Mick
Member 
Site Supporter
Posts: 931 
What I collect: Mostly covers and postmarks. Also miscellaneous paper ephemera.
|
Post by Mick on Mar 18, 2014 21:51:48 GMT
Hi All.
This seemed like a good subforum for this question, but please let me know if it is more suitable for another one, or if it should go directly to an admin.
When posting scans of more recent covers (e.g. around 30 years old), is there a general rule of thumb or best practice in what information to blur out? For example, I have an interesting postcard from 1982, and was thinking about posting a story about it. It contains the name of the recipient (obviously), as well as the sender. Since there is a good chance that both parties are still alive, should their names be blurred out in the posted scan? How about if the postcard was from, say, 1952?
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by stoltzpup on Mar 18, 2014 22:49:01 GMT
I'd say, if there is any chance that some victimizing viewer could use the information to the disadvantage of the person(s) whose name and information appears, blot it out. It's the courteous thing to do. So, to be on the safe side, blot out everything newer that, say, 100 years. It's just an opinion, however.
|
|
Philatarium
Member
Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,032
What I collect: Primarily focused on Japan, but lots of other material catches my eye as well ...
|
Post by Philatarium on Mar 18, 2014 23:24:37 GMT
This is an interesting question, and I haven't actually seen it discussed on other stamp-related discussion boards I follow. It seems that everyone has had their own personal policy.
I think Stoltzpup's response is a good one. It's just the courteous thing to do. At first, I kind of raised an eyebrow at the 100 years suggestion, but, you know, why not? Really no harm in that at all, and errs on the side of caution.
To be clear, we are talking about just blurring the digital image, and not the original item, right? To do the latter would seem to be to be defacing the original document, and significantly lowering its value.
All that said, I don't think online postcard or cover dealers do this, except possibly for something very recent (and then I think it's the rare seller who does this).
Great question!
-- Dave
|
|
Mick
Member
Site Supporter
Posts: 931
What I collect: Mostly covers and postmarks. Also miscellaneous paper ephemera.
|
Post by Mick on Mar 19, 2014 0:51:42 GMT
Dave and stolzpup, thanks for the responses. I think I will take on the suggestion of 100 years.
Dave, yes I'm definitely talking about blurring the image, not the original item. :-)
What got me thinking about it was the following: a few years ago I picked up a number of used postcards, and am finally able to scan them. One of them is a very charming handmade postcard from 1981, an invitation to a Halloween party. I got to thinking that perhaps the people involved would welcome a scan of this card - perhaps it would bring back pleasant memories. I couldn't find anything on the addressee, but the sender now has her own business and was easily found via Google. After exchanging a couple of emails, I sent her a scan of the card, and she was delighted to have this digital keepsake.
I toyed with the idea of posting a scan of the card to this board as a fun little story, but then realized that it contained a fair amount of personal information. Which in turn of course got me to thinking about the etiquette of what to blur out and whatnot, and thus this question.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by stoltzpup on Mar 19, 2014 1:06:05 GMT
To be clear, we are talking about just blurring the digital image, and not the original item, right? To do the latter would seem to be to be defacing the original document, and significantly lowering its value. Certainly blur the image and don't deface the original. And, you're right, 100 years seems excessively cautious. However, some of the scams perpetrated on the internet are vicious. Refer to some of Rod's posts about the sad fate of a woman who lived in his town. So, rather than risk foul play resulting from a posted name and address, I'd rather blur it out. There could well be exceptions, of course, as in a card addressed to HRH Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace. (Sadly, I don't have one to show.) I'm reminded of a buying opportunity I had a few years ago. The lot consisted of a large sheaf of letters sent to Charles and Anne Lindbergh after their infant son was kidnapped. There must have been a thousand of them, complete with names and particulars of the senders. Most of the senders reported some spurious clue or irrelevant coincidence, such as having heard an "aeroplane" flying over their house on the day of the kidnapping, never mind that the writer lived far away from the Lindbergh's and there is no reason to suppose the kidnappers knew how to fly. The seller could not find a buyer. He thought the letters were important, but evidently no one else seemed to. He even failed in an attempt to give them to a museum. He contacted me because, at the time, I was collecting Lindbergh covers and he thought I might be a buyer. I wasn't; they had a stench of voyeurism about them. |
|
I.L.S.
Departed
Rest in Peace
I am in Clearfield, Pa. I love US Classic covers!
Posts: 2,113
|
Post by I.L.S. on Mar 19, 2014 11:13:51 GMT
I research names and addresses on covers mainly from the classic period but I will blurr anything under 30 years. That's my rule of thumb. Don't show any recent covers from recent correspondence obviously, and just use the 30 year rule. just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
I.L.S.
Departed
Rest in Peace
I am in Clearfield, Pa. I love US Classic covers!
Posts: 2,113
|
Post by I.L.S. on Mar 22, 2014 0:26:28 GMT
Just for the record, if you were to stick with that 100 year rule then all but the initial phases of World War One would be right out.
|
|
rogo
Member
Inactive
Posts: 167
|
Post by rogo on Mar 23, 2014 19:45:56 GMT
I can't remember ever seeing a suggested time period to obscure addresses.......
I've always used 40 years, but at times if the name or the address was important to the overall history, I will blot only one or the other......
A company that received SASE's, was supposed to be destroying envelopes whole, due to HIPAA laws, didn't have a problem letting me scrounge them if the return addresses were removed. |
|
