Who Is The Youngest Person Depicted On A US Postage Stamp?

[url=http://www.thegomc.com/PicHosting/share-A598_4DB7C977.html"][/url]

She gets my vote for most beautiful...until a Liz Taylor stamp is issued.

It is amazing the confusion generated by a seemingly "simple" question. It would seem to me that it doesn't make any difference the ultimate age lived to would make. The question is the youngest person depicted on a US stamp, later modified to the youngest named person.

I don't see how anything can beat the Virginia Dare stamp. She is named and is on the stamp as a baby. I suppose a case could be made that it is not really an image of Virginia Dare, but a rather generic image of a baby, but that is being awfully picky.

Besides, the original title of the thread was "depicted". A lot hinges on the actual meaning of the word depicted.

see now we have more to think about.. definitions are a tricky arena particularly in a world wide forum when shades of gray are everything in a written word....

Okay, I'll concede that the Virginia Dare stamp is probably the youngest person ever depicted on a stamp, even though (a) her date of death was never confirmed; (b) an image of a 16 century baby would not be a picture or portrait of the actual person; and (c) she had not made a name for herself in any way other than being born and ultimately being part of the "Lost Colony" over which she had no control.

I still think the Ritchie Valens stamp depicting a 17 year old musician is probably the youngest person who made a name for himself in his own right and is depicted on a postage stamp.

By the way, based on earlier posts about the Baby Jesus being depicted on Christmas stamps, I did check and it seems that neither the Virgin Mary nor Jesus is indicated by name in any of the portraits or designs used on any US Christmas stamps through the years. The typical text is identifying only the name of the painter or the portrait depicted on the stamp. My guess is that it is an intentional omission by the US Post Office so as not to promote any one religion over another.

Is that Elvis?

No, Elvis has left the building!

:)

I just wanted to make a point about the Christmas stamps. It's true that most are described as "Madonna and Child", however most paintings of Mary and Jesus as a baby are usually described with similar words, there is hardly any point in naming the baby as it's pretty obvious who He is.

So, since the Christmas issues are meant to depict Jesus on His day of birth or there about I hold that He is the youngest person depicted on a stamp and does not need to be named, unlike any other baby in the last 2000 years.

I have not seen any stamps, yet, that depict a pregnant lady, or it could be argued that the implied fetus would be the youngest.

...and I still reckon MM is the most attractive!

:-)

Jeepers. I got in trouble earlier in this thread for voicing assumptions about you know who.
There's a new hornets nest outside my laundry room window. Let me get my stick!

Elvis is not pictured anywhere in this thread. Are some mistaking the Ritchie Valens stamp for Elvis? ... or maybe the reference is to the Elvis impersonator?

Isn't it amazing how many different answers we can get to what was supposed to be a simple question?

I guess the parameters placed on the thread early on made for some confusion. In any event, they all have some validity. As we often say in stamp collecting, there are often no right or wrong answers ... so in order to summarize, let me present the following:

A. If we accept the criteria that the person need not be named as such on a stamp, then the Baby Jesus would be the correct answer.

B. If we accept the criteria that the person MUST be named on the stamp, then the Virginia Dare stamp would be the correct answer (as she was pictured as an infant.)

C. If we accept the criteria that the person MUST have been famous or well known to the general public in some way or another, then it seems the 17-year-old Ritchie Valens stamp may be the correct answer.

I'm not aware of any pregnant women depicted on US stamps.

The previous comment about Egyptian stamps may be true, but does not apply to US postage stamps.

Finally, while this may not be the youngest person, if we are going to start looking at generic US stamps where an infant appears on a stamp, but need not be named, this one may be in the running, as well (although there may be others I haven't thought of):

Even if a pregnant woman were to be pictured on a stamp, that is not actually an image of the baby - so surely it wouldn't count?
There's no such thing as a simple question and no such thing as a simple answer. The fun is in the debate!

Unless it was an ultrasound image

But I agree with you.

But disagree with the sickle cell baby, since it may be a generic drawing of any baby with the unfortunate condition then even if you don't believe in the existence of JC, the baby's in those paintings must be younger by definition as they supposedly show (but invariably don't appear to do so) a newborn.

The SCA baby is almost toddler.

alex

Perf you make an excelent point!!

as for Judy Garland I have to say she was beautiful indeed.... (here comes the pain) I would even dare to say beyond Marylin simply due to the type of person.. mild manner and typically grounded versus out front need to be seen.. for me personally I dont like the out front types but again it is a matter of opinion and no one is wrong in that sense....

back to youngest conversation... are there any US stamps honoring the midwife? perhaps that would have an image of a child closer to the moment of birth/// just saying LOL

http://photo.stamps.com/Store/brand...e=si10285380

this link has what I was talking about !! thank you google LOL.....

There's a twinkle in JFK's eyes. That could be John-John, making him the youngest.