Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
The wastebasket, perhaps?
:-)
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
Burn it.
Login to Like
this post
Obviously a cinderella stamp but I am not sure where it originated from.
While it is not the best looking stamp or in the best condition due to foxing, I would still keep it, - at least until a better one comes along.
My first thought was Sweden, but, I may be incorrect on this?
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post
On second blush dont burn it. Looks like a little baby. Oops
Login to Like
this post
Another contender:
Fake engraving, stylized image, really unimaginative graphics.
A really, REALLY lame tribute to a landmark event/era.
I'll probably keep the sheet header for an Air Mail album.
-Paul
On further inspection, I *do* like the superimposition of the wingtips on the frame. Makes it look like the plane is flying off the stamp. That's my one concession.
Login to Like
this post
Most baby pictures are cute. That one is ugly.
Login to Like
this post
nranderson, It is not a postage stamp because postage stamps except Great Britain have a country name and a denomination. I'd guess something like milk ration stamps from Bulgaria mid 60's
Pig doc. I could not disagree more, I just purchased another couple sheets today to use on my outgoing stamp sales. I like it better than any other stamp available from the P.O. right now If it is not engraved I must have finally gone blind. The design is nostalgic of many countries first airmails. I must be old fashion but the only modern U.S. stamps I care for are 19th and early 20th century reprints or stamps that are reminiscent of them.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
.
Paul is correct that the US airmail centenary stamp is slavishly derivative.
Mitch is correct that, in the context of modern US postage stamp designs, slavishly derivative is a pretty good thing.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Good point about all stamps having their country of origin on them, except England. I'm puzzled by the whole damn thing. The 5~20 gets me and it's so overstated. I was about 8 when my father bought that big box of loose stamps at a police auction so can't be newer than 1963. I'm keeping it. It's too ugly not to keep it! Maybe I could find a proof! 
Login to Like
this post
Jings!...Crivvens!...Help Ma Boab!
England!!
Nay!...Nay!...and thrice Nay!
Great Britain..........Please!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Now it is a valuable stamp- just spent an hour searching 
Login to Like
this post
Antonius, your comments motivated me to dig a little deeper into the printing processes used to produce the 2018 Airmail Forever stamp. It was produced by the intaglio process, which involves incising a metal plate that is used to transfer the ink to the paper. So, in that sense, the process is identical to that used to print stamps from engraved plates.
I am making a distinction between "incising" and "engraved". Looking at the website of designer and typographer(?), Dan Gretta, his biography states, "When Dan is not in front of the computer, he is most likely found in the dairy aisle at the local grocery store." And, under "Capabilities", engraving is not listed.
I am guessing that the plates used to print this issue were produced using a process akin to CNC machining from a template drafted on a computer screen by the designer, using a mouse and a keyboard.
Kind of pales in comparison to the artistry and technical prowess of a master engraver like Czeslaw Slania, for example, and that is the gist of my 'beef' about this stamp, and other similar modern issues. Presumably, true engraving is on its way to becoming a lost art, thanks to the computer age.
To each his own.
Thanks for motivating me to learn something about modern postage stamp production!
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
.
Traditional engraving was by a hard hand tool into a softened (warm) metal, with gratifying results.
If you attach that hand tool to a computer-guided power-assisted apparatus, it is still engraving, and can still yield gratifying results.
The artisans who do either of the above to make a living will respect either process.
Hobbyists, and bystanders, not so much.
Photogravure uses light & chemicals to etch into metal (not unlike semi-conductor manufacturing).
These stamps have usually lacked the crispness of an engraving because chemicals will etch outwards as much as they etch downwards (into the plate), whereas the hard tool can be guided selectively downwards (dig, baby, dig).
Theoretically, you could do sequential chemical etchings from a specially-designed series of photo masks to achieve the qualify of engraving, but you'd need a really good reason ... and a computer to develop those masks.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
I do not consider the US Air Mail anniversary stamp to be the ugliest or even ugly. The simplicity of the design did not take advantage of the printing process. It was really a lost opportunity to make a much better looking product.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@Snick1946,
Well you should see the actual baby!!!
JR
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
11:43:07pm
"It is not a postage stamp because postage stamps except Great Britain have a country name"
"Good point about all stamps having their country of origin on them, except England."
A common belief, but incorrect. Here are just a couple of examples. There are many more.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
Sorry, obviously I didn't think long enough before posting that. It is basically true that Great Britain does not have it's name on it's stamps in favor of having the reigning monarchs bust printed on it's stamps. There are other countries that have not used their names on their stamps but only briefly on mostly first issues. I have all the ones shown but it's a big world and memory isn't was it use to be.
Login to Like
this post
"Jings!...Crivvens!...Help Ma Boab!
England!!
Nay!...Nay!...and thrice Nay!
Great Britain..........Please!"
I thought it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (previously UK of GB and Ireland). Is that not the stamp issuing entity? I just rearranged all of my "One From Every Country" Europe section and made the change from Great Britain to UK of GB & NI. Was that incorrect?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
It is a bit confusing now that you mention it, because Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, is not, by definition, part of Great Britain. (Great Britain consists of the island mass of Scotland, Wales, and England). Stamp-issuing country-wise, United Kingdom would be more accurate than Great Britain, assuming one cares to acknowledge Northern Ireland.
I'm a Yank, so I am hardly qualified to opine on these matters. Hopefully a member of the Commonwealth will clear it up.
Wine
Login to Like
this post
Funny ! I thought there will always be an ENGLAND !
Login to Like
this post
I quoted Great Britain, as that is the country that is listed in most stamp catologues.
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are NOT separate countries.
They may have devolved "parliaments" and think they are separate cultures but they are one country:-
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second as Head of State.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"I quoted Great Britain, as that is the country that is listed in most stamp catologues."
Yes, I get that, but I don't understand the outrage of diminishing Wales and or Scotland but caring very little that Northern Ireland is ignored.
Seems strange to me.
Login to Like
this post
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all come under a single postal administration, namely Royal Mail.
Regional stamps are produced for these regions by Royal Mail. The regional stamps are not available in other than the "home" region. ie Scottish regional stamps are not sold in Northern Ireland and vice-versa. They are however available through the philatelic bureau.
The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey/Alderney have their own postal administrations so produce their own stamps.
Of course the catalogue producers should not list the country as Great Britain but should list it as the United Kingdom.
Historically it was the partition of the island of Ireland in 1922 that caused the confusion of the catalogue producers as the stamps of Great Britain were used in the island before then.
Login to Like
this post
When it comes to the Scott Catalogue, I checked an old 1905 version and UK is listed under GB and there is no mention at all, even in the index, of Ireland. But that's just the silly Yanks, so I pulled out a 1960 Stanley Gibbons World catalogue. They should be more accurate one should expect. Believe it or not, the entry for Great Britain has:
"Consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland."
Wow! If SG can't get it right, no wonder we Yanks are confused! (At least the 2005 SG Commonwealth catalogue has "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" under the listing for early Great Britain).
Login to Like
this post
Often common use wins out over technical correctness.
If the UK put United Kingdom on the stamps it may have changed the situation.
Login to Like
this post
""Consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland."
Wow! If SG can't get it right, no wonder we Yanks are confused! (At least the 2005 SG Commonwealth catalogue has "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" under the listing for early Great Britain)."
I'm puzzled by the suggestion that the first definition there is incorrect. It is broadly accurate, although it omits mention of the smaller islands, as most definitions do.
The Commonwealth Catalogue, on the other hand, seems to have it wrong, if correctly quoted. It should read "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Brechinite above has it correct, although he may be dismayed to know that in English primary schools children learn at a young age that England, Scotland and Wales are considered, for simplicity's sake, to be "countries". In my classroom I always defined them as "football teams".
In my own albums and lists I always refer to "UK". The term "Great Britain" is an officially recognised abbreviation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and was of course used in stamp catalogues before Ireland was divided into two entities. Catalogues do not like changes, unless they are of values, and so GB has remained. As, inevitably, has "Russia" even when the USSR subsumed various other political entities besides Russia. Convenience and convention, rather than strict accuracy, is the watchword of stamp catalogues and most stamp collectors.
Meanwhile, to revert to the original subject, here are two GB horrors from 1992. That the first was designed by a tiny child and the second by the renowned David Hockney does not in my view disqualify either from being ugly: the dismembered octopus (apparently depicting the ozone layer) and the prancing starfish (bizarrely purporting to depict the European Single Market).
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Ian, definitely ugly but the octopus legs are, I believe, meant to represent the suns ray breaking through the ozone layer ( depicted by the broken white, snowflake like band).
As far as the other stamp goes I always thought it was a dancing clown, or maybe that's what a government is really.
Login to Like
this post
Please note that at the United Nations our Ambassador is from the United Kingdom!!
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not recognised as individual "countries". Neither do they have individual representation on any other world body like NATO etc.
What the English teach in their schools is their problem, it just shows how poorly educated the English are.
Login to Like
this post
.
Guthrum: a brilliant setup!
Which one is from the multi-million-dollar-earning museum-exhibited artist, and which one is from the child?
Not a bad subject for a topical collection, either, but what to call it? Slippery-to-source art?
Here's a little loosely-related inspiration:
My Kid Could Paint That
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Kid_Could_Paint_That
And, then, there's THAT documentary about a possible Jackson Pollack:
NYTimes think piece / review of the documentary
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
Neddie, i gott a grate educashion wen i waz inna skool in londun, bak in ver fiffties en sixtees butt ad ter leav sose i cud ern munny two elp me pairents. layter I gott wurk inner insurants plaice whear wee rote leters an fings.
Wee aint awl fik inenngllund ingglannd sarf off ver boarder an wee speeks proppar innglish knot vat garrlick stuf has wot der peepl upp norf.
nour ime ovr ear in ver sirrup trea plaice an dey speeks orl forn ann dunt unnerrstan wot ime syin.
Wots awl der read lynes meen, ennyway.
Login to Like
this post
Sheepshanks:-
Pure dead brilliant, by the way!!
Red Lines:-
No membership of the Single Market, No membership of the Customs Union, No Membership of the Common Agricultural Policy, No Membership of the Common Fisheries Policy, taking back control of our laws, money and the end of Freedom of Movement AND leaving the European Union on the 29th of March 2019!
Therefore honouring the result of the referendum held in June 2016.
Login to Like
this post
"Red Lines:-
No membership of the Single Market, No membership of the Customs Union, No Membership of the Common Agricultural Policy, No Membership of the Common Fisheries Policy, taking back control of our laws, money and the end of Freedom of Movement AND leaving the European Union on the 29th of March 2019!
Therefore honouring the result of the referendum held in June 2016."
This I agree is what is right and proper given the result of the referendum but I actually meant the red underlines courtesy of Microsoft when I was writing the above post, ow duz cocknees get on with spell check.
Login to Like
this post
"... the prancing starfish (bizarrely purporting to depict the European Single Market)."
Starfish? I'm thinking that what we are looking at is a 5-pointed gold star on a blue background, which are precisely the design elements of the EU/EC flag.
The 'starfish' is, therefor, the UK's happy new star.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Well, when I buy Scott, I'm not changing it to "UK" unless Gibbons does!
Login to Like
this post
Can someone help me find this poor stamps home?
Login to Like
this post
11:03:25am
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
The wastebasket, perhaps?
:-)
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Obviously a cinderella stamp but I am not sure where it originated from.
While it is not the best looking stamp or in the best condition due to foxing, I would still keep it, - at least until a better one comes along.
My first thought was Sweden, but, I may be incorrect on this?
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post
04:04:57pm
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
On second blush dont burn it. Looks like a little baby. Oops
Login to Like
this post
07:15:35pm
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Another contender:
Fake engraving, stylized image, really unimaginative graphics.
A really, REALLY lame tribute to a landmark event/era.
I'll probably keep the sheet header for an Air Mail album.
-Paul
On further inspection, I *do* like the superimposition of the wingtips on the frame. Makes it look like the plane is flying off the stamp. That's my one concession.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Most baby pictures are cute. That one is ugly.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
nranderson, It is not a postage stamp because postage stamps except Great Britain have a country name and a denomination. I'd guess something like milk ration stamps from Bulgaria mid 60's
Pig doc. I could not disagree more, I just purchased another couple sheets today to use on my outgoing stamp sales. I like it better than any other stamp available from the P.O. right now If it is not engraved I must have finally gone blind. The design is nostalgic of many countries first airmails. I must be old fashion but the only modern U.S. stamps I care for are 19th and early 20th century reprints or stamps that are reminiscent of them.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
.
Paul is correct that the US airmail centenary stamp is slavishly derivative.
Mitch is correct that, in the context of modern US postage stamp designs, slavishly derivative is a pretty good thing.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Good point about all stamps having their country of origin on them, except England. I'm puzzled by the whole damn thing. The 5~20 gets me and it's so overstated. I was about 8 when my father bought that big box of loose stamps at a police auction so can't be newer than 1963. I'm keeping it. It's too ugly not to keep it! Maybe I could find a proof!
Login to Like
this post
06:32:21pm
Auctions - Approvals
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Jings!...Crivvens!...Help Ma Boab!
England!!
Nay!...Nay!...and thrice Nay!
Great Britain..........Please!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Now it is a valuable stamp- just spent an hour searching
Login to Like
this post
10:33:57am
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Antonius, your comments motivated me to dig a little deeper into the printing processes used to produce the 2018 Airmail Forever stamp. It was produced by the intaglio process, which involves incising a metal plate that is used to transfer the ink to the paper. So, in that sense, the process is identical to that used to print stamps from engraved plates.
I am making a distinction between "incising" and "engraved". Looking at the website of designer and typographer(?), Dan Gretta, his biography states, "When Dan is not in front of the computer, he is most likely found in the dairy aisle at the local grocery store." And, under "Capabilities", engraving is not listed.
I am guessing that the plates used to print this issue were produced using a process akin to CNC machining from a template drafted on a computer screen by the designer, using a mouse and a keyboard.
Kind of pales in comparison to the artistry and technical prowess of a master engraver like Czeslaw Slania, for example, and that is the gist of my 'beef' about this stamp, and other similar modern issues. Presumably, true engraving is on its way to becoming a lost art, thanks to the computer age.
To each his own.
Thanks for motivating me to learn something about modern postage stamp production!
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
.
Traditional engraving was by a hard hand tool into a softened (warm) metal, with gratifying results.
If you attach that hand tool to a computer-guided power-assisted apparatus, it is still engraving, and can still yield gratifying results.
The artisans who do either of the above to make a living will respect either process.
Hobbyists, and bystanders, not so much.
Photogravure uses light & chemicals to etch into metal (not unlike semi-conductor manufacturing).
These stamps have usually lacked the crispness of an engraving because chemicals will etch outwards as much as they etch downwards (into the plate), whereas the hard tool can be guided selectively downwards (dig, baby, dig).
Theoretically, you could do sequential chemical etchings from a specially-designed series of photo masks to achieve the qualify of engraving, but you'd need a really good reason ... and a computer to develop those masks.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
I do not consider the US Air Mail anniversary stamp to be the ugliest or even ugly. The simplicity of the design did not take advantage of the printing process. It was really a lost opportunity to make a much better looking product.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
@Snick1946,
Well you should see the actual baby!!!
JR
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
17 Jan 2019
11:43:07pm
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
"It is not a postage stamp because postage stamps except Great Britain have a country name"
"Good point about all stamps having their country of origin on them, except England."
A common belief, but incorrect. Here are just a couple of examples. There are many more.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Sorry, obviously I didn't think long enough before posting that. It is basically true that Great Britain does not have it's name on it's stamps in favor of having the reigning monarchs bust printed on it's stamps. There are other countries that have not used their names on their stamps but only briefly on mostly first issues. I have all the ones shown but it's a big world and memory isn't was it use to be.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
"Jings!...Crivvens!...Help Ma Boab!
England!!
Nay!...Nay!...and thrice Nay!
Great Britain..........Please!"
I thought it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (previously UK of GB and Ireland). Is that not the stamp issuing entity? I just rearranged all of my "One From Every Country" Europe section and made the change from Great Britain to UK of GB & NI. Was that incorrect?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
It is a bit confusing now that you mention it, because Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, is not, by definition, part of Great Britain. (Great Britain consists of the island mass of Scotland, Wales, and England). Stamp-issuing country-wise, United Kingdom would be more accurate than Great Britain, assuming one cares to acknowledge Northern Ireland.
I'm a Yank, so I am hardly qualified to opine on these matters. Hopefully a member of the Commonwealth will clear it up.
Wine
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Funny ! I thought there will always be an ENGLAND !
Login to Like
this post
06:04:40am
Auctions - Approvals
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
I quoted Great Britain, as that is the country that is listed in most stamp catologues.
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are NOT separate countries.
They may have devolved "parliaments" and think they are separate cultures but they are one country:-
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second as Head of State.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
"I quoted Great Britain, as that is the country that is listed in most stamp catologues."
Yes, I get that, but I don't understand the outrage of diminishing Wales and or Scotland but caring very little that Northern Ireland is ignored.
Seems strange to me.
Login to Like
this post
08:19:21am
Auctions - Approvals
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all come under a single postal administration, namely Royal Mail.
Regional stamps are produced for these regions by Royal Mail. The regional stamps are not available in other than the "home" region. ie Scottish regional stamps are not sold in Northern Ireland and vice-versa. They are however available through the philatelic bureau.
The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey/Alderney have their own postal administrations so produce their own stamps.
Of course the catalogue producers should not list the country as Great Britain but should list it as the United Kingdom.
Historically it was the partition of the island of Ireland in 1922 that caused the confusion of the catalogue producers as the stamps of Great Britain were used in the island before then.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
When it comes to the Scott Catalogue, I checked an old 1905 version and UK is listed under GB and there is no mention at all, even in the index, of Ireland. But that's just the silly Yanks, so I pulled out a 1960 Stanley Gibbons World catalogue. They should be more accurate one should expect. Believe it or not, the entry for Great Britain has:
"Consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland."
Wow! If SG can't get it right, no wonder we Yanks are confused! (At least the 2005 SG Commonwealth catalogue has "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" under the listing for early Great Britain).
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Often common use wins out over technical correctness.
If the UK put United Kingdom on the stamps it may have changed the situation.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
""Consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland."
Wow! If SG can't get it right, no wonder we Yanks are confused! (At least the 2005 SG Commonwealth catalogue has "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" under the listing for early Great Britain)."
I'm puzzled by the suggestion that the first definition there is incorrect. It is broadly accurate, although it omits mention of the smaller islands, as most definitions do.
The Commonwealth Catalogue, on the other hand, seems to have it wrong, if correctly quoted. It should read "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Brechinite above has it correct, although he may be dismayed to know that in English primary schools children learn at a young age that England, Scotland and Wales are considered, for simplicity's sake, to be "countries". In my classroom I always defined them as "football teams".
In my own albums and lists I always refer to "UK". The term "Great Britain" is an officially recognised abbreviation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and was of course used in stamp catalogues before Ireland was divided into two entities. Catalogues do not like changes, unless they are of values, and so GB has remained. As, inevitably, has "Russia" even when the USSR subsumed various other political entities besides Russia. Convenience and convention, rather than strict accuracy, is the watchword of stamp catalogues and most stamp collectors.
Meanwhile, to revert to the original subject, here are two GB horrors from 1992. That the first was designed by a tiny child and the second by the renowned David Hockney does not in my view disqualify either from being ugly: the dismembered octopus (apparently depicting the ozone layer) and the prancing starfish (bizarrely purporting to depict the European Single Market).
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Ian, definitely ugly but the octopus legs are, I believe, meant to represent the suns ray breaking through the ozone layer ( depicted by the broken white, snowflake like band).
As far as the other stamp goes I always thought it was a dancing clown, or maybe that's what a government is really.
Login to Like
this post
03:35:40pm
Auctions - Approvals
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Please note that at the United Nations our Ambassador is from the United Kingdom!!
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not recognised as individual "countries". Neither do they have individual representation on any other world body like NATO etc.
What the English teach in their schools is their problem, it just shows how poorly educated the English are.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
.
Guthrum: a brilliant setup!
Which one is from the multi-million-dollar-earning museum-exhibited artist, and which one is from the child?
Not a bad subject for a topical collection, either, but what to call it? Slippery-to-source art?
Here's a little loosely-related inspiration:
My Kid Could Paint That
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Kid_Could_Paint_That
And, then, there's THAT documentary about a possible Jackson Pollack:
NYTimes think piece / review of the documentary
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Neddie, i gott a grate educashion wen i waz inna skool in londun, bak in ver fiffties en sixtees butt ad ter leav sose i cud ern munny two elp me pairents. layter I gott wurk inner insurants plaice whear wee rote leters an fings.
Wee aint awl fik inenngllund ingglannd sarf off ver boarder an wee speeks proppar innglish knot vat garrlick stuf has wot der peepl upp norf.
nour ime ovr ear in ver sirrup trea plaice an dey speeks orl forn ann dunt unnerrstan wot ime syin.
Wots awl der read lynes meen, ennyway.
Login to Like
this post
05:45:18am
Auctions - Approvals
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Sheepshanks:-
Pure dead brilliant, by the way!!
Red Lines:-
No membership of the Single Market, No membership of the Customs Union, No Membership of the Common Agricultural Policy, No Membership of the Common Fisheries Policy, taking back control of our laws, money and the end of Freedom of Movement AND leaving the European Union on the 29th of March 2019!
Therefore honouring the result of the referendum held in June 2016.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
"Red Lines:-
No membership of the Single Market, No membership of the Customs Union, No Membership of the Common Agricultural Policy, No Membership of the Common Fisheries Policy, taking back control of our laws, money and the end of Freedom of Movement AND leaving the European Union on the 29th of March 2019!
Therefore honouring the result of the referendum held in June 2016."
This I agree is what is right and proper given the result of the referendum but I actually meant the red underlines courtesy of Microsoft when I was writing the above post, ow duz cocknees get on with spell check.
Login to Like
this post
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
"... the prancing starfish (bizarrely purporting to depict the European Single Market)."
Starfish? I'm thinking that what we are looking at is a 5-pointed gold star on a blue background, which are precisely the design elements of the EU/EC flag.
The 'starfish' is, therefor, the UK's happy new star.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
06:35:27pm
re: Worlds Ugliest Stamp
Well, when I buy Scott, I'm not changing it to "UK" unless Gibbons does!
Login to Like
this post