From Stamps of the World

Hi Jaques, some great A-H postmarks going up on the site. When you plot a towns co-ords can you aim for just above the name on google maps, so that the pointer is pointing at the name? Just makes it a lot clearer. Nice to see Drew recruiting a postmark contributor for a change, he normally gets me to do that lol We have a postmark FB group if you are interested. https://www.facebook.com/groups/376842965700915/ --Ian G (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Ian. Regarding your suggestion, I copy the coordinates in Wikipedia without change (unless there is an obvious error if I do not see the town name under the pointer). I have never modified them, the look on the maps depends on the magnification selected for display. I do not want to be on Facebook.

Jverlaeken (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ok, no problem with FB. Ok I can see why the co-ords will be slightly out if you are taking them from wiki itself. Any that are greatly out I will try and correct as we go.

Jaques, regarding sectionalised postmark era's, rather than sequentially giving images a,b,c,d,etc down the sections, we have found it much easier with these pages if you give each section a sequence of its own. I made some changes to one of your pages to show you.Sevnica (SI) So each section has its own abbreviation then the image sequence. Hope you don't mind but as (hopefully) more images get added they should be easier to add as you will not need to look to see what the next image name should be on a page. Regards --Ian G (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Excellent! This system is better than creating Tabs (see Persia Postmarks). It will indeed be easier to add new material; I had thought subletters aa, ab etc in case of need, but your way is much better. I copied this Slovenia page as model. A detail: Slovenia ISO code is SI not SL, but was it on purpose? Indeed SL as first letters sounds more logical, but people may be confused.

Jacques.

Jverlaeken (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I think when I have done one (maybe Lendava) I have not capitalised the L so its a small l, I will look at getting these transferred over to SL tonight. Unfortunately with the project it was a case of see what works and see what doesn't as we wnet along, so things have been adapted as a better option as we have gone on the sub cat lettering was one such change made. It is indeed a much clearer option for these sub cats. ---Ian G (talk)

  • Looking again at these they are all SI as per the ISO codes. So the pages are correct. SL is allocated to Sierra Leone. It would help if the wiki font printed it as a seriffed I.---Ian G (talk)

Replacing Stamp Images[edit]

Hi Jacques,

I see you're quite busy importing images of Postmarked stamps.
I have some remarks though:

An exiting image of a "non-used stamp" should not be replaced with an image of a "Postmarked stamp".
Please use the "Postmarks" section if a image already exist in a "stamp set" page.
Also adding a "Postmarked stamp" adjaced next to a "non-used" one in a "stamp set", makes it confusing and is not, I think, the purpose of this wiki.


Otherwise, your input is very much appreciated.

--Rie (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2015 (CDT)Rie

    • There are several situations where a quality postmark is of added value: when a year helps to distinguishwithin a long series, where shades are to be illustrated; where the image is too low in pixels, to help in genuiness proof etc.

The 5 c 1937 is the only case where I made a replacement. The existing image is only 38 kB. There are also 3 shades in the COB: orange, red-orange and pale orange. The page Belgian Small State Arms Values 5c gives 2 shades. I see no reason why only unused values should be shown on a page. I have concern with the large number of small size images, and also at the lack of colour accuracy. I carefully adjust the shade after scan. See the 35 c Leopold II 1905 issue as illustration. I have made pages for the stamps colour shades in Wikimedia. The presence of used versus unused should be a matter of policy; not forgetting that for early issues (Austria, Belgium) unused stamps are rare. In this case, a certificate is needed. We can continue this discussion, but I do not understand the adjective Exiting. There is also a discussion about required dpi in Wikimedia, where I suggested that 400 dpi was enough, but I was contradicted, as some wanted > 1000 dpi! Thanks for your appreciation, I will continue to work mainly on the postmarks pages, Belgium now, Germany later etc.

Jverlaeken (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2015 (CDT) Exiting should be existing.

Replacing a postmarked stamp in the standard catalog wiki with a file of a non-used one, which is a standard procedure and even recommended, but this replaces also automaticaly the file in the thematic Postmark section. --Rie (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2015 (CDT)

      • Hello Rie,

Most used stamps are not eligeable to postmarks status, because of the (usual) low quality of the mark. I have thus doubt about about what you call 'automatically'. For me high quality postmarks help to identify the issue for old stamps which used the same patterns for tens of years, cfr issues for the Kingdom of Hungary, Bavaria as examples. Your (apparent) dislike of used stamps is perhaps valid for modern issues, where the identification raises no difficulty. Anyhow, an older stamps page should accept both used and unused; I would see no problem to have separate entries if you feel that this is confusing.

Jverlaeken (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2015 (CDT)

Hi Jverlaeken: Re - Thematics - Winged Wheels page you are right there is no structure to this page at the moment. It was added as a broad thematic page on the subject as images only that the user had available. With time obviously this can be added texturally to give it structure.

With regards to the conversation on new and used, both are equally important. There is no reason why a stamp set page cannot have the mint stamps at top, then have a seperate category of used examples; as you say it gives both time usage and an example of how, when they were being used and the types of postmarks being used at the time of issue. Both should be included where possible. --Ian G (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2016 (CDT)

Hi,

You revised the category "Prussia". Is there any reason why you left Belgium as part of this territory?

Regards, Rie (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2016 (CDT)

hello Rie, because part of Prussia Rhineland province, east of Aachen, was attributed to Belgium after WWI. See Malmedy, Eupen etc postmarks.

Jverlaeken (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (CDT)

Prussia ended to exist in 1918. Eastern Belgium today has been a part of Prussia untill 1918, but Germany (Prussia) has lost the WWI and has payed it's war-dept to Belgium with the territory now known as Eupen - Malmédy region. So it is Belgium that got a part of Prussia, Belgium received that territory only in 1918. Belgium has never been part of Prussia.

Regards, Rie (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2016 (CDT)

Of course, this is NOT the point. See below discussion.

Jverlaeken (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2016 (CDT)

Guys with postmarks if the town has had a period in postal existance that was under another rule to what it is today then both need to be included. As Jv says there are some Belgian (present day) towns that were under Prussian rule at some point before war repatriations and payments' So they would have been issuing stamps of Prussia for a period. They should be included. However they should go on the current towns parent country page. This is the eternal problem of countries and states changeing like Austro-Hungaria, Russia, Germany etc --Ian G (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2016 (CDT) Prussia just before the end of WWI

Prussia during WWI

In that case everybody can agree that most of Europe was part of Italy (Romans).

This Prussia discussion has nothing to do with postal history and is even not of philathelitic importance. It's political history, and every historian has it's own version of it.

Be consequent then and place the category Belgium also where it's needed, if you want to be historically correct. Belgium became independent from The Netherlands only in 1830, before it was French, Spanish, Austrian and some more.

Bullshit it is. Rie (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2016 (CDT)

If a stamp or cover or whatever was issued by a country at a time that they ruled then that is who the set belongs too. Therefore, as per the main catalogues, Danzig gets its own listing as a Free City and State for the Postal History era 1920-1939. It doesn't matter if it was at any other time Poland, Prussia or whoever. As it was at that time a Free State with its own postal administrations.
However for a town postmark. The town has existed throughout all the "Postal History" and the postamrks found for the city of Danzig will be Prussian, Free State, German, Polish etc. Therefore a town gets listed by issuing periods as that will then show the postal history of the town. Where the problems come is how do you categorize (and sub-categorize) all of these postally interlaced links. Belgium may well have been under Roman rule at one time BUT it was not part of the postal periods (1516 onwards from the first recognised postal system). Its history for philately is only the periods that the post offices ran for and who was the governance of that period. I am not that knowledgable about Belgium so I will bow to others, but if parts of what is now Belgium, had at any time a postal service not under their Belgian issuing control, then that area should have a place. My only concern is that the categorisation where it is initially ambiguous to the reader should have a statement relating the categorization and why it is there for the reader. As you have a concern it takes the reader away from one major Cat to another distinct (seemingly unrelated) Cat. But I stress there is in part reason to do so and I think its good for the site if we can agree by discussion how we want to inter-link the categories both by country and by the postal history. --Ian G (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2016 (CDT)

Link between Historical entities and Current countries[edit]

I agree with Ian G, of course. The concept is to consider the territory of the old entity and the current countries. For the philatelic period (say the 19th century) there is no ambiguity. Everyone can verify that Prussia ruled PART of Germany, PART of POLAND, PART of RUSSIA and PART of Belgium. I have even placed Prussian stamps in Eupen page. I did the the same reasoning for the Empire of Austria. This is also why the postamrks by countries are defined as their current territory (see my definitions of Postmarks galleries in Wikimedia). This is not bullshit Mr Rie! We all lose our time with this discussion.

Jverlaeken (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2016 (CDT)

@ian and @jacques,

Concerning the postmarks I fully agree with both of you. The discussion about Prussia started with my question why Belgium is part of the Prussia country category. It's my mistake not to have mentioned that clearly in my initial question.

It's very confusing when the postmarks section becomes a part of the country section.

Taiwan was China before 1949, but is not concidered as part of China, but for postmarks it is.

Sorry for the "useless" discussion. Rie (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2016 (CDT)

Our challenge Exactly, which is why we need the discussion Rie. Belgium aside, Prussia did occupy control over many current country area's. So like the example of Eupen (BE), stamps have been issued in that town which were Prussian issues (for a period of time). This is the problem we have with the empires like Austro-Hungary etc they were really spread-out.
Should we include a category for Prussia of Belgium? Maybe not but yes we should have a category of Belgium Postmarks linked to Prussia, but not the other way round maybe. When we started the process of Postmarks it was a concern raised with Drew that it was not a 'categorisable' easy project. We do need to accept however that one or two empires will put a spanner in the works with users. However agreeing a way forward is something we will have to work through between ourselves. We should were possiblt explain such linkage to the readers to explain the theory behind categorisations that are not immediately clear.
I must say all in all we ARE doing some great work on the wiki at the moment and that is all down to the efforts of all. I don't think however that we should over burden ourselves with making aesthetic changes to pages etc if they explain what a stamp set and why its allocated where it is for whatever reason then we should leave it be.
Admin was cautioned at the start that it would not be a straight forward task and so its proved to be, but its a challenge we should welcome and embrace, whilst looking and discussing between us a way forward. --Ian G (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2016 (CDT)

Sjoenburg puzzle[edit]

Hi Jv User Sheryll is wondering where this cancel should go, spelling of SJOENBURG - any idea's? http://www.stampsoftheworld.co.uk/wiki/File:Klagenfurt_(AT)_AH_b.jpg --Ian G (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2017 (CST)

Hello Jan, This is a 1905 bridge at JUDENBURG, Styria.

Berlin Post Exp 7[edit]

Not sure where thsi should go as Germany is just not in my knowledge. <Image moved> --Ian G (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2017 (CST)

I suggest you place the cover as File:Berlin_1_(DE)_PR_cover_b.jpg - I will complete the description!

Jverlaeken (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2017 (CST) Have done so Jv ......and thanks

BECS ?[edit]

Another for you if you have time to look. AH era ?. Becsk? I know where Becsk is but not sure what else it should be I thought Ci Becske as in Civitas Becske (City) Any thoughts?

Becej (RS) AH a.jpg

--Ian G (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (CST)

It is O.BECSE, in use since 1871 at Bečej, Hungarian: Óbecse, a municipality in the South Bačka District of the autonomous province of Vojvodina, Serbia. O. means old in Hungarian. Thanks for asking!

Jverlaeken (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2018 (CST)

Wonderful Jv I'll report back to Sheryll with a link. --Ian G (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2018 (CST)

Norway 1937-1938 Official Stamps[edit]

Good day, I am new to this wiki and have been adding a number of Norway stamps recently. On the page mentioned in the subject, I see you had posted a 35 øre stamp. By my research, this stamp may be misplaced. This stamp's proportions are not consistent with what my research for this set has revealed. It appears to be more rectangular than the stamps in this series and id possibly from the series from earlier in the 1930's. I have posted a 30 øre stamp to the page for comparison.

Since you have created this page and posted this first stamp, I am looking for your opinion on these thoughts before I proceed with more stamps.

Regards, Ron Reine

Thanks Ron, happy that you joined SOTW! You are right in your observation, note that this 35 öre was not uploaded by me. I was mislead by the late postmark date, I now moved the stamp next to yours. As I am not familiar with Norway Official stamps (I can't measure them), feel free to correct/contribute!

Jverlaeken (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2018 (CDT)

Thanks for your response. Being new to this wiki and wikis in general, I am still trying to learn the processes and protocols. Always good to have resources in the community such as yourself and others who are reachable and in open discussions trying to find solutions to various issues. We newbies can glean a lot just from reading some of the commentary.