Use Your Catalog!

I usually try to be positive when I post, but, sometimes, it seems that no one really takes the time to research and find information themselves. In the December 2015 issue of the Post Mark Collectors Club Bulletin there is an article called "More Dramatic Postmark Error Discoveries". There is one problem: the Postmark Error is not really a Postmark Error and just by looking at the stamp involved in a catalog the writer would have discovered that. Obviously, that wasn't done. It's Canada #1094 issued May 9, 1986 to honor the 75th Anniversary of the Canadian Military Postal Service. The "cancel" from 1944 is part of the design. The writer of the article wonders how such an "error" in date was made.

All he needed to do was to consult a catalog before writing his article.

Did it occur to you to write a reply to the editor of the bulletin? Your point is valid, but unless you direct it to the one that made the error, how will he ever "get the point" (i.e., learn from his mistake)?

Ouch, that hurts! Does nobody proofread any more? I can understand that someone messes up, but this sort of thing can easily be weeded out. Of course, I do proofread for a magazine, and sometimes it amazes me how one can read something several times and not spot a very obvious mistake!

Peter

All the author had to do was look at the stamp. A good portion of the 'postmark' is 'under' the stamp's text.

P.S. Any chance there is something wrong with the postmark itself? Is the FPO number wrong or something like that?

blcjr: I wrote both the author and the editor before I wrote the original post. My goal was not to embarrass the author, but to remind people to make sure they have used all their resources when they write.