Stamps/Commercial import and contamination of files49 messages

https://www.lastdodo.nl/catalogus/postzegels / countries-areas / czechoslovakia / 7836889-castles? area = 681b97b0af90d3c397434ff4078b907b6c3199a9

I notice that more and more commercial imports are taking place. But these are unfortunately also approved!

In this example, there are two different FDCs. and is entered as an object.

If a collector or seller only has one envelope, he cannot register or sell it and should make a new entry.

When the object is sold by the importer (seller), it remains in the file, causing contamination. We must not want this.

I ask your attention for this.

M.v.g.

Micho Rooseboom, a collector

Wegistie!

https://www.lastdodo.nl/catalogus/postzegels / countries-areas / czechoslovakia / 4758923 partisan fighters? area = 681b97b0af90d3c397434ff4078b907b6c3199a9

Here's another

Also gone.

https://www.lastdodo.nl/catalogus/postzegels/landen-gebied/ts Czechoslovakia/5289707-onrect-object-zegel-uit-een-blok-knipt?area=681b97b0af90d3c397434ff4078b907b6c3199a9

A stamp cut out from a block! Incorrect entry. Correct block now entered by colleague Cor.

5289707 There's nothing wrong with that, imperforated stamps exist and are therefore allowed in the catalog.

5289707 There's nothing wrong with that, imperforated stamps exist and are therefore allowed in the catalog.

Thank you for your response

5289707 Czechoslovakia. This discussion is not closed yet. My conclusion of answer gives another 'ad aput'
A proposition as a limited answer, fine, but likewise only if it has been designated or recognized as such by the national government of issue.

Attitude here is whether we are starting from legislation, publication or custom.
Related to the importance of 'Catawiki' or similar to the now degenerated collective separation: 'Lastdodo', it may be assumed that in principle clarity for the participants / members / collectors comes first.
Let us assume that the Michel is an accepted and commendable reference work and respected book binding to consultation and value indication. Any denial of this borders on disgrace.

In short, my designation in this is the following:
Lastdodo has the right to create its own rules and conditions and to prescribe participation by members through its own determination to compile its unique stamp catalog.
However, this does not detract from the reflection that 'Lastdodo' is openly using information to be added by members, based on legitimate information from third parties, in this gaval de Michel.
This fact justifies reliance on and attaching importance to information that is correct and in accordance with the intended purpose.

A seal is a seal if it is / is marked as such by the issuing body. A cutout from a block that has been designated as a block by the same authority may tolerate disuse or reuse, but does not imply that it may be considered generally acceptable to be regarded as a separate, unperforated specimen.

Arco and Rene

I would like to know that the position of postmaster is supported by the general position of the administrators? I know your postmaster is not going to lose weight in public either. But that is not necessary either.

Perhaps it would be wise to discuss and / or revise this within the administrators.

I think that all of us (collectors) should monitor and guarantee the quality of the catalog.

FDCs

I have also seen this with the FDCs. There was a large importer who scanned postage stamps when they were supposed to be FDCs. The administrators talked about this import shame. I was happy with this great input from this person and we (collectors) were happy with his great start. But now I am speaking back in ten years. The adjustments have only been addressed in recent years. The FDCs were set to "black". In itself a good development and the quality increases as a result.

Now corrason raises a real problem and concludes that there is nothing wrong with it?

Is this Lastdodo's stance point?

M.v.g. Micho Rooseboom, a collector

Now corrason raises a real problem and concludes that there is nothing wrong with it?

There is still nothing done with Corrason!

Exactly, and to summarize or paraphrase his story: for blocks and sheets with perforated stamps you may also enter the loose stamps; what about a block with no perforation whatsoever? Can you cut out a piece there, claim it to be a seal, and just enter it? Or should it first be checked whether this was / is the custom in the country in question? Things like that ...

I also believe that you should not just cut out a stamp from a block and use it as a postage stamp. Unless accepted in the country concerned.

Certainly, imperforated stamps from blocks or sheets can generally be used for postage. Of course it must have a value, so the cut out stamp must be a stamp.

Is that valid in every country?

Ik weet niet van elk land hoe het precies zit, maar ook niet elk land geeft nog ongetande zegels uit. In de begintijd waren alle postzegels ongetand. Misschien zijn er ook regels via de UPU vastgelegd hierover. In ieder geval moet een postzegel een landsnaam dragen en een waarde vertegenwoordigen, getand of ongetand. En ook hier zijn weer uitzonderingen op (bijv. zegels van Groot-Brittannië).

Omdat het in het algemeen wel is toegestaan om zegels uit blokken te scheuren/knippen en te gebruiken lijkt het mij het beste om toe te staan in de catalogus behalve als aangetoond kan worden of algemeen bekend is dat het niet is toegestaan.

I don't know exactly how it works for every country, but not every country still issues imperforated stamps. In the early days, all stamps were imperforate. Perhaps rules have also been laid down via the UPU about this. In any case, a stamp must bear a country name and represent a value, serrated or imperforated. And here too there are exceptions (eg stamps of Great Britain).

Since it is generally allowed to tear/cut stamps from blocks and use them, I think it would be best to allow them in the catalog unless it can be proven or is generally known that it is not allowed.

@micho

The views of a super administrator are almost always supported; that's why such a person is a super administrator. No misunderstandings about this. The only exception to this might be if a super admin wants to make decisions about things that we see differently LastDodo-wide. We have the big handbook for that that applies to all sections. But that is seldom about this kind of section specific details.

Dear fellow Lastdodo members. I make another attempt to insist that we should not create cut, imperforated stamps from blocks. This is not about being right, but about the purity of the Catalog.

I fully maintain my previous text (s). The matter itself has often been fiercely discussed elsewhere. In associations, at exhibitions and the philatelic specialist trade had its say. Many questions or problems are based on the Michel. This is also the case with Lastdodo with its own Stamps Handbook. Certain way of describing, naming and coding is, in particular,
taken from the Michel. Then why not with the phenomenon "toothless from block".

I offer a few examples, we are talking about Czechoslovakia:
1. The blocks 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 etc. See the way in which the Michel values the blocks as a block each separately and as a whole when there are several images in the block.
In block 2, no separate value is included for a cut copy. Then this block would have yielded no less than 25 stamps. By the way, Michel codes with the imperforated character.
Block 6. It is known that separate individual copies of this block have been used for postage. Many a collector has them on envelopes from 1945. However, the Michel does not venture to indicate a value with the numbers A 408 # A410. The Michel does, however, with the stamps 411 # 414. An unlimited edition of which a block has never been issued. Per stamp a value is given MNH and used.

The connoisseur will now quickly understand what we are talking about in the statement that blocks should remain as blocks when the publisher intended them to be. This is completely independent of whether or not it is tolerated for use for postage.
2. Anyone who has block 7 in the collection will not think of cutting out the individual images and then enriching the collection with separate imperforated stamps. Grabbing the Michel to see who that the block is considered to be imperforated and not the separately mentioned numbersA455 # A459. Again no value statement per cut copy. Also, designers and publishers never intended for us to break up blocks.
3. The system of naming, describing, coding and valuing is no different throughout Michel for Czechoslovak stamps. Why then, if necessary, do we as collectors have to come up with something ourselves that was never intended? 4. Back to the block of commotion. 1954, December 18th. Block 15 in the Michel. The designer and publisher are releasing a series of two stamps and a block in honor of the 70th birthday of the President Antonín Zápotocký. The seals are serrated, Michel 887 # 888.
The 887 of 30 H in sepia and the 888 of 60 H in black-blue. Block 15, which is executed in brown-carmine, is given more cachet. Frame filling with the Czech coat of arms and the personal handwriting of the president himself adorn the block. De Michel calls it "Block edition", with no-tooth coding (the well-known square). Here too, Michel does not venture to suggest a value in the 889 she attributes to it. Why not?
Because it can never be the intention to cut such a block into an imperforated seal. The blocks appear stamped because they were used "as a block in full" for postage. If it had been the intention to issue an imperforated stamp in this color and layout, the Czech government would have commissioned the designer to do so.
I am giving my explanation here. The tenor of the story can be declared applicable across all blocks of Czechoslovakia. I do not consider the rejection based on the argument that blocks with serrated seals may be taken out to be unrepeatable. Nor does the same claim regarding sheets.
I would be careful with the latter because there are cases where the perforation of individual stamps does not correspond to that in the block or in the sheet. If the issuing government allows postage, the thesis still remains that we as collectors should not want or think of something that was the original intention when the object was issued. Neither from the designer nor from the local authority.

I agree with Lastdodo's verdict. Catalog Stamps.
My collection (s) will not suffer. However, it does make a big dent in the perfectionism that I adhere to in order to obtain the catalog optimally with my input and improvements.

Post from 10 years ago on (Catawikki) now Dodo seems that this discussion has been going on for longer -;)

But you'll agree that none of the well-known catalog publishers has managed to come up with a good online catalog. Michel has a very primitive one that you can do nothing with: by no means always up-to-date, partly black-and-white images, paid, standard subscription no more than thumbnails as an image, search not possible. The SG is hardly better. In terms of functionality, Catawiki already beats the big names. And I am convinced that TOGETHER we can also develop the content of the catalog. With an unsurpassed theme register, prices that will soon be linked to the market, each stamp a separate item PLUS series items, a linked malfunction and shop system, links to background information, etc.

And not to forget: Also completely in Dutch, and as such even the first time that many catalogs can be consulted in Dutch. I don't see Michel, Yvert or Stanley Gibbons doing.

But then you should certainly not forget that in order to set up and maintain an online catalog, a revenue model must be added, because that costs a lot of workforce. Development costs alone can be overcome because this costs a lot 'once' and then requires little maintenance (apart from new developments), and is partly paid for by the paper catalog. Otherwise you also have to have a wiki model and then you have to check all input, also costs a lot of money. And none of that is present in the catalogs mentioned ...

I realize I am exaggerating, but I hope it is clear

Arco

The views of a super administrator are almost always supported; that's why such a person is a super administrator. No misunderstandings about this. The only exception to this might be if a super admin wants to make decisions about things that we see differently LastDodo-wide. We have the big handbook for that that applies to all sections. But that is rarely about this kind of section-specific details.

I didn't expect anything else that you would defend the administrators and super administrator through thick and thin. That is your job too. I have a lot of respect for Daan. He is one of the few administrators to answer when a question is asked. There are also administrators who have the arrogance not to respond. That does not promote volunteers and collectors.

But this is indeed about section specific details.

I would rather have administrators (stamps) respond and give their opinion.

Corrason has provided many additions and responded in detail.

Now a reasoned position would be in order.

Arco and administrators (stamps) are now up :)

M.v.g.

Micho, a collector

We stray slightly from the point of discussion. The battle has been going on for as long as there have been collectors who thought they were clever enough to cut blocks into pieces. An enrichment of the own collection. I also sinned in it as a youth.
Until the moment there was the collecting addiction and I was gripped by the fever, call it perfectionism.

My Borek catalog Czechoslovakia, purchased at the Dappermarkt in Amsterdam, became a revelation. Strange idea that there were market stalls where stamps could be purchased. We are talking about the 1950s.

I was immediately impressed with this collection area by all the hand drawn
seals and blocks. That this was the profession of a professional graphic artist only became clear to me ten years later. Alphonse Mucha (1860-1939) was more than just a master of Art Nouveau.
Am I not straying a bit myself? Yes, but consciously!
Mucha was born in Ivancice. During the German occupation in 1940, this village was called 'Eibenschütz' in German because of the bilingualism and in the field of postal services both names were used on notes strips and stamps. mention. Partly because of his nationalistic attitude, he would certainly have urged the government (if he would still have been alive in 1946). to ban German. Alphonse Mucha lived for his job. Damaging his designs would certainly have gone astray, perfectionist as he was.

I can tell you more that support the theory that we should not harm philatelic material for personal enjoyment or gain.
Not only respect for the countries and governments that publish it, also the artists who made the designs do not deserve this.

Finally, my next argument.
For the sake of evidence that it could never have been the intention to divide blocks into parts for declarable stamps and surplus disposable material. I've said enough about violation of ....

Let's take the Michel 87 block from 1988.
It is a wonderful example of the battle that can flare up between supporters and opponents of block dismantling. This block was purposely
in my opinion designed with the content of the two serrated stamps (Michel 2970 - a self-portrait of Alphonse Mucha) on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the issue of Czechoslovak stamps and linked to the international stamp exhibition PRAGA '88.

Apart from this block, there is no loose serrated stamp issue.
The Michel attaches a value to the stamps to be removed and codes it with
number 2970. 'Aha,' I hear collectors shout, 'so taking it out is allowed'?
Perhaps. But that does not apply to the stamp in red printed along with it (see Michel no. 3 from 1918)
Precisely the latter was prevented by the government, by having the image provided with a so-called franking value indication 10.00 (something that was never published in that stamp in 1918). Moreover, the designers understood this nominal value even more.
Leaving aside the question of whether a stamp from 1918 would still bear postage validity in 1988 and later, I argue: -that the use of serrated stamps from blocks may be used for postage. Not the toothless.
But who am I?

(Block 87 was designed by graphic artists: R. Klimovi and V. Fajt and published on August 18, 1988)

Incorrect entry

Two envelopes; Should not have been approved.

https://www.lastdodo.nl/catalogus/postzegels/landen-gebied/zwitserland/1418167-folklore?area=055b6ce949aad4b78668534ab8004738eb2e1fc4

Can this block be entered?

https://www.lastdodo.nl/catalogus/postzegels/landen-gebied/zwitserland/5111806-bron-van-gezondheid?area=055b6ce949aad4b78668534ab8004738eb2e1fc4

Incorrect entry

Two envelopes; Should not have been approved.

https://www.lastdodo.nl/catalogus/postzegels/landen-gebied/zwitserland/1418167-folklore?area=055b6ce949aad4b78668534ab8004738eb2e1fc4

Always look beyond your nose. See history. At first this was something completely different ...

LastDodo 7140473 1938

President Masaryk with overprint: "Wir sind frei"
The input of this item is an embarrassment.
The change on October 2, 2018 not only aggravates the information, it also pushes misleading and annoying photo material as a replacement.
This item really needs to be adjusted, then
definitely disappear from the Lastdodo catalog.

At the time of importation on March 4, 2018, an attempt was made without a trace to import a stamp that, immediately after the liberation of Czechoslovakia in 1945, was privately owned and often by the foci of resistance
created. There are many examples of this (and of course also forgeries).

If the Lastdodo catalog may be adorned with these types of items, the information must in any case be presented as specifically as possible. The value indication should be realistic
so as not to mislead collectors.

The item Lastdodo 7140473 mentions the release on January 2, 1930
President Masaryk, intaglio, serrated L 9¾. Michel 295 type II (as original).

The replacement of the image with Jenzy should never have been approved.
Apart from the very poor rendering (stamp on the table top), the stamp shown is not an overprint stamp.
It is the Michel 295, although type II, but with a normal postmark.
Value indication MNH € 0.30 canceled € 0.10
When the original stamp imports are reverted, for such overprinted stamps:
“Wir sind frei” in the series Michel: 295 # 297A per stamp can be set at a maximum of € 10.00 each MNH.

To the super administrator now the urgent request this "mispublication" from the
To remove the Lastdodo catalog, or have it corrected in such a way that no
deception / falsification of history occurs more frequently.
The current value indication € 2,500.- is an embarrassment and a mockery.
The stamp for sale at: Traceless has received some of this.