Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Title and Plan - 10
Treatment - 20
Philatelic Knowledge and Research - 20
Non-Philatelic Knowledge and Research - 15
Condition of Material - 10
Rarity of Material - 20
Presentation - 5
I wonder if these are the proportions in which you 'judge' your collections or albums. For my own part I feel that Presentation is worth more than 5% - certainly in the case of any stamp album, and especially if your entry is likely to be featured on display boards. I'd also swap the Condition and Rarity scores, and feel that 'Title and Plan' is a bit overestimated.
What do you think?
Login to Like
this post
I am not familiar with historic judging standards, or the actual practice of judges, but I am familiar with the grumblings of the peanut gallery, and I am guessing it will be progress if Rarity is actually down to 20%.
"2c" would be overstating things.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
I agree...presentation should be much much higher. It's a shame that condition and rarity total 30 percent. You don't ever want a situation where deep pocket "philatelists" buy the top honors but that's what it usually is any way.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Ian,
I can certainly understand where you are coming from. Perhaps it would be best if we understood what a philatelic exhibit is. Exhibits are meant to tell a story. They should have a beginning, middle and end. To illustrate this, here are some example exhibit titles to give you an idea.
United States Air Mail Rates to South Africa, 1947-1953
Ukraine Provisional Postage, 1991-1993.
Postal History of British Guiana, 1850-1852
Exhibits cover a specific subject and within a specific time frame.
The Title page is critically important because it gives the overview of the story. It tells the audience the path along which the exhibitor is going to take them. The Title page and plan must match the exhibit and visa versa.
An exhibitor acquires or picks out from their collection the specific pieces that best show off the story they are trying to tell, and as you can imagine this is a very deliberate process.
I personally think that rarity of material should be done away with. If you are telling a story about US Beer revenue stamps then you are by definition going to have some rare stamps in your exhibit in order to tell the story well. If your exhibit only features the more common items, then it is not really telling the full story and should be marked down as a result. In my thought, Treatment should then have a 40 point weight in the final score.
Since almost the entire focus of the exhibit is to tell a story, presentation becomes a minor aspect of the exhibit. To be honest I do not recall seeing an exhibit that has been poorly presented, though I have also seen some that take presentation to a new level.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I'm a long way from being a competition philatelist, but the new FIP 'Guidelines on Judging Open Philately' (as published in the latest issue of my stamp magazine) gave some pause for thought. You get 100 points, divided up as follows:
Title and Plan - 10
Treatment - 20
Philatelic Knowledge and Research - 20
Non-Philatelic Knowledge and Research - 15
Condition of Material - 10
Rarity of Material - 20
Presentation - 5
I wonder if these are the proportions in which you 'judge' your collections or albums. For my own part I feel that Presentation is worth more than 5% - certainly in the case of any stamp album, and especially if your entry is likely to be featured on display boards. I'd also swap the Condition and Rarity scores, and feel that 'Title and Plan' is a bit overestimated.
What do you think?
Login to Like
this post
re: Competition Judging Standards
I am not familiar with historic judging standards, or the actual practice of judges, but I am familiar with the grumblings of the peanut gallery, and I am guessing it will be progress if Rarity is actually down to 20%.
"2c" would be overstating things.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
07:32:03pm
re: Competition Judging Standards
I agree...presentation should be much much higher. It's a shame that condition and rarity total 30 percent. You don't ever want a situation where deep pocket "philatelists" buy the top honors but that's what it usually is any way.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Competition Judging Standards
Ian,
I can certainly understand where you are coming from. Perhaps it would be best if we understood what a philatelic exhibit is. Exhibits are meant to tell a story. They should have a beginning, middle and end. To illustrate this, here are some example exhibit titles to give you an idea.
United States Air Mail Rates to South Africa, 1947-1953
Ukraine Provisional Postage, 1991-1993.
Postal History of British Guiana, 1850-1852
Exhibits cover a specific subject and within a specific time frame.
The Title page is critically important because it gives the overview of the story. It tells the audience the path along which the exhibitor is going to take them. The Title page and plan must match the exhibit and visa versa.
An exhibitor acquires or picks out from their collection the specific pieces that best show off the story they are trying to tell, and as you can imagine this is a very deliberate process.
I personally think that rarity of material should be done away with. If you are telling a story about US Beer revenue stamps then you are by definition going to have some rare stamps in your exhibit in order to tell the story well. If your exhibit only features the more common items, then it is not really telling the full story and should be marked down as a result. In my thought, Treatment should then have a 40 point weight in the final score.
Since almost the entire focus of the exhibit is to tell a story, presentation becomes a minor aspect of the exhibit. To be honest I do not recall seeing an exhibit that has been poorly presented, though I have also seen some that take presentation to a new level.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.