Modern Philately Versus Classic Philately

What is the classic period is always an interesting discussion.

Going by some major catalogue publishers, Michel has a classic catalogue (in 2 vols) up to 1900. Scott and Yvert both have a classic "specialized" up to 1940. FACIT's classic Scandinavia ends in 1951, Sassone's Italian cuts off at 1946 & Stanley Gibbons commonwealth ends at 1970. Some of those years make more sense than 1940, being in the middle of WWII.

Interesting, Yvert calls the period from 1940-60 "semi-moderne" and issues a very useful catalogue (in 2 vols) to cover that. Wish Scott did the same!

And yes, I have all of those and more - turning into a catalogue addict I'm afraid...

~Greg

Michel's is the closest to the real thing. Yvert and Scott use "classic" for commercial purposes - unlike Michel, they obviously think that a Victorian catalogue wouldn't generate many sales. Gibbons's Commonwealth catalogue used to go beyond 1970. I suspect it just became too big, so a cut-off - roughly when most colonies had become independent - was made.

Well, don't feel bad gmot, we're all a bunch of addicts in our own way...

Getting back to the OP's question rather that beating the dead horse of "what is classic?" ...

I agree with the early posts to collect what appeals to you and don't worry about its age. Everything is collected by someone. I collect from stampless covers up through yesterday's mail, only because today's mail hasn't arrived yet.

I collect modern classics then!

Be different, only collect mail that hasn't been sent yet.

The Scott Classic Specialized Catalogue covers dates from 1840 thru 1940. For this reason, I've always leaned towards 1940 as the date of demarcation between classic & modern stamps.
On the other hand, PSE, on their submission forms, divides stamps into 4 eras:
(1) classic ... up to & including 1921
(2) vintage ... 1922-1933
(3) mid-century ... 1934-1970
(4) modern ... 1971 to date

A few thoughts that occurred to me as I read this thread.

The cutoff date of 1940 for the definition of classic represents 100 years of postage stamps. From 1940 to the current year represents only 81 years; so the 'classic' era accounts for a greater time span and logically would have more stamp collectors.

Is the definition of the term 'classic' fluid? In other words, to qualify for 'classic car' insurance your car has to be 20 years old or older; it is a moving definition as each year passes. But I have never seen this kind of fluidity used when folks refer to 'classics' in philately.

Does our hobby benefit in using a term like 'classic'? If 'classic' is defined as a stamp being 'historically memorable' (Merriam-Webster definition) does this mean that stamps outside collecting 'classics' are not 'historically memorable'?

Don

If one goes by the Oxford definition of classic as being "judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind" I kind of can see why the earlier stamps earn the title based upon design/subject. The Simpsons vs Cattle in the Storm.....Hmmmm

Of course there is always the old "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and so on.

I look at the recent Transcontinental Railroad stamp as being classic in design. Quite beautiful.

Using your post, seems more applicable to compare the Transcontinental Railroad stamp vs. Cattle in the Storm stamp.

And keep in mind that the US high value stamps of the late 1800s were contemporaneously panned by both the philatelic press and collectors.
Don

My wife sells stamps on Etsy - mostly mid 20th century ones with interesting designs. There certainly are a lot of very attractive stamps from the 1950s-80s, in particular many of the Western European issues.

Related to our discussion of classic - Etsy actually defines "vintage" as anything more than 20 years old. Makes me feel old and of a certain vintage myself!

I am not one of them, but I have met collectors who feel that the "classic era" ends as soon as perforations show up. Personally, I feel that the "classic era" ends with the large banknotes. Everything after that is some variation of "modern". Basically when the BEP started producing stamps.

I do look at them in the same way. If the Transcontinental Railroad stamp issue was typical of today's stamps I would likely be an enthusiastic collector of "modern classics".

I was prompted by this thread to look at some newer definitives from various countries I collect. Malaysia came out with another set of Orchids issued by the various states which seem well-designed. Nice balance of an artist's rendering of the flower, the monarchs, and the state seals. They seem to be a throwback to the Orchids sets of the 1960's in many ways, with only low denominations. Not sure which Malaysia stamps serve as the high values though.

I looked through some of my favorite countries, some of which have continued long-standing definitive issues until quite recently. Examples would include Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Norway has a few recent "Oval" definitives which replicate much older designs. Finland and Denmark have nothing I find appealing. Denmark did issue a wavy line definitive with hearts (a theme first used in 1904), however to me the new design is a sacrilege. It looks like a graphic artist designed the stamp while taking a chat break at the water cooler.

So, many recent stamp designs just don't make the grade for me. I did find some nice engraved stamps though from FSAT, Monaco, and St. Pierre.

Shermae,
It would be better to start a new thread promoting your friend's website than to stick it in this thread. Please edit your post and start a new thread.
Don