Dingle Smith MAP, Hans Karman MAP, lan McMahon : Critique of an Exponet Exhibit

„CZECHOSLOVAKIA DOUBLE POSTCARDS IN POSTAL USE FROM 1918 TO 1939“

Dingle Smith MAP, Hans Karman MAP, lan McMahon
CRITIQUE OF AN EXPONET EXHIBIT



It is pleasure to comment on the exhibit of reply cards by Milan Cerník:
http://www.japhila.cz/hof/0001/index0001a.htm Firstly because he was one of
the Czech philatelists responsible for establishing the online Exponet which
makes available exhibits to a worldwide philatelic audience and he has
volunteered his own display for comment.



Secondly because this is the first time that NAPE has provided critiques of
this kind based on material available electronically – an innovation that
has potential for expansion.

The exhibit discussed can be viewed on http://www.japhila.cz/ We printed
the 128 pages of the exhibit ln black & white, as it is almost impossible to
judge on the screen -you can't get an overview, and it is quite tricky to
jump from one page to another (the webmaster might add a frame and page
number to each page, and a jump mechanism that allows getting to a selected
page rapidly).

The material in the display is restricted to "double cards" for which the
more usual English term is "reply cards". Although many of these are
relatively easy to obtain in mint condition it is very difficult to acquire
the reply halves postally used. Indeed those judging postal stationery
always hasten to check if correctly used reply halves are included. The
display of Czech reply cards contains a very large number of used reply
halves. To add to the rarity factor for most issues these not only
demonstrate commercial use but many of the examples have additional
adhesives that pay for return by registered or express post. Further the
locations to which the cards were sent indicate a very wide range of unusual
destinations; examples include Siberia, Eritrea, Memel and French
Indo-China! In all cases the descriptions that accompany the cards shows a
wide knowledge of the rates and postmarks.

In summary, the material is excellent and the assemblage of such a wide
range of commercially used reply cards is outstanding as is the information
on rates and postmarks. However on closer inspection it becomes clear that
there are problems in evaluating this exhibit using FIP criteria and
procedures.

The major problem is whether the exhibit is to be judged as postal history
or as postal stationery. Whichever class is chosen there are difficulties in
assessing the exhibit. I have chosen to evaluate the eight frames using
Postal Stationery criteria; the accompanying critique focuses on Hans'
assessment as a Postal History exhibit...

Full text: http://www.japhila.cz/pdf/NAPE_critique_cernik.pdf