It is currently Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:11 am (UTC [ DST ])

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Real postal history
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:00 pm 

Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:00 pm
Posts: 88
when postage lables were introduced postal history changed its complexion.

REAL postal history must, of necessity, include a study (to some level) of stamps - because without stamps (as they became) no item would go anywhere.

Thus those who term themselves postal historians, without considering how stamps were introduced and produced are - like many philatelists - misusing explicitly definite terminology.

Unfortunately there are many such collectors but their ignorance is somewhat nullified by the records kept at the national postal museum. at least there is an official view of these matters, although it is not always true.

It is not true for areas outside GB - including areas which ARE british.

When are collectors going to do their collecting in the right way?

yes I know that everyone is entitled to a choice - but if this is poor, so is the collection

try explaining the attitudes please

 Post subject: Transfer from previous board: original post 1914
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:05 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 104
If I could determine what attitudes you're referring to, maybe I could explain them. Unfortunately, the post seems to go all around the point without ever crystallizing into something definite ... What particular error or errors aroused your ire?

 Post subject: Transfer from previous board: original post 1915
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:00 pm 

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 16
Like mozzerb I am a bit lost with whatever it is that is the nub of the discussion.
Judging by the initial statement I would seem correct in describing myself as a Postal Historian when my own interests lie in GB 1765-1799 and 1840-44 in particular yet would be incorrect if I limited myself to pre-stamp material only. To limit my interest to 1840-44 would suggest that I may be a Philatelist only but what about the associated application of stamps and postal rates etc - does this not allow me to call myself a Postal Historian?
As to collecting surely that must be a very individual choice so is there a right or wrong way to collect? To describe a collection as 'poor' needs clear definition as to what is meant whether by material condition, material value, collector's layout or whatever other criteria may apply.
Have I missed whatever point is being made?

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group