Interpreting postal history involves looking at ALL the clues - the rate, route, stamps, cancels, origin, destinations, etc., etc. To obtain the fullest information it is necessary to have complete information about the item being examined.
The members of this community have an incredible wealth of knowledge from decades of collecting and study. They may see the smallest clue which a cropped image may omit through an assumption that it was not important.
A picture is indeed worth a thousand words ... so please show us the full cover. You might be surprised with the information that comes back to you.
And Mr Netherlands look right above your post. I told you the two areas. Shipping and destination. (Does that make sense ) Enjoy ! And I just figured the stamps were a pretty clear indication of where it was shipped from. Wow. Why are there so many smart mouths here ?????
I am leaving this thread up to illustrate 'How Not To Begin A New Membership' in a free online community. Bobby sent him an email and his account was locked yesterday to prevent the flood from continuing. I then spent more time moving the flood of his threads than I have ever spent on any other new member this morning. His account was unlocked this morning.
Then he starts throwing shade on folks trying to help him??? Geez. Don
Good for you Don. While I certainly do not shy away from asking questions or even disagree, I certainly cannot understand why a new member would have so little knowledge regarding stamp types, think everything is an error, and then start being rude towards people trying to help him.
I would contend that the ubiquity of internet search engines and the contentiousness of communication in many online forums has led to a broad reduction in the interest of people in engaging in critical thinking. We see many new members here who treat the community as a search engine, posting a question and expecting an immediate and reliable identification or value assessment without any work on their part. This is just the latest example. Perhaps we need some more clear statement in the guidelines, to which people agree upon joining, saying "this is a community to which you are expected to contribute and not your personal search engine."
Quote: I would contend that the ubiquity of internet search engines and the contentiousness of communication in many online forums has led to a broad reduction in the interest of people in engaging in critical thinking.
I believe this statement is spot on but I'll have to google it first.