FEPA News

FEPA NEWS 45 37 FEPA Exhibiting Another argument often brought forward for the inclusion of a literature list is that it serves to help the jury identify and potentially consult relevant reading in preparation of the judging. I do not find that it is the exhibitor’s job to provide this “service”. If the jury is not capable of finding relevant literature for themselves, I am not convinced that it is capable of judging the exhibit in the first place. Nonetheless, to be pragmatic I tolerate using a couple of lines in the introduction page to refer to the key literature references. But in so doing, bear in mind that the purpose is to make the literature search easy for the jury and there is no point in listing basic stamp catalogues or broad-brush references such as “articles from the London Philatelist” or “own studies”. What you should do is to list any relevant writing you may have published yourself. It provides a literature reference and more importantly it sends a strong signal about your own level of knowledge and research – which should also be reflected in the exhibit itself. “Influencing the Points” Rather than ‘wasting’ space on a shopping list-style plan and an over-detailed literature list, I strongly recommend promoting the exhibit by positioning it in relation to the various criteria against which points will be awarded, i.e. put in words what distinguishes the collection from those of others. The most important of these to address in the introduction page is ‘treatment’ followed by ‘knowledge and research’. Treatment In the ideal collection, the storyline is so evident that the spectator can immediately understand and ‘read’ it without needing a plan. This logic also applies ‘by degree’. In other words, the better the treatment and structure of a collection, the less need there is for a detailed plan. However, very few collections are truly self-explanatory and clarifying the structure/logic of the treatment is paramount for easy ‘reading’ of the exhibit. The introduction page is the place to do so. Comparatively, there is less need for outlining the treatment in traditional exhibits than in exhibits in the postal history and thematics classes. It should be explained where the collection puts the emphasis, e.g. deals in detail with different printings but less so with platable varieties; mint is shown rather than used; or perhaps the emphasis is on large units, proof material …). Ideally it should deal with all philatelic aspects of the stamps exhibited, but it is completely legitimate to focus more on some aspects than on others – especially when the choice is logically explained, or it provides some new insights in the subject. It is equally important to explain the chosen structure for presenting the stamps. It should be made clear what the principal criteria are for different sections of the exhibit. • Are the stamps shown in different sections on the basis of different perforations, watermarks, printing plates, or some other features …? • Should surcharged issues be treated in conjunction with the original stamps or should they be dealt with in a separate chapter? • Are the different values treated one after another across all the changes in perforation etc.? • Or is another different and perhaps innovative criterion for structure chosen ? For instance, most collections of the Belgium Medallion issue (1849-65) tend to present first all values printed from plates of 200 subjects (2 x 100), followed by the stamps printed from plates with 300 subjects. They also show the imperforate stamps first followed in a separate section on the perforated stamps: the four values line perforated 12½, comb perforated 12½ x 13½ and finally comb perforated 14½.