Might Sound Like A Sour Rant.

i've been meaning to do this for a while.

i'm interested in classic stamps, with a huge emphasis on classic.

mainly scandinavian, but I do enjoy seeing other countries' classic stamps, again with a huge emphasis on classic.

so I only follow this particular section of the forum. a forum which has sections for virtually anything.

i understand that some may have a different oppinion and definitions of what's classic. and some may not even have a clue they just post.

some may even think this is silly, but I personally couldn't care less about these new emmissions of what I considder, small pieces of paper NOT designed as a payment for a service of moving a letter from A to B - BUT a way to skin the stamp collectors for every last penny they own.

classic stamps is a topical section of stamp collecting as much as birds - and if people started post ships on that forum, some would eventually bring this to attention.

and seeing as we have sections on the forum designed for every era, i'd be thankful if people put a little more thought in their posts and where they land.

perhaps this starts with a debate on - what's classic?

I think there was some discussion of "classic" a while ago. The term, which used to be used to refer to the first thirty years or so of stamp issues, now encompasses an awful lot for some people. Up to 1900 seems OK to me, but extending it to WWII is really buying into the "Classic" catalogue approach of publishers, which prinicpally reflects the fact that relatively few punters would buy a catalogue from the genuine classic period.

Ok, I will bite....Sorsh, what do you consider to be the 'classic' time period?

I am confused. We already have two classic sections, one for US and one for world. If we added a topical 'classic' section how would people decide which 'classic' section' to post in?
Don

I think the title of this section of the forum says everything. If you only take things to 1900, say, you miss out "classics" like the GB Seahorses, all of the Soviet Union stamps, all the independent Baltic States, all KGVI, etc. Some of these take us beyond the 1940 arbitrary cut-off, but may be classics nonetheless.

I understand you, Sorsh, when you talk about collectors being skinned but it was ever thus since stamp collecting was invented. Classic means "premium prices" and you'll always get folk willing to pay these prices as long as the market can take it.

I think we also get "classic" confused with "iconic", but this also results in premium prices because the two are often considered to be the same, although I would argue that a GB Machin stamp is both iconic and a design classic, but not a classic stamp per se.

The two sections are fine ,just the way they are . The classic period is 1847 until 1940 . The golden age would be 1941 to 1970 . Very very few worldwide collectors purchase stuff after 1970's .If it comes in with earlier stuff then fine collect it but 1970 and after it is 2 cent mixture stuff to me .

For worldwide, 1840 to 1940 is more accurate since the Penny Black first appeared in 1840. Starting at 1847 is too US-centric and even then, most collectors include the pre-1847 "Postmasters' Provisionals" in the classic era.

Chris

CJPALERMO---Your right 1840 not 1847 ,was working on my U.S. last week and that starts with 1847 .

I agree 1840-1940, but the explanation of the category already says;

This includes pre-1940 mint & used stamps of the World.

I think some posters just don't know what year their stamp originated or they don't read the description of the topic carefully.

i'm with you on this Goeffha, the turn of the century is a good mark. the first 100years of stamp production is not classic, it's just a milestone in my book and in many countries (including most scandinavian) we're well into the mentioned, mass production.




51Studebaker, you misunderstood. i'm just saying there's too much modern material being posted in the classic section, these go well beyond 1940's - which in my book is already pushing the term classic too much.




using your definition (same as dictionary) classic is concerning price and quality. but you often see modern stamps getting higher prices than "classic" stamps, but that does not make them classic?

the seahorse, I know is pricy depending where they were printed, but that does not make it classic, the first 2-3-4 emissions of a country is what kickstarted their stamp area, a seahorse is just a new design at some point, popular - yes, classic - no?
denmark has that popular postbuilding in 1912-1915, never heard it being called classic.

germany have some pricy mini sheets during the hitler era, china has some well into the 50's 60's? but I wouldn't class those classic?

i agree, it's really as individual as color and how you interpret those - but still worth a debate from time to time I think.




Floortrader, how do you know the classic period is 1847(1840)-1940? I know the section is so named - but where is it so clearly defined? I haven't been able to find a clear definition anywhere, I even tried different collectives from coins to cars (no help there)

i also never heard of "the golden age" what is that?




Floortrader, I feel most after 1900 is just 2 cent with a few exceptions of course. but that wasn't the point, I never referred to value or rarity at any point.. classic and mass production can't go hand in hand in my world.

ideally a stamp is made to match the needs of postal rates, local, cross country, registered, money transfer and what not. as long as these rates are the same, no new stamp is needed - right?

in every country around the world, you'll see, at some point, many different stamps with the same value even though the postal rates are the same.
at that exact point I think you've left the classic era and went to "the golden age" at least for the postal service. :)

exciting to hear how everyone feels - might spark a few tensions, but might also form a few new synapses across the world.

I like the break down the way it is ---1840's to 1940's is the classics and 1941's to 1970's as a golden age of stamp collecting . That suits me fine . Make your collection the way you want it . It is up to each collector to decide on their own .

I agree with 1900 (or even pre 1870) as being truly classic, but for some countries and certain stamps it goes to 1920.

Hi Sorsh,
Kirk, Bobby and I typically move threads to the proper forum categories within minutes once we notice them or if someone requests them to be moved. If anyone spots a more modern thread in a classic category simply 'Send Note to Staff' and it will be reviewed very quickly for possible moving.

There a few exceptions including if someone makes a single post in a thread which really does not belong in that category; the choices for handling a single off topic post is either delete it or leave it. But while it is not often feasible to 'split' a single off topic post into a new thread in cases where there is a string of off-topic posts then splitting them into a new thread makes sense.

Please keep in mind that that some of the thread move requests are subjective since the topics can easily fit into one of several forum categories. For example, if a thread in the US Classic section calls out a ebay listing it may fit in either the 'US Classic' section or the 'eCommerce: ebay, StampWants, StampOffers, Paypal, etc.' section. If I feel the thread has good educational value for a US Classics hobbyist, I might leave it in the Classic section. But if I feel the thread is more about just giving people a heads-up on a bad listing, then I move it to the 'eCommerce: ebay, StampWants, StampOffers, Paypal, etc.' section.
Don

As time goes on and more and more modern stamps are being issued, the definition of classic may become more flexible and inclusive up to a point given how stamps have been changing. Originally, I considered it to be pre-1900 stamps but now I consider it to be more in line with Scott's 1840-1940 timeline due to so many new issues and modern sticker like stamps.

I've always considered "classic" to be 1840-1940, even before Scott had a Classic catalogue. In layman's terms I would say "up to WWII"... close enough.

Truth be known, if you are using market values and interest in postal history, one could possibly make an argument that material into the early 1950s has more in common with classic era than "modern" era material.

In short: It's fine as is.

The term classic has evolved over the years. The Wikipedia stub article on 'classic stamp' quotes Williams' (1990) and Mackay's (1972) definitions, to 1875 and 1870 respectively.

Personally, I'd extend their definition a little later, to the 1880s or so, depending on the country/state. I base this on societal changes such as the introduction of compulsory education and reduced infant/child mortality.

So, some examples (only in my opinion of course):

For Great Britain, the cut-off point would be no later than Scott #110 but it could be argued that it should be Scott #87. I'd call the Seahorse issues iconic, not classic.

For New South Wales, anything prior to the 1888 issues I would call classic. I wouldn't call anything from the Australian Commonwealth classic, but the Kangaroo stamps and the Sydney Harbour Bridge 5 shillings I would call iconic.

For the USA, I'd go to Scott #191. For France, the 'Sage' type would be the last classic issue, German and Italian states are all classics by probably everyone's definition, Canada to Scott #40, Newfoundland no later than Scott #59.

Another clue might be the commencement of commemorative issues.




I broadly agree with this. The Sage type was in production for 25 years or so, the Great Britain 1d red (with a couple of minor alterations) was in use for almost 40 years.

That said, there will be cases of different firms being awarded new contracts which would involve new designs.