APS AoD Selection Poll: Volume 8, Issue 1 (Oct-Dec 2023)

I wish write ins were allowed. I was quite taken by Greece Landscape Series, 1927-35: The Unissued 50-Lepta Corinth Canal Stamp by michael . All were excellent. 

Oh my - my tips aren’t really an “article” so really shouldn’t get any votes. After all, this was mostly a cut and paste from a forum post. Please do skip me.

That said - Please consider writing up a set of tips for one of your favorite areas.    It was super easy to come up with a list of tips about the Vatican. If I can do it so can you. I just thought about if I were to meet a newer collector who asked me “What area should I try next?”. What would I say to them? Think about it for a few minutes, then just jot down the thoughts that pop into your head. Then simply add a few pics of items from your collection that illustrate some of the points you were making or just add pics of your favorites. You don’t need to worry about perfection - Chris is a great editor and tidied up a few of my awkward sentences - easy peasy. And if you can think of other book sources or internet sites that can offer additional info simply make a list of those, too. Chris Beryllium Guy , made my list almost look like a bibliography! I’m a blue collar skilled trades girl and he gave my little scribbles a touch of academic polish. How fancy. You have oodles of awesome knowledge about your collections - here’s an easy way to share what you’ve learned. Go for it! 

angore , you are seeing the thread in the Recent Threads view. The poll itself does not appear until the thread is opened. The poll does not appear in the Recent Posts view, thus the note advising to navigate to the thread.

For those who may not be familiar, the poll appears at the top of the initial post in the thread and looks like this:

Just getting up and around this morning here in Pacific Time.  I hope everyone is well!

Thanks for all the positive comments about the Newsletter.  I tried my best with it, and of course, I had a great deal of help from Rob (REL1948), Steve (tomiseksj), and Jerry B.  I really appreciate the time they took to review the document and suggest edits, most of which I accepted.  It's always good to get more sets of eyes on these things, as sometimes being the author makes it difficult to be objective.

I also want to thank all of our authors for this issue: Stan (stainlessb), Linda, michael, Terri (philatelia), and Jim (cinderever).  We had a nice range of contributions this time.  I thought that the diversity of the write-ups was particularly good.  Linda, no need for you to apologize about the editorial error in your essay, that's 100% on me, and I am sorry for it.  I should have caught that.

Linda, I also wanted to say that although I cannot tell you how you should feel about anything (!), I wish you wouldn't feel embarrassed by the placement of your article.  The sequence of the articles is something that was discussed, and in the end, it was decided to lead with the longest one.  Anyway, I think that your writing is cutting-edge stuff, and I am just so happy that you were willing to "put yourself out there" and submit it for publication.  You are very talented!

To all our members: please consider writing something for the Newsletter.  Please contact me by PM if you are interested and/or if you have suggestions on how to improve the Newsletter.  If there are reasons holding you back from writing, please let me know, and we can discuss by PM.  We have already made changes based on feedback, such as not using full names in the by-lines or excluding submissions from the poll, when requested.

I am hoping to make the Cinderella Corner, TSF Tips, and Philatelic Events more regular features in the upcoming issues.  Thanks again to everyone for your support of TSF and the Newsletter.  Days like today make it all seem worthwhile!

A tough choice! Many great articles in this issue. Congrats to the authors and the editors.

Thanks to those that have commented about this issue and hdm1950 and FDI for your specific comments and a special thanks to Chris Beryllium Guy for encouraging me to come out of my comfort zone to submit an article for the newsletter.

Now, if I can write an article (have never done this before), then other members can too, so please give it a go!

It was a lot of good and interesting reading in this issue.

Thanks for your post, Linda.  It's an interesting question!

Personally, when I think of "philatelic writing," I think of the perspective of the author, which is separate from the subject matter of the writing.  I think that the same story could be told from a philatelic point of view or some other point of view, depending on the author's intent.

We see this all the time in major stamp journals and magazines.  Many of the articles are historical accounts that are either told using philatelic materials, or from the perspective of a stamp collector or postal historian.  The same history could also be told from an artist's, politician's, participant's, or any other conceivable perspective, in my opinion.

I think that your writing is philatelic, because you are choosing to make it so.  You are using stamps as an integral part of your project, and you include information about the stamps in your writing that is of interest to collectors.

This is just my opinion, as always, and I hope that others will offer theirs.

I would say yes to your question.

i find your perspective interesting and informative. I think we can all benefit from reading new perspectives. It encourages conversations and more new ideas.  One of the reason I enjoy the Forum is the new ideas and thoughts that are introduced here. 

David

Hello Mark,

My idea (or prejudice) of 'philatelic' writing is that it’s about the study of philatelic / postal elements (stamps, cancels, etc.) and/or history. When I think of 'philatelic' writing, I typically expect some analysis of the philatelic / postal element, its history and design, the postal route it went through, etc.

I do see my unusual writing as somehow 'lesser' -- not in terms of the quality of prose writing, but in terms of appropriateness to appear in a philatelic publication. As a stand alone piece, I think -- rather unabashedly -- that it's fairly good, but as part of a series of philatelic writings, I am not sure if it fits.

I guess its inclusion in the newsletter means that at least the editors thought it was appropriate for our journal, but the editors could be biased (no offence intended) ... That's why I want to know what other members think. 

When I read other members' posts / writings, I often feel like a humble student listening to a university professor lecturing on his/her field of expertise -- a professor who's so knowledgeable and eloquent at imparting specialist knowledge that requires years of training to master. On the opposite, when I write, I feel like someone making generalised claims that don't require special background study. And I wonder if I might have been seen by the insiders (philatelists) somewhat like an outsider theorising what philately should be ... Similar to those scholars who claim to use 'scientific methods' to analyse scientific activities, to whom those who carry actual scientific experiments would rebut: 'No no no, this is definitely not a (hard-core) science -- this stuff is soft.'

(Sorry to think this way -- I came from a background of ubiquitous polarisation  )