Defining The Classic Era Of Stamp Collecting

I think there's a case to be made for extending the "classic" period to 1960. WWII and aftermath stamps are historically interesting and there are some well designed and valuable stamps from the 50s, which are also historically interesting as the old empires broke apart. With only a few exceptions, stamp design and production after 1960 strikes me as uninspired and the stamps so common as to be wall paper.

Kirks,

Perhaps you ask the wrong question. If you ask in the "Classic" vs. "Modern" context, I have a hard time arguing that 1871 should be considered modern. But if you ask in a more open fashion, I will argue my case :-)

"The classical stamps are regarded by collectors as those which were produced all over the world during the thirty years from 1840 to 1870" -quote J. A. Mackay, The World of Classic Stamps, 1972.

If you want to start an argument ask a group of old car collectors what they considered a 'classic' car.
Don

For US material, it's worth noting that the Classics Society covers up to 1894 (i.e., the first bureau issues) and that the USSS has traditionally started with the Bureau issues. The dividing lines are more blurred now, but the transfer from private printers to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is a worthy distinction.

I personally think the real "classic" material goes up to 1870 for US, ending with the 1869 issue, but it's largely semantics.

I do not consider Prexies to be classics, for that reason I agree with ananthveerappan.

And just recently Michel announced it is rejoining the "Classic Era" catalogue competition with its 2-volume set, though they choose the cutoff date of 1914.

It seems like "classic" should imply something at least 100 years old. That would be a moving scale, with more things coming into focus over time, clearly. For me personally, as I see certain stamp issues getting older (like me), I find myself more interested in them.

Then I go buy another 1c 1851 used imperforate stamp, since perforations, gum, watermarks, tagging, etc distract from the purity of true classic stamps up to 1857.

Personally I like Yvert's breakdown of Classic-Semi Moderne-Moderne though personally I'd probably put the break between classic and semi-modern at the era around the end of World War I and its impact, which in terms of overall world history is one of the decisive points that mark the end of one era and the start of something completely different.

you can't completely establish a "hard" date though - Russia's classic era for me would end with the stamps that begin to be issued after the first revolution in February 1917, Mexico even earlier with the outbreak of the Revolution of 1910, but probably the early 1920s for some colonial issues where it would be the introduction of new postal rate stamps (as in case of the French colonies) or new watermarks (in the British colonies the Multiple Script & CA Watermark in the early 1920s marks a good break-point)

I always disliked the 1940 date chosen by Scott - it falls right in the middle of WWII and thus leaves several philatelic histories "hanging". Personally I'd love to see Scott expand coverage to the end of WWII so that stories such as the Third Reich's philatelic history, the various occupied territories in Europe, Manchukuo and the China regionals and the last year of Japan's Showa definitive series (the imperfs) were included. Would give, I think, a better historical picture of the last years of the "classic" era than the current relatively hard stop in 1940 does.

1940 was chosen for one obvious reason. It's a 100 year grouping. If the first stamps had been issued in 1830 then the catalog would have stopped at 1930. It's simply a convenient place to stop.

Hi,
I can understand some calling "Classic" the first 100 years.........1840-1940, but the 1940s and even the 1950s reflected the huge event of WWII, postwar rebuilding, and the modernization of the world (or much of it).

I started out with world collecting thru 1950, but then extended it thru 1960 - perhaps to recapture the stamps I enjoyed so much when I collected as a kid.

All that said, my vote is for 1840 - 1950.

I don't think it is appropriate to have an 1840-1940 classic, because it ends right in the middle of World War II. It would be more appropriate to be 1840-1945, which would covers all the stamps issued during the war.

Wait now, wasn't WWII from 1939 to 1945? 1940 is certainly not "right in the middle" of that range.

Picky picky , OK DURING the war.

I fail to see what the war has to do with classic philately. "Interesting era" and "classic" are not remotely the same things. And the US was not yet in the war in any case. Before 2000, the year 1900 was almost always the basic answer for when classic philately ends. Time marches on, and so this kind of artificial "line" in the catalog has started floating a lot more.

Thinking more about it, I quite like Michel's idea of 1914, up to the point where the Guns of August blew the Belle Epoque into dust.

I guess a periodization for me would be

1840 to start of World War I
From the start of World War I to Japan's surrender in September 1945
From Japan's Surrender in 1945 to 1973 (the Oil Shock and the end of the Postwar Economic Boom)
From 1974 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in Dec 1991
1992-present


of course some nations still wouldn't fit this template well.

1910 would be a better transition date for Mexico from period 1 to 2 for example...