the context of Personal Study and Research. As the table below illustrates, they account for over one third of all the points awarded. The modern pre-decimal Machin definitive exhibit referred to earlier was awarded a Gold Medal With Felicitations at Amphilex (Amsterdam) in 2002. ‘With Felicitations’ acknowledges an exhibit ‘distinguishing itself by philatelic research or originality’, (GREV page 4 clause 5.7). The exhibit was awarded 91 marks.

The F.I.P. Guidelines state : ‘Major discoveries deserve important coverage and recognition…’ implying clearly that Personal Study and Research must include new and original material. On page 3 of the GREV booklet, clause 4.5, Research is defined as ‘….the presentation of new facts related to the chosen subject’. This is clearly closely linked to Personal Study, described in the same clause as ‘… the proper analysis of the items chosen for the display’.


Philatelic and related Knowledge, Personal Study and Research : account for 35 marks, as shown below

Condition and rarity 30 marks
Treatment and Importance 30 marks
Philatelic and related Knowledge Personal Study and Research 35 marks
Presentation 5 marks

Total 100 marks


Personal Study and Research

A correspondence in the Great Britain Philatelic Society (GBPS) Newsletter (Maurice Buxton March/April 2009, with a response from Ray Simpson May/June 2009) summed up the disquiet felt by many exhibitors, and is quoted here. The exchange was triggered by high prices paid for two 1d Black registered covers which Maurice suggests were nothing special, ‘… items at considerably lower prices were much more significant to the history of registration’. However Maurice continues ‘…a little note in the judging criteria for postal history (GREV page 48 clause 5.1.4) states : An exhibit (e.g. of rates) which spans the pre-adhesive and postage stamp issues [and which lacks the first issue] will inevitably be downgraded under importance and rarity’. This would seem to apply even if said first issues are pretty much of a footnote in the particular postal history being told. Part of the ‘primacy of classics view of the gold medal entry. Later Maurice observes ‘At least I can get within sight of the gold medal range with postal history – I wouldn’t have a chance with Traditional philately’.

Ray Simpson responded to Maurice Buxton in the following GBPS Newsletter in his usual style : ‘Exhibition rules as formulated and interpreted tend to encourage the ‘Hollywood’ big budget production exhibits and these seduce some judges, irrespective of their relevance to the exhibit’.

With 35 marks available for this category, Ray deduces that Research alone might therefore be expected to account for say 10 – 12 marks and goes on to comment : ‘Therefore an otherwise perfect exhibit which faithfully reflects only the pre-existing state of knowledge by reference to published sources would struggle to get (even) a Gold Medal’. ‘Put another way, only an exhibit with a significant degree of Research (see GREV clause 4.5 definition above) could hope to score above 90 points. Here is the pith of the problem in Ray’s words : ‘Yet many Classics exhibits totally bereft of ‘new facts’ regularly post much higher scores, which must mean the weighting attached to research is variable depending upon the nature of the exhibit’.

An examination of the GREV regulations makes no reference to such variability, a fact also confirmed by Ray in his letter. Inevitably any exhibit will contain a fair amount of previously published information, but for a top award an exhibit must surely extend this knowledge with new facts (GREV words) culled from personal research and study, which also must add to the Importance of the exhibit. Ray Simpson suggests ‘…research is the very basis of the hobby. Moreover it provides equal opportunities to all irrespective of means, to make a real and lasting contribution to the future. By the simple expedient of giving overt and quantifiable weight to Research, the competitive playing field would be significantly levelled, and those who have devoted time, application and intellect to their hobby might at last be able to compete with the wealthier enthusiast’.

This article has quoted at length from the above correspondence as it neatly summarises the current quite unacceptable interpretation of ‘Research’ and the resulting award of marks, but also to show the concerns expressed generally in this article are not confined solely to the author.

As noted above GREV regulations make no reference to such variable weighting for Research. However the FIP Guidelines state that ‘It is unrealistic to require a collector to develop new findings in a heavily studied and researched area. For this reason, such exhibits will not be penalised for a lack of personal research.’ Leaving aside for the moment whether the underlying assumption is justified, its very existence tends to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy especially accompanied by the assurance that ‘such exhibits will not be penalised’. It effectively exempts exhibitors of heavily studied and researched material from the disciplines of study that apply to collectors of all other issues. There is also confusion inherent in the full statement which goes on to say that ‘such exhibits… will be given additional consideration if… the exhibitor has managed to come up with new findings. If an exhibit is not penalised for a lack of personal research (thus being eligible for the maximum marks) how can it also be eligible for additional consideration (of marks?).

The FIP’s underlying premise ‘that it is unrealistic to require a collector to develop new findings in a heavily studied and researched area’ is highly questionable. One exhibitor has recently succeeded in creating a gold medal-winning traditional exhibit, an exhibit which owes its existence to his personal and original research into one specific aspect of British stamp production from the late 1840s onwards (i.e. squarely within the classic period). The mine is definitely not exhausted.

Personal Study and Research are largely synonymous, and the allocation of 10 – 12 marks to ‘Research’ by Ray Simpson implies a further 10 – 12 marks for Personal Study – making the arguments for a reappraisal of this element of judging even more urgent.

It has been suggested that Thematic entries are also subject to a glass ceiling, with only the exceptional aspiring to more than a Large Vermeil.


Philatelic and related Knowledge

This is defined in GREV on page 3 clause 4.5 as ‘… the degree of knowledge of the exhibitor as expressed by the items chosen for display, and their related comments’. If the exhibit contains no ‘new’ material, nor original research, such knowledge will reflect only already published information, presented and collated perhaps in an interesting or unusual manner, or as a truly mind-blowing collection of rarities. Such an exhibit would be a crowd-puller no doubt, and deservedly so, but it is not a Large Gold or even a Gold medal winner if judged by the competitive rules. It would not score enough points. That is the difference between a great display/talk as opposed to a top competitive entry, the latter may not be a crowd-puller.




PRESENTATION

This element accounts for only 5 marks, as noted below :

Condition and rarity 30 marks
Treatment and Importance 30 marks
Philatelic and related Knowledge Personal Study and Research 35 marks
Presentation 5 marks

Total 100 marks

With the widespread use of computers, any entry should score at least 4 marks having come through the ranks so to speak to compete at international level. Presentation is rather a subjective matter, and a mark dropped is as likely to reflect the personal tastes of the judges as anything else. Indeed the GREV regulations (page 3 clause 4.7) talks of ‘clarity of the display, the text as well as the aesthetic balance’. Aesthetic Balance – that gives plenty of room for interpretation, fortunately there are only 5 marks at stake.

should not the presentation/write up be entirely the work of the exhibitor, rather than that of some third party who has been paid to do it?


JUDGES COMMENTS

Much of this article was forwarded to two highly experienced international judges for their informal comments, and it is pertinent to record the gist of their responses in order to give balance to the debate.

It has been rumoured that at FIP exhibitions in the future there may be a division of exhibits into three periods for the purposes of marking, ‘…. to avoid exactly the sort of perceived ceiling that you are questioning as to the level of attainment of an exhibit of a modern subject versus an old subject’, wrote one of the judges. He went on to say such a move would cut away much of the ground upon which (my) comments are made, and much of the point of the article. This may be true for the contention that a modern entry will never get a Large Gold in an open contest with the classics, but many of the points made in this article (Personal Study and Research for instance) will still apply even if there are to be time period classes, as it is the formulation and interpretation of the regulations themselves that is being analysed, a point supported by the other judge.. A further observation pondered on whether it was possible to properly dissect the marking system as precisely as the article has attempted.

‘There are no unwritten rules in respect of any aspect of judging, but it is a very subjective assessment that is being made’ was another response. A personal comment made was ‘....Post Office fresh material should be closely examined for minor imperfections and if none are found then a maximum mark for CONDITION should be given’, although the judge considered this was a view not always shared by his colleagues. Indeed this was borne out in the other reply received where the view expressed was full marks should go to the early issues where exceptional condition was far more difficult to achieve compared to modern items, which would not therefore receive a comparable mark. ‘This may seem unfair to the modern exhibit but I feel you must agree there has to be some distinction for the degree of difficulty in finding an item in perfect condition’.

Although only worth 5 marks, an interesting comment received on Presentation was : ‘A good and attractive presentation which is easy to read and understand will encourage any observer to look more carefully at the material…and has an overwhelming effect upon how the exhibit is generally appreciated, and that is where most judges start’. Another comment on the same subject : ‘You virtually have to score full marks to gain a Large Gold medal, and went on to say, coincidentally endorsing the views expressed by his colleague, ‘ a good presentation is probably worth 10 marks…… as it creates a positive demeanour among the judges.

On the subject of Rarity, some countries (Australia, US and some European countries) encourage a non-displayed synopsis of the exhibit where the collector has the opportunity to identify unique and rare items and their significance, however the judge went on to say ‘This is currently being resisted in the UK for reasons which are not explained’. The other response considered items of equal rarity should be equally marked, irrespective of price, and that it was up to the exhibitor to inform the judges of such rarities, but within the exhibit, rather than via a separate synopsis. Not easy to achieve, and could quite easily backfire (my comment).

A general comment received was : ‘Perhaps marks have been introduced to satisfy our relative competitive instincts where a victor has to be recognised in relation to some standard, and we need a handicapping system (as in golf ) so that the individual can feel they are on some sort of level playing field’.

One of the judges identified those judging categories that were ‘absolute’, such as Condition and Rarity, elements of Treatment such as Completeness being another, and aspects of Importance. By ‘absolute’ he wrote ‘ I mean the headings are based more on a subjective judgement; the items are either rare or they are not, and the condition is either good or bad, and the exhibitor has little influence on the outcome’.

On the matter of Importance one judge, not unreasonably, said ‘it is very difficult to judge the significance of a particular subject without the passage of enough time to put it into context’, going on to stress the importance of the title page in demonstrating this, and providing very thoughtful and helpful advice on how this might be achieved. Nevertheless, a modern issue obviously has a handicap through its very modern nature, and could well lose marks in the ‘Importance’ category.



CONCLUSIONS

Any kind of marking system be it academic examinations, driving tests or artistic competition has a degree of subjectivity arising from the aesthetic or otherwise preferences of the judges and their personal knowledge of the subject under examination. It is quite impossible to eliminate this however prescriptive the guidelines and rules may be written, and a degree of flexibility should enable a ‘new approach’ exhibit to be fairly assessed. Such subjectivity will throw up the occasional faux pas and one of the responses to this article annotated just such an occurrence. It is the persistent inconsistencies coupled with rules that encourage different approaches to different types of exhibit that cause consternation.

The GREV guidelines therefore do not stand up to a detailed analysis because of this flexibility of interpretation. Where particular ‘discrepancies’ in the interpretation of the guidelines are persistent, such as
a) the apparent major downgrading of marks awarded for Research, b) the reduction in marks available to modern issues in the Importance field, c) the lowering of the maximum marks obtainable for perfect examples of modern stamps compared to classics in the area of Condition and so on, as identified in this article, then these matters should be addressed and stated openly. These embedded discrepancies added up would certainly restrict an otherwise exemplary modern exhibit from attaining a Large Gold, or even a Gold medal in many cases, and a painstaking research entry similarly penalised. Of even greater concern is the discouragement offered to potential new exhibitors of modest means.

Whilst this article was prompted by the experience gained during international competition with a modern Traditional Class exhibit, it has become clear the problems affect most of the exhibiting Classes in one way or another. The possible division of Exhibits into three time periods could eliminate some of these persistent discrepancies, such as that of Condition, but without revision, others will remain to cause dismay and resentment, and be seen to reinforce the view that money rather than endeavour wins the top awards.

Rather than stating a modern entry (post 1940 say) cannot win a Large Gold Medal, as proposed at the start of this article, which is negative and unlikely to be helpful, instead perhaps the judging marks for FIP could be adjusted as follows, to more accurately reflect the current system of allocation until such time as it is revised :





Maximum marks attainable Philatelic material to 1940 Philatelic material post 1940

Condition and rarity 35 28 30
Treatment and Importance 30 28 27
Knowledge, Study, Research 25 28 27
Presentation 10 10 10

Total 100 94 94 etc.

One can juggle these figures (right hand column) in many permutations, and this is just one example, but the 94 marks total is the crunch figure. This allows a modern entry to aspire to a Gold Medal (90 – 94 marks), which would represent the pinnacle of achievement, and clearly demonstrate the status quo which many judges and some philatelists perhaps consider to be appropriate anyway.

Ray Simpson suggested FIP/ABPS might consider organising seminars and discussions for judges of modern material to provide them with the necessary knowledge, the same applying to the Importance category. It may be more appropriate to offer a broader agenda on the lines of a debate about the issues addressed in this article.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to several collectors and judges who have generously offered their views on this article and the FIP Guidelines. Interestingly opinions expressed have been diverse and occasionally contradictory between judges, but less so amongst exhibitors, as one might
expect.

Tony Walker : June 2009

[robinT]

I wrote a long answer to the article by Tony Walker and the website refuses to accept it.

I will summerise

Tony
Judges ignorance will prevent you from obtaining the highest awards - they show their ignorance every time a serious Machin exhibit comes up.

However they reflect the opinion of philatelists in general

Modern stamps, to be collected properly(philatelically speaking) need more study than the old ones. How many articles do you see on the papers used in ancient time?

You do not study the full range of Machin 'problems' and if I were a judge you still would not get top marks.

Modern stamps require a modern approach, finite study and an appreciation of the difficulties faced by the designers and printers of these issues.

Modern stamps are not (yet) provided with sufficient 'cribs' to allow people to collect them easily, at the highest level.
Given the over production, in terms of values and issues made, they are treated like wall-paper, nice to have around but not for detailed study.

Judges will never appreciate what they do not understand, they are(or were) collectors themselves and what did they
collect.
Could anyone name a Machin specialist amongst the highest ranks of judges?

The basic problem exists because no one wants to know much about modern issues - even in our society - change that and you may get change - but dont hold your breathe

[Ray Simpson]

Tony, with his usual courtesy, consulted me before quoting the contribution I made to the Newsletter.

As I am active in philatelic research I freely admit a vested interest in starting what I hope might be a constructive debate about the present FIP rules and guidance relating to Research.

Let me make it clear that, in the meantime, I am perfectly happy to continue exhibiting under the present rules, recognising that judges have a very difficult task which they endeavour to carry out to the best of their ability.

Ray Simpson

[jake]

It is only a couple of days since my piece on the FIP Guidelines appeared on the Discussion Board, and I have received three responses.

1) That of Ray Simpsons is self explanatory

2) To Robin Tibbenham I would say that although 128 sheets for an international exhibit sounds a lot, if one is to cover an issue comprehensively in accordance with the FIP Guidelines, specialised topics within the issue can only be given passing reference, such as papers and florescence, phosphors etc. It will I fear be some time before detailed research into these matters will be given serious consideration at FIP level, although you can argue the minute examinations of corner letter settings, shades and other aspects of the line engraved are already widely acclaimed.

3) I also had a long telephone conversation with an accredited judge (not one of the two who kindly contributed comment to my draft article), and would like to pass on his observations. He did agree with much of the contents of my piece by the way.

He suggested to propose a modified marking system for 'modern' material, as I had done, to more accurately reflect the current situation, was unlikely to be a progressive move. His view was that top awards for modern material will come about anyway, and he pointed out Postal History and Revenues were considered very low down the philatelic pecking order not so long ago. I think this is a fair point, and I accept it

He also suggested there would be a fair number of top philatelic exhibitors/competitors who would not perhaps wish to see the present interpretation of the marking allocations changed, and would therefore disagree with my last paragraph in the conclusions.

[robinT]

At the end of the day those who exhibit, including myself, do so with the knowledge of, what they see as, the judging imperfections.

We specialists know Tony's exibits, indeed his whole collection requires the highest commendation - but as I said - I would not award him the highest accolade because he makes no mention of my specialist are in that field.
So if you getter more knowlegeable judges - you need a higher standard to meet their expectations

When Machins become as popular as older stamps are now
exhibits like Tony's will get the highest marks, but dont hold your breathe