FIP
Revenue Commission Guidelines states that "Philatelic importance can be a
highly subjective question, but generally speaking points are awarded according
to how mainstream your subject is within the world of philately. You will score
more for major countries (such as GB, British Colonies, Western Europe, USA,
China, Japan) than for minor (such as Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle
East, French Colonies), and more for 19th century material than early 20th,
with the modern period (say post-1960) scoring lowest. Also, judges are likely
to ascribe greater importance to revenue stamps which are clearly official,
well-financed productions (with crafted designs, good-quality printing and
perforation etc) than to those which look like bus tickets."
Is this guideline justified ?
Note: Issue raised by Col. (Dr) Jayanta Dutta, Pune
Anyone can participate in this debate. Plz send your views to : editorpjforum2013@gmail.com before 26 January 2013.
Response
Sahdeva Sahoo - Bhubaneshwar : 15 January 2013
Regarding judging of Revenue class. Same is true of all classes. These guidelines give old collectors an edge over the new collectors even if the new collector has a more complete collection than an older collector. Collection being an effort in gathering suitable materials and arranging as per the research available on the subject why should an older period get a higher leverage in evaluation? Are you not sensing a bias in favour of collectors who came early on he subject? Are you not sensing a bias in favour of countries which have a higher number of members in the jury and senior members in the jury panel?
Abhai Mishra - Dehradun
The clause 'Major Countries' is
highly objectionable. No country is major or minor. All the countries are
equally important. Such derogatory language must be avoided in the guidelines.
Material from other countries which are not listed in the so called major
countries are equally important.
