1893 30¢ Columbian On 1928 Zep Cover

"Whether the cover was contrived or not, it is still an item of mail sent through the same postal system as other covers from a given country, with a postage stamp(s) and postmark, and is often more historically significant than covers sent with no intention of recovery."

That is not nearly always true. Just for example, that hotel cover above never went through the system. It was a handback, a favor cancel. It's a pretty cover, and I understand why a collector would want it, but it never went through the system. There are uncounted thousands (millions?) of covers like this in the world. My beef is not with covers like this, it's with the idea that if a cover is franked with a stamp not usually found on cover, such as solo uses of dollar value Columbians which are obviously philatelic they get treated very differently. Those are "acceptably" philatelic, and everyone gets all gushy. I just hate the double standard.

Well, we do agree that it is what it is. While I was aware of the difference between commercial and philatelic usage and in general of the negative view toward the latter -- and can understand it in the case of stamps used out period simply to create an example of the stamp on cover -- I think I may have over reacted to an attempt at humor. But -- and this is the only sense in which this could be "personal" -- I do not believe that the use of stamps out of period on flight, first day, or other event covers is contrived, even in the somewhat neutral sense you or essayk would use the term. Yes, they are philatelic creations; I know of no one who contends otherwise. They are created for a much different purpose, or motive if you will, than the examples of "contrived usage" given above by Tonymacq, and it is wrong to equate the two or to refuse to recognize a difference. I would have no problem considering Tonymacq's examples "contrived" and in the fullest sense of "having an unnatural or false appearance." I simply do not think that that applies to a flight cover, which has an altogether different purpose. It is not being passed off for something that it is not, and to put it in the same class as something that is being passed off as something it is not does not seem right to me. Nothing personal, mind you, but I do think there is a principle in question here. But if I am the only one who thinks so, then perhaps I should let it go.

Basil

Basil, we can certainly agree that we disagree but your posts here have created some great conversation in my opinion and I do respect your input and passion. Please don't stop posting your thoughts.

Oh, I've got too many opinions to stop posting altogether. And I learn too much here not to stick around. I just think that on this subject there's not much more to be said that hasn't already been said. It has been infomative, but it is time to move on. Besides, I have a stamp show to go to! I am in Texas visiting family, and timed the visit to attend TEXPEX today. I have been collecting for about a dozen years and believe it or not this will be my first show. I'm looking forward to seeing what exhibition is all about, even if there will be no contrived covers (aka "philatelic creations" ). But I know of a couple of vendors who will be there whose wares I intend to check out. Maybe I will come home with a cover we can argue about.

Basil

It is unfortunate that the word "contrived" is even a part of our hobby vocabulary and that some desire to push it in a negative sense. It is detrimental to the hobby and those who love it. It is unfortunate that the Wikipedia article uses the word.

Yes, there are stamps used out of period - let's call them that. I regularly use 30-60 year old stamps on my mail. Contrived? No. It saves me 20% on my mailings. Yes, there are philatelic and collector-inspired frankings - let's call them that. Yes, there are controlled mail frankings to get unusual uses and destinations - let's call them that. All are more correctly descriptive and less negative to the hobby. And yes, everyone has a slightly different broad-brush definition of what is a philatelic cover or not (and there are many grey-area covers). It would promote the hobby better without the word contrived. End of rant.

For exhibiting, the APS has greatly expanded the exhibiting categories in the past 20 years to include philatelic mail. The 6th edition of the "Manual of Philatelic Judging" is available for download on the APS website. It is not just traditional stamps and postal history. They now have many ways to exhibit collector inspired mail and other philatelic materials previously viewed as non-traditional. There are specific categories for aerophilately, astrophilately, FDCs, and illustrated mail categories for cacheted FDCs, advertising/patriotic/event mail, and maximaphily. There are additional divisions for display, cinderellas, thematics, special studies and post cards. And revenues have matured to full recognition. The word "contrived" occurs only 3 times in 100+ pages. Come swim into the 21st century, the water is warm.

This is going to be my last comment on this theme. I've been trying to figure out why some of you see the word "contrived" in such a negative light. But after a reading few entries in the online "quickie" dictionaries, I can see the problem. The online dictionaries try to make short schrift of their definitions (for short attention spans?) and sometimes cut corners too much. Words do not have punctiliar meanings, they have semantic ranges. A dictionary is supposed to be a record of the range of usages, and the online freebies don't do that. Take them with a grain of salt. Go to the OED and find out something of the history and tradition for word usage for this word.

We have been using "contrived" as the past participle of the verb "to contrive." Here is an online entry many of you might overlook: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/contrive Read about it.

Human language is a social convention intended to allow the communication of thoughts. In the matter of English we will understand each other better if we mean the same things by the words we use.

I've said my bit on this for now.

Just a follow up on the original cover. I went to the Heinrich Koehler site and sent them a note.
They responded:




I knew it was a very long shot at best. It was kind of them to get back to me so quickly.

John Becker's post helps reaolve the confusion I experienced viewing exhibits today at TEXPEX today. Based on some things being said here, I expected them to be devoid of any examples of "contrived" (philatelic) usage. That was decidedly not the case. An exhibit entitled "How We Got Men to the Moon" made liberal use of event covers. A huge (10 frame) exhibit on the 5 cent General Kosciusko stamp had at least two or three frames of FDCs. So I didn't see any kind of animus on display against philatelic covers. Given the difficulty were having on whether or not "contrived" in the context under discussion should be construed negatively, perhaps we should avoid the word entirely.

Never

I can only agree. Double standards infuriate me, too.

That would seem too contrived...

"Yes, there are stamps used out of period - let's call them that. I regularly use 30-60 year old stamps on my mail. Contrived? No. It saves me 20% on my mailings."

But are they specifically to and for collectors who will put them into a collection, or are they just paying the cable or electric bill? There is a huge difference between the two.

My naivety really gives me freedom to follow my muse, controlled by my limited purse of course.

With the Zep cover, like I mentioned, I needed that particular flight. To find it with that unique (probably one of a kind) franking including the special delivery was great fun..., Of course It's even more fun to find out it's addressed to the co-founder of the oldest stamp auction house in Germany. This stuff is right up my alley.

But of course, my alley does not lead to exhibiting, or my grand children becoming rich off the sales of my collection.

I will say this though, I do know enough not to spend hundreds of dollars on a late use 30 center as if it was FDC or an 1892 expo card. Much of that awareness, I owe to this great web site, and the great collectors and experts willing to share their time and expertise.

I hope you enjoyed your first show and seeing the exhibits. Had the awards been posted when you toured the frames?




What things being said here had led you to that expectation?

What did you expect "animus" in the exhibits to look like?

Did you understand my allusion to exhibiting classes when I said:



Have you been made aware of the rules for competitive exhibiting? How do they make you feel? Do you have a sense for/understand the point of competitive exhibiting?

Unless and until you understand what makes each exhibiting class distinct from another, you will not be able to understand why some things are acceptable in a particular exhibit and some things are not. Did you pick up on that (get a sense for that) from your visit to the show?

A good exercise for neophyte show visitors is for you to decide what medal you would give to a particular exhibit, and compare that to the medals the judges give.

Perhaps before I respond to comments or queries from people on subjects outside their normal range of experience, maybe I should find out what they know so I can use language they are likely to follow. My bad.

You want contrived? I got contrived