|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Philatelic Knowledge |
|||
|
Minimum, Maximum, Mini-Studies |
|||
|
Mary Ann Owens |
|||
|
The Columbo Chronicle, Vol. 2, Nr. 12, June 1992 |
|||
|
In response to our asking for suggestions in the May CC, we have been asked to discuss what would be the minimum amount of philatelic knowledge looked for at the interna-tional level to receive good points as well as the maximum amount. And, to also discuss philatelic mini-studies as to the number of them in a thematic exhibit. |
|||
|
Minimum Amount: |
|||
|
Philatelic Knowledge is expressed two ways: the choice of material and the philatelic text. My own personal goal is to have a minimum of two different philatelic elements per page when there are at least two items on a page. For those pages where it is not possible, I work very hard that the pages surrounding the page in question meet my basic criteria. I will also count the elements in a row both vertically and horizontally and work to get the total up to eight different elements, which averages out to two per page. For some thematics, that is easier said than done. So, first strive for four different per row both ways and work up to eight as the minimum. Not all philatelic elements require a text to describe them. Again, working with that row of four pages both ways, I strive to have philatelic text on a minimum of one and preferably two pages. At the same time, I also strive not to have sentences or paragraphs of philatelic text on all four pages because I then feel that the philatelic text will start to dominate the pages, which it should not do. One or two-word philatelic captions are welcomed on every page. |
|||
|
Maximum Amount: |
|||
|
While I have my personal minimum, I do not have a personal maximum because it is impossible to. The exhibits in each of the major disciplines have their own distinctive looks, including thematics. When the thematic exhibit starts looking like a traditional philatelic study, or a postal history rate study, or an aerophilatelic first flight study, or a postal stationery variety study, or a maximaphily exhibit, it will have problems getting appreciated as a thematic exhibit. The old theory of "one is good, two better, three is best" does not hold true in thematics. When the striving for that Aiple numbers of the wide range of elements makes the exhibit look more like a jumbled mess and the viewer wants to shout "Help!", moderation is necessary. There are no hard and fast numbers to quote. The placement on the page, the juxtaposition to more of the same element, the other elements in the area all have a bearing on the decision of what to include and what to exclude. That is why I try to have as many thematic points as I can in the widest range of elements so that I have options to work with on almost every page. As for the philatelic text, as mentioned above, the philatelic text cannot take over the pages but should be there every-time that it is necessary and sometimes when you feel that it will help the viewer to better appreciate the item's. When the judges look at some pages and mentally think or orally say that the pages could have been philatelically im-proved, the exhibit is not going to get the maximum points in the category. |
|||
|
Philatelic Mini-Studies: |
|||
|
All Thematic exhibitors are supposed to be philatelists also and one of the ways to prove it is with Philatelic Mini-Studies. The question was asked, "What if one would display a philatelic "mini-study" on every page?" To have a mini-study on every page would be going back to the subject /documentary type of thematic which was dropped as of 1988 and those exhibitors were asked to rethink their material more from subject design rather than philatelic varieties. On the other hand, most thematics lend themselves to at least one mini-study of one to several pages and the ex-hibitor should be encouraged to develop at least one, always keeping in mind that there must be thematic text on the page(s) to justify the inclusion of the page(s). I have several scattered throughout my exhibit. When the exhibit starts looking like a series of mini-studies, then I will know that I have done at least one too many. |
|||
|
Lack of Philatelic Knowledge: |
|||
|
Another important aspect of the Philatelic Knowledge Assessment is the lack of Philatelic Knowledge. Not doing things wrong is just as impor-tant as doing things right. The exhibitor can lose points by showing too many overfranked or underfranked covers, too many unaddressed covers, too much material from the "no-no" countries, modern imperfs and other stamp varieties not valid for postage, wrongly identifying philatelic items, and not identifying unusual philatelic items, as examples. |
|||
|
Getting the maximum points is not easy nor was it ever meant to be. Good luck! |
|||
|
e-mail: mary ann owens |
||
|
copyright © 2000-04 fran adams |
||