Australian Philatelic Federation - Postal History Social Class 2 (Replacing Social Philately)

Postal History Class 2c

The New Postal History - Social Class
By John Sadler, Philatelic Development Officer

Until the early 1990's exhibitors with social type material had difficulty fitting into any of the established exhibition classes. Their options were Postal History or Thematics. Most opted for Postal History. In 1993 the Late Ed Druce introduced the Social Class into Australia, followed shortly after by the Polar Class, both most welcome options for exhibitors. Both of these classes were used in Australia and New Zealand. The United Kingdom also adopted the Social Class.

These new classes were well supported, with Social being so well supported that there was a significant drop-off in Thematic entries, which may have been partly responsible for the lack of FIP support for this class.

Melbourne 1999 was an international exhibition with limited classes. However, Ed Druce had persuaded FIP to trial the new Social, and the number of entries was substantial. However, the FIP did not adopt the new class, but subsequently introduced the Open Class, which allowed even more flexibility in the type and quantities of material shown than did Social, thus attracting many existing Social exhibitors.

Very recently FIP also introduced the new Postal History - Social Class (Postal History 2C), which resulted in the discontinuation of the old Social Class. Many of Australia's former Social exhibitors embraced the new class, mistakenly believing that it was a reincarnation of the old Social class.

Melbourne Stampshow 09 was the first exhibition in the Southern Hemisphere to feature the new Postal History class, and it did create some problems. As Australasia and the UK are the only countries that had used the old Social Class, these problems are very likely peculiar to these regions. However, the UK did not have any entries in the new class, so they can benefit from Australasia's experience.

Many possible reasons for these problems have been proposed. Was there sufficient clarity in the published changes in the rules? Did the old Social Class exhibitors only read what they expected to find, thus clouding their interpretation. Was there a thorough understanding of the shift in emphasis from social with a postal history flavour to postal history with a social flavour?

It must be remembered that this was a new experience for the judging team as well who were also faced with the task of interpreting the new rules, and some the resulting decisions are referred to in the following report summary.

However, the new class was not all doom and gloom - there were some quite good scores in this class, with one large gold medal being awarded. The full results for the class are available on the Melbourne Stampshow 09 website. However, it does become clear that we need to quickly analyse the results to ensure that the interpretations of the new rules are publicised. In this regard the following was released at the Melbourne exhibition as a guide. This interpretation has been compiled by Chris King, of the UK, in consultation with Gary Brown and Malcolm Groom of Australia. As the new class is further exposed in future exhibitions, no doubt variations on the following interpretation may occur. If this happens, these changes will be publicised as soon as known, as it is important that exhibitors are fully aware of the most current interpretations to properly allow them to plan the development of their exhibits.

The following is a series of extracts from Chris King's report. A copy of the full report can be obtained by emailing me or writing to The Secretary, Philatelic Development Council (PDC), GPO Box 9800, Sydney, NSW, 2001.

POSTAL HISTORY Class 2C - A work in progress
From Chris King - Melbourne, 26 July 2009

Notes from the Class 2C judging team at the Australian National Exhibition, Melbourne Stampshow ’09.

The exhibition took place from 23rd - 26th July 2009 and was the first time that FIP Postal History Class 2C, formally introduced on 1st January 2009, was judged in competition in the Southern hemisphere, the other two occasions this year were at IBRA 2009 in Germany and at Bulgaria 2009, both using FIP rules. The following notes were drawn up before, during and after the judging process, and take into account a presentation by Malcolm Groom at a seminar on the last day of the show, and the discussion which followed. During the course of the seminar there was also discussion of the idea of judging exhibits in Postal History in time frames i.e. before 1875 GPU, 1875-1945, and post 1945, rather than geographical regions. This was generally viewed as a positive step forward.

Relevant quotations from the SREV and Guidelines (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines) set out in the FIP Commission for Postal History Newsletter of October 2008, are included below, and are intended to place the reality of judging Class 2C Historical, Social and Special Studies exhibits in the context of the Guidelines.

The Guidelines state at 2.1, that:

Historical, social and special studies exhibits show the interaction of the postal system with society, events, commerce or the historical geography of an area and the effect the postal system has on humanity and humanity on the postal system.

The Guidelines go on as follows:

3.2 Historical, social and special studies (sub-class 2C) exhibits would include material developed by commerce and society for use in the postal system and may include non-philatelic material where relevant to the subject of the exhibit. The non-philatelic material should be incorporated into the exhibit in a balanced and appropriate manner in such a way that it does not overwhelm the philatelic material.

Examples of Historical, social and special studies include:

1.  Telegram services
2.  Greeting cards (including Valentines)
3.  Illustrated, Pictorial commercial envelopes used in a postal system.
4.  Studies of the effect of the postal system on commerce, society and industry.
5.  Historical, local and/or regional studies.
6.  Studies related to an event or historical landmark

These are, however, not a limitation on the permissible subjects.

The Guidelines also note that exhibits …

may be planned chronologically, geographically (e.g. by local/national districts), by mode of transport/service, or by any other way that the exhibitor may feel appropriate to employ.

They add that exhibits should avoid …

… large-scale duplication of similar items, large chronological gaps where possible, and the inclusion of expensive items not directly relevant to the subject shown.

Furthermore, and as …

… a general rule a Postal History exhibit should show interesting material (philatelically and, where permitted, non-philatelically) to the best advantage, and not appear to be a manuscript for a monograph.

All exhibits under sub-class 2C must be capable of being exhibited in standard exhibition frames.

3.3 The plan or concept of all sub-classes of postal history exhibits shall be clearly explained in an introductory statement (ref. GREV, Article 3.3).

The points to be awarded are also set out in the SREV, as follows:

Treatment (20) and Importance (Philatelic 5 & Historical & Social aspects 5)    30
Philatelic, Historical & Social Knowledge, Personal Study and Research          35
Condition (10) and Rarity (20)                                                                        30
Presentation                                                                                                 5

However, the Commission’s guidance in judging the class is incomplete since their intention appears to be enabling and not prescriptive, so it was necessary for the team under Gary Brown to establish a framework so that judgements could be made systematically and equitably.

The Guidelines are very specific in respect of Introductory Pages, and were considerably sharpened at the Bucharest meeting in 2008.

4.1 All Postal History exhibits must contain an introductory statement, showing the scope of the exhibit. The title of the exhibit must correspond to the introductory statement.

4.2 The title page should be used as follows:

To give relevant general (Postal History) information on the subject being developed in the exhibit.
To include a plan of how the structure of the exhibit is shown - chapters or sections etc., which have postal history relevance, rather than a “frame by frame” or “page by page” description.
To include areas of personal investigation.
To include details of important documentary sources and references.

4.3 The judges will evaluate the material shown, and the associated text in the exhibit against the information included on the Title Page (Title, Introductory Statement; information relevant to the whole exhibit; the way the exhibit is structured; research and references).

A well thought out title page will assist both the exhibitor and judges.

In Melbourne, in Class 2C, the introductory pages were very variable, and in many cases accorded neither with the SREV, nor did they assist the individual judge in preparing for judging the exhibit.

This class is distinct from the Social Class originally pioneered in Australia and New Zealand , but it was evident that with no Social Class available at the exhibition, that a number of exhibitors had simply assumed that Postal History Class 2C was the Social Class by another name.

An introductory page for an exhibit in Class 2C will almost certainly introduce the Social Context as well as the Postal History, but even accepting this, no exhibitor properly met the Guidelines. The author considers that use of the shorthand term “Social”, to describe the Historical, Social and Special Studies Class is misleading, and should be avoided.

The jury looked at all of the frames in question before commencing judgement in order to inform a discussion and, having done so, decided that the first point of principle was to ensure that Guidelines should be different from those for the Open Class which was also included in the Exhibition.

The marking scheme included the division of Treatment and Importance into Treatment 20 points, Philatelic Importance 5 points and Historical and Social Importance 5 points. The Guidelines determine that:

With regard to historical, social and special studies exhibits, the related historical and general non-philatelic knowledge will be considered in assessing all aspects of these criteria.

It was therefore felt necessary further to subdivide the Philatelic, Historical & Social Knowledge, Personal Study and Research points into three sections, as follows:

Philatelic Knowledge                     15
Historical and Social Knowledge    10
Personal Study and Research       10

The team found that this helped to focus attention on the distinctive nature of the class.

Other criteria adopted were that:

The Postal History must tell the story; other material should be ancillary and supportive.
The writing up and interpretation of Postal History items must be from a postal historical point of view.
Rates and routes should be described.
Mint stamps should be used very sparingly, if at all.
Cancelled stamps and stamps postmarked on piece should be used only when entires are not available.
Photographic or other illustrative material should be, where possible, contemporary with the material exhibited.
Ancillary material should not be greater than 20% of the items shown. i.e. a maximum of 5-6 items per frame, on average.
Ancillary material should not dominate the exhibit.

Like other philatelic exhibits Historical, Social and Special Studies evidently need a connected thread running through them, and lessons from other Postal History divisions, Thematic Philately and the Open Class in the use of different fonts, for example could help to distinguish them, but the primary characteristic of the class should be Postal History.

In discussion with exhibitors it became obvious that some exhibits might not easily fit these Guidelines, but that Guidelines for juries are essential. Certainly the jury as a whole accepted the points above as useful in the consideration of Class 2C exhibits, and most members were actively involved in discussing and developing the basic criteria adopted by the team.

The Guidelines say:

Coloured photographs or reproductions should be at least 25% different in size from the original. Full size reproductions of single cancellations or part of a cover are permitted. All material whether non-postal or non-philatelic material, should preferably be original.

Had we felt that exhibitors were aware of this guidance we would have adopted the following further expansion of this statement:

Photocopied or scanned Postal History items are not permitted unless they are showing detail or reverse of a Postal History piece included in the exhibition.

Ancillary or supportive items should generally not be photocopied or scanned. They should usually be in the possession of the exhibitor.

Where items are too large to display they can be reduced but must be accompanied with a statement that the item in question is in the possession of the exhibitor. Where possible the item should be on the reverse of the exhibition page.

While this was the first outing for Class 2C, and the additional guidance adopted here was useful to the jury team, it cannot be regarded as in any way definitive. For example the Guidelines say that:

The relevance, balance and importance of non-philatelic material shown in historical, social and special studies will be evaluated by the judges.

Our response to this group of exhibits indicated that perhaps 20% was a useful guide to the acceptable level of ancillary material. Other juries will face different groups of exhibits, including those in the One Frame class, and may take a different view.

Some exhibitors were disappointed in their results, but their endeavours would have been better rewarded given greater familiarity with the Guidelines. Fifteen exhibits were presented in this class, and there was considerable interest from the rest of the jury in this team’s judgements, but as noted above, and after debate its decisions were supported by our colleagues which certainly gave us confidence in our approach.

With exhibitions in the coming months in Australia and New Zealand at national level, and with other juries elsewhere in the world having to judge the new class, it is hoped that the above offers a first step at providing a framework to help distinguish this from other Postal History classes and from the Open Class.

We hope also that this is a helpful contribution to a debate that must necessarily continue while the Class settles down, and we look forward to hearing of other jury’s experience and contributions via the FIP Commission Website.

Gary Brown’s jury team included Geoff Lewis, Ben Palmer and Chris King, all of whom contributed to the process. However, these notes are compiled by the last of these and any errors or omissions are his responsibility entirely.