The 'Tugger' Cheated The Rules Of Stamps?

Hi all! Sorry to creep in on your forum, but this looked like the most interesting stamp collecting group out there. I am not collector, but am just looking for a bit of information.

What I am is a theatre fan, and I recently became intrigued. As I understand it, there was a (now altered?) rule that no living person can be depicted on a US stamp, despite a few iffy exceptions such as tiny stick-figure representation of a baseball player or astronaut beneath a helmet, etc.

So how did they get away with the stamp issued in the early 90s that blatantly portrays a head-shot of actor/singer Terrence Mann commemorating the original Broadway musical of 'Cats'? He is in makeup as the Rum Tum Tugger, yes, but still immediately recognizable and it's unmistakably him.

I ran across an article from a now defunct theatre website that discussed this, and they brought it to the stamp's designer and the powers that be who claimed that it was not Terrence Mann on the stamp, but 'artwork' that had been altered enough so as not to be him. It's beyond laughable, as all the stamp designer seemed to do to 'alter' the original, commercial picture of the actor was squash it down a bit to make it fit the dimension of a stamp.

Anyway, I found this curious, and I wondered what actual stamp collectors made of this, if anything. As I understand it, people lobbied to have them break this rule for years for many different candidates and it was strictly upheld.

Here is the image of the stamp and the original photo of the actor.

Hi Whisper:

You are correct there have been a few "cheaters" to the now defunct rule.

One distinction, real or not, used by the Post Office is that the stamp in question celebrates the Tugger CHARACTER not the ACTOR portraying him. A bit thin, isn't it?

I'm sure others here can give you a comprehensive list of other examples, but I'm drawing a bit of a blank. I can think of these:

* the Star Wars stamp showing Han Solo (who looks a lot like Harrison Ford)
* the Iwo Jima stamp was released while some of the marines were still alive.
* another commemorative showing a parade of sailors was taken from a photograph

Kirk

Yea I agree with Kirk, although the disctinction is small, the USPS has accorded the intent of the stamp to be what is important not necessarily who is portrayed. - Glad to hear from you - great question and what do we need to do to entice you to become obsessed with little pieces of paper? Jeff :)

Another example is the Star Wars S/S with Luke, Leigha, Han, Chewy, Vader, and others. Most of the people that played these characters are still alive but it's the characters not the people themselves being portraied on the stamps.

This topic was discussed not too long ago on Stamp Collecting Forum, although the stamp you reference was not included. Here's the link:

https://goscf.com/t/19673&SearchTer...iving,People

Tsk tsk. Is nothing sacred? It seems to me that there are enough dead people out there that there is no need to change, bend or break this rule. I can understand one accidentally slipping out once every couple decades but it seems there have been numerous attempts to bend this rule and now they are just ditching it. The next step will be to sell advertising on U.S. stamps, as on everything else I see. At least that will help defray the cost of postage.

Geez - I'm not even 40 yet. I am going to be one seriously CRANKY old man.

I also wonder about the idea of promoting obviously commercial ventures on stamps. Isn't it free advertising for any postal service to 'commemorate' what is essentially a commercial venture on stamps?

GREAT information. Thank you, folks, and WT1 for that link. You're princely stamp collectors for weighing in here. I'm having fun looking up shots of the exceptions to their rule.

(I do own this 'Cats' stamp, Jeff. No telling whether that may lead to more little pieces of paper.)

The Han Solo is the only one really to be compared, though that is very much a comic book drawing and could be argued to only resemble Harrison. Many of the others have people so tiny you need a magnifying glass, or portray people who probably bragged up their claim to fame with friends and family, but wouldn't have been recognized.

I think if they had gone with the distinction that the stamp commemorated the character or the show and not the actor as the excuse, it might have been fine. (Though, if that were the case, they could have slapped, say, Gene Simmons on a stamp in his KISS makeup as long as they were honoring rock 'n' roll and not him per se, thereby enraging legions of Elvis fans who tried so long to get him on a stamp, etc.)

This was the official reply that given to those who commented about the stamp at theatre.com:

'Robert Rodriguez [the designer] said he did not have Terrence Mann specifically in mind when he created the 'Cats' stamp. ... "I wound up distorting and changing and adding to it so much..." "There was one photo of the 'Cats' character. I started with that one. I changed him because he had a really skinny and long face. So I made him shorter and wider. And then I took some other elements from other 'Cats' characters and incorporated those to make it really different. Finally I made a stamp that was a composite of a bunch of different pictures together."'


And that's how it got past the stamp committee. Errmmm... except that, no he didn't do all of that. It's the same photo, right down to the details of the hair and the stripe on the actor's lip.

Blatant breaking of the 'no living person' rule, I'd say! Shame on the stamp committee and the stamp designer. I say Terry Mann has bragging rights that he once appeared on an official US stamp as a giant cat, if for no other reason than to gleefully embarrass his kids.

(And I agree, mrpgrm, they shouldn't have changed the rule. As satisfying as it might be to sponge down Lady Gaga, cram her on an envelope, and send her far, far away, it opens up the honour of appearing on a stamp to anyone, all in the name of the USPS making a buck. But that's just my non-collectors opinion.)

You're right. And here's one of the most blatant attempts at doing just that ... you can't tell me the stamp is not a "Hershey's Kiss" piece of chocolate when the term "Kisses" is directly connected with Hershey, and the stamp was issued in Hershey, Pennsylvania:

I was under the impression that these laws have been relaxed regarding living persons on stamps in the US? Maybe I am wrong? I know that here in Canada, Canada Post has purposely issued stamps with living persons on them.

Chimo

Bujutsu

I'm in Canada too, Bujutsu, and yeah, our stamps seem to have everyone and everything on them. So do our coins.
This US stamp was released in the early 90s, though, when their rule was still in effect.