Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
REMEMBER THE RULES:
1. No Offices Abroad, Local Stamps, or Occupation stamps. Those go in last section.
2. All dates are stamp issuing dates (although Smithsonian was quite inconsistent, I tried to clean that up).
3. This is MY example of an expansion, for your consideration and comment. You may decide to go a totally different route. That's OK, and please tell us why.
First off all, I didn't like the way Smithsonian carved up Europe. When it came to Cyprus, that could go either way so I stuck with the Smithsonian decision to put it in Asia. No problem, but putting Greece and Portugal both in "Southern Europe" and aligning the UK with Finland instead of France made no sense, so I carved up Europe like this, with the Balkans combined and the Baltics with the Nordic Countries:
Starting with EASTERN EUROPE, I separated all Soviet States from the prior and subsequent countries. I also fixed the precedent countries for Russia v. Romania.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Hi Lars,
It's nice to see your updated pages and your selection of stamps.
I particularly like seeing your Hungary stamp from 1990. It's always been one of my favourites. 
Here are a few thoughts based on your rules:
Cyprus:
It seems bizarre from a European perspective to put this in Asia.
I would put it in Europe along with Northern Cyprus (unless you consider Northern Cyprus to be an occupation).
Czech Republic:
Shouldn't Bohemia & Moravia be treated as an occupation and moved to that section (similar to the General Government)?
Hungary:
I would split the Kingdom into either two or three, either Kingdom/Independent or Kingdom/Republics/Regency or Kingdom/Republics/Kingdom to reflect the 1918-1920 republican governments and issues.
Poland:
I would include Danzig here as a predecessor.
If I were doing this myself I would some add other short-lived states here and in other sections but I'm aware that you don't want to do this.
Login to Like
this post
@nigelc - Historically and culturally speaking, yes but... geographically (by geographical placement), no; Cyprus is definitely Middle East (Asia).
Login to Like
this post
"Cyprus:
It seems bizarre from a European perspective to put this in Asia.
I would put it in Europe along with Northern Cyprus (unless you consider Northern Cyprus to be an occupation)."
I agree with Niguel. Cyprus is in my mind in Europe, Turkey occupation of a third of the Island or not. It has always (until Turkey's occupation) been close to Greece, and was a European possession of England for a long time. While some place Turkey in Europe (due to a small territory on the other side of the Bosphorus) it is undoubtedly in Asia. Similarly Cyprus, while close to Asia, has always been culturally European not Asian or Middle Eastern, and refered to as a European country. (It almost merged with Greece if you recall). It almost joined the EC too, before the invasion by Turkey. Geographically it is separated from Asia (and Africa...read Egypt) by water. It seems that the Asian continent is defined by the land mass on the West, and not the independent islands off it.
"Is Cyprus in Europe or Asia? - WorldAtlas.com
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-cyprus-in-europe-or-asia.html
Cyprus is a Mediterranean island located south of Turkey, southeast of Greece, north of Egypt, northwest of Israel and Lebanon, and west of Syria. ... Cyprus is sometimes placed in Europe, Asia or even the Middle East. Geographically, Cyprus is closer to Asia but is historically and culturally a European country."
So I would definitely move it to Europe.
rrr..
Login to Like
this post
Very nice! Logical and easy to understand.
What does the Germany section look like?
Login to Like
this post
I agree that Cyprus probably belongs in Europe, but Smithsonian put it in Asia and I just stayed with their definition. I tried not to deviate unless I felt really strongly. Others may take a different view and that is quite understandable, especially in this case. Northern Cyprus is in Asia, just like Smithsonian.
"What does the Germany section look like?"
Patience, Tom!
Nigel, let me take some time looking over your remarks about Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. I will try to have a reply next time.
Here is the next batch of pages.
I chose to group the Baltic together and show both a pre- and post-Soviet stamp:
I also grouped the Nordic countries. Of note, I added the Duchy to Finland. This is where Greenland would go using a cultural/political model as Ralph has suggested:
Next up is the Balkan Peninsula, so I want to give everyone a chance to chime in, and get a chance to respond more thoughtfully to Nigel, before taking that up.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Hi Lars,
Here are a few more thoughts on Europe:
Lithuania:
I would add at least one more predecessor, Memel and possibly also the Lithuanian Administration of Memel, which in my mind is more of an annexation than the typical temporary occupations we see elsewhere.
Denmark:
As discussed before, I would include the 1920 Schleswig here but I agree it could be under Germany.
Finland:
I would add the regional issues for the autonomous Åland Islands, with stamps first issued in 1984.
Iceland:
Following the approach taken so far, you may wish to split Iceland into three:
- Iceland as part of the Kingdom of Denmark
- Iceland as an independent kingdom from 1918.
- Iceland as an independent republic from 1944.
Norway
Again you may also wish to split this into two periods:
- Norway as part of Norway-Sweden until 1905.
- Norway as a separate kingdom with stamps issued from 1906.
Sweden:
And similarly here:
- Sweden as part of Norway-Sweden until 1905.
- Sweden as a separate kingdom
Login to Like
this post
Here are my replies to Nigel:
"I particularly like seeing your Hungary stamp from 1990. It's always been one of my favourites."
Mine, too!
"Shouldn't Bohemia & Moravia be treated as an occupation" - Yes, I think you are right, and I've added a note to that page.
"I would split the Kingdom into either two or three, either Kingdom/Independent or Kingdom/Republics/Regency or Kingdom/Republics/Kingdom to reflect the 1918-1920 republican governments and issues." - That was my initial plan, I even highlighted the sectional differences in my Scott catalogue, but ultimately I decided that those were brief convulsions at the end of WWI that belong in the "Back of Book". Others may agree with you, but that would lead to dozens of governments in Central America with little to differentiate them. I choose not to go that route.
"Poland:
I would include Danzig here as a predecessor."
EXACTLY!!! You will see Danzig later, as a predecessor to Germany, but this raises an issue near and dear to my heart: Predecessor of what? Let me explain.
Many times Smithsonian used the predecessor country as defined by the era and I used it defined by current geography. Danzig became a part of Germany, but is now a part of Poland. Which is the precedent country? You will see me struggling with that some more, but I agree with your position that Danzig should be moved to Poland.
Lithuania - Memel is on page 128 of BOB and I believe it belongs there.
Denmark - 1920 Schleswig - that's not really a government, but a post WWI entity that could go into BOB.
Finland - Aland - a local stamp on page 121 of BOB
Iceland - I see your point after 1918, and I agree, but would you say Iceland was a Duchy of Denmark before 1918, or just a territory?
Norway & Sweden - I'm going to have to read up on that! Please allow me a bit of time to review those comments.
And thanks for ALL of your comments!!!
Login to Like
this post
Here I changed the page layout to put all three modern Bosnia stamps on equal footing.
Sorry. I'm a big tennis fan so I had to get the Djokivic stamp!
Eastern Rumelia is an interesting case. Smithsonian placed it under Turkey from 1880-1884 and Bulgaria in 1885, but those were just the countries providing stamps. I consider it a part of Bulgaria and only one stamp is required. This is a rare instance where I actually deleted a Smithsonian stamp.
Thrace is another area of contention between Turkey, Bulgaria, and Greece. Thrace got carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey (no pun intended), and I just arbitrarily placed it in Greece.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I have finally had a chance to research Norway-Sweden:
"The two states kept separate constitutions, laws, legislatures, administrations, state churches, armed forces, and currencies"
Were there ANY stamps issued by EITHER that even mentioned the union? Absent that, I don't see the need right now to differentiate. But I am generally persuadable!
Login to Like
this post
Western Europe - Part 1 of 2
I didn't like that there wasn't a space for "West Germany" and "Re-unified Germany". Hopefully this solution doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities. After all, there is a separate stamp for unified Vietnam.
I move the League of Nations Saar Admin here to keep all 3 together. I know it violates the rules, but it seemed "cleaner" this way.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
Norway-Sweden:
"The two states kept separate constitutions, laws, legislatures, administrations, state churches, armed forces, and currencies""
Internationally they acted as a single unit, with one diplomatic service based out of Stockholm.
I don't see a need either to divide them but I thought i'd raise the issue for your consideration.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
Some more thoughts on the Nordic Countries.
"Finland - Aland - a local stamp on page 121 of BOB"
I don't see these as local stamps but I accept it's a matter of opinion.
I really don't see the point of the BOB section other than possibly for UN agencies but that's fine.
I plan to come back to this point when I get to comments on Albania.
"Iceland - I see your point after 1918, and I agree, but would you say Iceland was a Duchy of Denmark before 1918, or just a territory?"
Just a territory.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
"Many times Smithsonian used the predecessor country as defined by the era and I used it defined by current geography. Danzig became a part of Germany, but is now a part of Poland.
Which is the precedent country? You will see me struggling with that some more, but I agree with your position that Danzig should be moved to Poland."
I agree with you that we are identifying predecessors to the current geographical stamp-issuing territories.
So we agree on Danzig is a predecessor of Poland (rather than of Germany in this sense).
I would also make the Polish Post in Danzig a predecessor of Poland but under the current rules it would be in the BOB.
I think the only problem I have is when a territory no longer issues stamps but it's the predecessor of a territory in a different geography.
Guam brought this to my attention. Guam is a predecessor of the United States but I think it makes more sense to keep it as you have done as a main entry in its own geography.
Login to Like
this post
Hi lars,
It's beginning to get a little complicated as we get into the Balkans...
Albania:
I really like this Albania page. It shows the history very nicely but it brings up the occupation question again.
It would seem a shame to move both the Italian and German occupations to the BOB.
I'll try and not repeat myself too much but I'd rather keep occupations as part of the history of the country being occupied.
Bosnia and Herzegovina:
The three stamp-issuing companies are a bit of a problem as they don't map cleanly to the governmental units.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is split into two main units: Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Both the Sarajevo and Mostar-based companies operate with the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina, with BH Poshta and Hrvatska Poshta Mostar operating in mainly Bosniak and Croat communities respectively.
However, there isn't a Muslim government nor a Croat government.
I believe Srpske Poshte operates in Republika Srpska so that one is more straightforward.
Here I've spelt the company names with "sh" where it should be "s" with a hachek/caron accent.
Bulgaria:
I would have kept South Bulgaria and included it here or in the BOB but your call of course.
Greece::
You may wish to conder splitting Greece into:
- Kingdom
- First Republic 1924-35
- Kingdom 1935-1973
- Second Republic
I have to admit that Greece is probably an area where having the occupations and post offices in the BOB keeps the layout much more straightforward.
I wouldn't add all the Balkan War territories but I'd be tempted to include Samos.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
Some more quick thoughts on Greece:
I've had a quick look at the Local section in the BOB and I would suggest removing Rhodes (and also Chalki) from there and adding Dodecanese Islands as a predecessor for Greece rather than as Italian locals.
Another possibility would be to move it to Occupations within the BOB.
Rhodes is the main island in the group and some stamps are labelled "Rodi", others as Italian Islands in the Aegean, or the names of other individual islands.
Castelorizo should probably stay with the Dodocanese Islands/Rhodes given its similar status and history.
Serbia:
You may wish to split Serbia (Kingdom) into two, Principality and Kingdom, similar to Romania.
Technically, there was a separate State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (comprising former Austro-Hungarian territory) which existed for around a month before joining with the Kingdom of Serbia to create the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
I guess we can ignore this but it may be worth splitting Yugoslavia into two to reflect the period when it was officially called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before this was changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Login to Like
this post
Nigel,
Once again, on behalf of myself and everyone else following this thread, thanks for all the thoughtful inputs. I'm sure you will understand that I will need some time to research the details, but I want to address something now that may be a misunderstanding. To be clear, I STARTED with the Smithsonian pages. I cannot think of a single instance where I demoted a stamp to the BOB section. I can think of at least one case where I promoted a stamp from BOB to the main collection. I am VERY hesitant to do anything more than EMBELLISH the Smithsonian pages with additional stamps that I think paint a more complete picture, but I don't want to get carried away.
The pages you see are mostly my pages because I've added about 16% to the Smithsonian stamp count. Only about 10% of my pages are original Smithsonian pages. I have absolutely ZERO plans to move ANYTHING you see to BOB. If you see it now, that's because I think it belongs there even if it wasn't on the original Smithsonian page. For example, when I talk about Eastern Rumelia/South Bulgaria, I'm not talking about putting that stamp into BOB, all I'm saying is that Smithsonian put ONE ER/SB stamp as a precedent stamp to Bulgaria and a different one as a precedent country to Turkey. That just made no sense to me. So I removed the one from Turkey. I try to point things out where I depart from Smithsonian in any way other than embellishment.
In some cases you may say "that's your call" when I'm saying that was Smithsonian's call and I'm hesitant to make the change. You have no idea how tempted I am to move Maximilian Mexico to North America! And I may make that move yet, but I am MUCH more likely to do that than move CSA to BOB, even though CSA belongs in BOB more than Maximilian Mexico does, IMHO. (But I'm a direct male descendant of a Union soldier, so I might be a bit biased).
The reason I want to stress this point is that there are other folks viewing this that are using Smithsonian as a starting point so I want them to be able to follow along as well.
Thanks again for all of your thoughtful inputs! When I started this many years ago, keijo (scb) helped me so much and emboldened me to attempt an expansion. What you see now are my feeble efforts to leverage his expertise to tackle an expansion of the Smithsonian project.
Cheers!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
"Albania:
I really like this Albania page. It shows the history very nicely but it brings up the occupation question again.
It would seem a shame to move both the Italian and German occupations to the BOB.
I'll try and not repeat myself too much but I'd rather keep occupations as part of the history of the country being occupied."
I don't plan to move ANYTHING to BOB. If you see it in the main section, that's where it stays. There are SOME occupations so profound they HAVE to be in the main section.
"Bosnia and Herzegovina:
The three stamp-issuing companies are a bit of a problem as they don't map cleanly to the governmental units."
Far enough. If they mapped cleanly to three governmental units I would be tempted to have 3 separate entities. But given the reality on the ground, is there anything fundamentally wrong with my presentation?
"Bulgaria:
I would have kept South Bulgaria and included it here or in the BOB but your call of course.
Greece::
You may wish to conder splitting Greece into:
- Kingdom
- First Republic 1924-35
- Kingdom 1935-1973
- Second Republic
I have to admit that Greece is probably an area where having the occupations and post offices in the BOB keeps the layout much more straightforward.
I wouldn't add all the Balkan War territories but I'd be tempted to include Samos."
I think we've already covered Eastern Rumelia / South Bulgaria.
I agree with splitting Greece as you suggest (that's another one I missed).
I like your suggestion to add Samos to the occupation page!
"Some more quick thoughts on Greece:
I've had a quick look at the Local section in the BOB and I would suggest removing Rhodes (and also Chalki) from there and adding Dodecanese Islands as a predecessor for Greece rather than as Italian locals.
Another possibility would be to move it to Occupations within the BOB.
Rhodes is the main island in the group and some stamps are labelled "Rodi", others as Italian Islands in the Aegean, or the names of other individual islands.
Castelorizo should probably stay with the Dodocanese Islands/Rhodes given its similar status and history.
Serbia:
You may wish to split Serbia (Kingdom) into two, Principality and Kingdom, similar to Romania.
Technically, there was a separate State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (comprising former Austro-Hungarian territory) which existed for around a month before joining with the Kingdom of Serbia to create the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
I guess we can ignore this but it may be worth splitting Yugoslavia into two to reflect the period when it was officially called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before this was changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia."
I wanted to repeat all that so everyone can see the issues involved and decide for themselves what they want to focus on.
I'm satisfied with Greek island stamps I have, as is, and I don't intend to split Yugoslavia again, but there was one issue that struck a chord.
For me, it was Serbia. I ABSOLUTELY agree that Serbia should be split between Principality and Kingdom.
But someone else may have been inspired by something else Nigel or another poster wrote. That's why I'm so thankful Nigel is giving so freely of his time and expertise! Feel free to speak up if you have a different opinion or a different question. This isn't about how to build the Smithsonian album (that's a different thread), and this isn't about MY version of an expanded album per se, but using what I have developed over the past 5 years as a starting point for anyone interested in going above and beyond the Smithsonian challenge.
The Smithsonian pages have about 785 stamps. My version is around 915 stamps. Nigel can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the current list of governmental stamp issuing entities that Nigel and Keijo work off of contains over 2000 entries. That's why the input of someone like Nigel is so important to this task.
I had Keijo to guide me when I first started about five years ago, and now we have Nigel. I would NOT recommend this trip without a guide!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lar,
Thanks for your very kind words!
I'm pleased you are taking my comments in the way I intended, simply as suggestions.
I'm learning a lot from this process.
You asked me about Bosnia and Herzegovina:
""Bosnia and Herzegovina: The three stamp-issuing companies are a bit of a problem as they don't map cleanly to the governmental units."
Far enough. If they mapped cleanly to three governmental units I would be tempted to have 3 separate entities. But given the reality on the ground, is there anything fundamentally wrong with my presentation?""
No, I think the entities are fine, it's just their names.
Basically, I'm uncomfortable with the names "Moslem Government" and "Croat Government".
How about something simple like "Bosniak Post" and "Croat Post"?
We'll have a rather different issue with a country with multiple postal operators in Kyrgyzstan which has two.
Login to Like
this post
"Basically, I'm uncomfortable with the names "Moslem Government" and "Croat Government".
How about something simple like "Bosniak Post" and "Croat Post"?"
Croat Government isn't used. It's Muslim Government, Serb Admin, and Croat Admin.
My understanding is that Bosniak = Muslim, Croat = Catholic, and Serb = Orthodox
BH Pošta = Bosniak = Muslim = central postal authority with a capital in Sarajevo
Srpske Pošta = Bosnian Serbs (Orthodox) - centered around Banja Luka
Hrvatska Pošta Mostar = Bosnian Croats (Catholics) - centered around Mostar
There is a bizarre power sharing dynamic created by the Dayton Accords that created this mess.
The primary central government authority for postal services would likely be in Sarajevo, and it would be Bosniak (Muslim), so the existing designations seem OK except for one thing:
Why is it:
Muslim
Serb
Croat
Instead of:
Muslim
Orthodox
Catholic
Or:
Bosniak
Serb
Croat?
Just a thought.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
Yes, you are correct, I should have written, "Moslem Government" and "Croat Administration".
I prefer to use the word "Bosniak" here instead of "Moslem" for exactly the reason you give but I accept that that it's clear what's meant either way.
Perhaps the facts on the ground will change again soon as there has been pressure for some time for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be split formally into two units to replace the current patchwork of cantons, giving a new Croat-majority unit.
On a more trivial point, I wonder which company provides the postal services in the Brcko District which appears to be a condominium of the Federation and Republika Srpska.
Login to Like
this post
"On a more trivial point, I wonder which company provides the postal services in the Brcko District"
I don't know. If you pull up Brcko on Google maps you can find post offices for all three there!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Here is the rest of Europe:
Jersey, Guernsey, and Isle of Man are interesting, and someone asked earlier why they are here, and Aland is not. Now that we are here, it's interesting to speculate. I think a strong case can be made that Aland is very similar to the baliwicks, but they do seem more like overseas territories than, say, the Grenadines. I might be re-thinking Aland because I'm less hesitant to promote something from BOB than demote something to BOB.
I used replicas for the Swiss canton stamps and so noted.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
I have a few comments mostly about the British Islands and Italy.
Guernsey:
You may wish to include a stamp from the British postal administration before 1969 as a predecessor.
Another possibile predecessor would be the Channel Islands general issue of 1948.
Some collectors may wish to include the dependency of Alderney.
Jersey:
You wish to include a stamp from the British postal administration before 1969 as a predecessor.
Isle of Man:
You wish to include a stamp from the British postal administration before 1973 as a predecessor.
Italy:
I would suggest adding the Neapolitan Provinces as a predecessor, i.e. Naples and Sicily after they were acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia (Savoy).
Another possible new predecessor would be Campione although it was local in nature, mostly for mail to Switzerland. It's 1944 stamps were in use until 1952.
As discussed before, I would recommend that the Aegean Islands a.k.a the Dodecanese Islands / Rhodes are more appropriate as a predecessor of Greece or in the Occupations section.
I would also suggest that Fiume may make a better predecessor of Croatia.
Vatican City:
The Roman States a.k.a Papal States pose a problem as a predecessor. There's clearly a link to the Vatican City but almost all this territory is now part of Italy.
Another candidate for a main entry would be the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, based in Rome.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
I've seen some news on Macedonia.
After the long negotiation and ratification process to change the country's name, I see on another board that the first stamps have now been issued with its new name, the Republic of North Macedonia.
This would suggest a change of heading and the existing stamp becoming a predecessor.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks for all the inputs!
FIRST, I want to summarize previous issues:
1. Cyprus - there is a good reason to move Cyprus to Europe. In fact, I have a note at the bottom of the map of Europe - the very first image posted on this thread - talking about Cyprus. I was tempted to demote Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to the Occupations section of BOB and put Cyprus in Europe where it belongs (politically, at least), but I am very hesitant to demote anything from the Smithsonian pages, especially a major entry, so I left TRNC in Asia and left Cyprus there as well so Cyprus and TRNC would be in the same continent.
2. Greenland: CORRECTION: As hesitant as I am to stray from the original Smithsonian pages, I just can't leave Greenland in North America. I will be moving it to Europe with the Nordic Countries.
3. Czech Republic: Added a note to Bohemia and Moravia that this was an occupation. Will consider demoting to Occupation section of BOB. A likely move.
4. Hungary - CORRECTION: Initially I was hesitant to expand Hungary further, but upon reflection I am leaning toward expansion. I have the necessary stamps on my current wish list, so when I get them I can look at possible page layouts for:
a) Monarchy: Scott #1-132 - stamps dates 1871-1918
b) First Republic: Scott #153-197 - 1918-1920
c) Soviet Republic: Scott #198-222 - 1919
d) Kingdom: Scott #306-630 - 1919-1944
e) Second Republic: Scott #631-855 - 1945-1948
f) People's Republic: Scott #856-3204 - 1949-1989
g) Current: Scott #3205+ - 1990+
5. Danzig will be moved from Germany to Poland as a predecessor.
6. Åland - CORRECTION: Upon further reflection, Åland is similar to the baliwick of Jersey, and therefore will be promoted to the main section with Finland.
7. Greece will be split:
a) Kingdom: #1-315 - 1861-1923
b) First Republic: #316-382 - 1924-1935
c) Kingdom: #383-1092 - 1935-1973
d) Second Republic: 1097+ 1973+
8. Greece - add Samos to BOB as example of Balkan War territories
9. Serbia - will be split:
a) Principality: 1-26
b) Kingdom: 27+
SECOND, I want to address previously outstanding issues:
1. Iceland - I plan to split Iceland as suggested:
a) Danish Dependency: Scott #1-107 - stamp dates 1873-1918
b) Kingdom: Scott #108-239 - 1920-1941
c) Republic: Scott #240+ - 1944+
2. Norway-Sweden - even though it was only a personal union instead of a formal one, I considered getting a King Oscar II stamp from each, such as Norway Scott #32 (SG # 37 from a 1960 catalog) with a used CV of $12.50 (2016 Scott price) plus Sweden Scott #39 (SG #23) with a used CV of $1.00. I ultimately decided on adding a text box below the two countries explaining the personal union until 1905.
3. Aegean Islands - I don't see any reason any of these stamps belong in the main section, so I plan to demote the Italian Aegean Islands to Local Stamps and review what I have for Greek occupation stamps with an eye toward the comments from Nigel. I will also likely demote Castelorizo as suggested.
4. Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man - any stamps from the British postal admin prior to 1969 (or 1973 in one case) would be considered local stamps. The only reason the baliwick stamps are not currently considered local is because UK stamps are no longer valid for postage there. That is what caused me to promote Åland.
5. Channel Islands issue of 1948 was just a normal issue. It was sold at major philatelic windows and good for postage throughout the UK. It would be like a US stamp honoring Texas that was available via the USPS web site, philatelic services, and Texas post offices - valid for postage anywhere in the US. The Galapagos Islands stamp in "Local Stamps" is another example.
6. Alderney is a shameless local issue and popular with topical collectors! I have a few in my topical collection!
7. Campione - I won't be including, but interesting to bring up
8. Fiume - definitely belongs under Croatia! I will be moving that one.
9. Vatican City:
"The Roman States a.k.a Papal States pose a problem as a predecessor. There's clearly a link to the Vatican City but almost all this territory is now part of Italy."
True, but the Papal States were shrinking such that by 1861 only Lazio, including Rome, remained. Those were lost in 1870. This seems like a logical "exception" that Smithsonian employed and I will likely maintain that, but it would also make sense to move that stamp under Italy as an Italian State. I would title it Roman States in that case.
10. Sovereign Military Order of Malta - the UN classifies it as a non-state entity like the Red Cross.
11. Macedonia - You are correct that the name needs to now be changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia. The name change, however, is not indicative of a governmental change but the resolution of a naming dispute with Greece. I don't know if that would cause stamps issued prior to 2019 to be from a "precedent country".
FINALLY, I'm not so sure about:
"I would suggest adding the Neapolitan Provinces as a predecessor, i.e. Naples and Sicily after they were acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia (Savoy)."
How does that differ from the Two Sicilies stamps in Italy? If you are talking about the Provinces issues under the Two Sicilies, wouldn't those be local?
=====================================================================================
I think that covers everything. If I missed anything important or if anyone else has any comments, jump in!
Login to Like
this post
Nigel,
Here is the summary that affects you:
1. I finally decided to go with rrraphy and move Greenland to Europe.
2. After reflection, I agree with your additional split of Hungary.
3. I also agree that Åland belongs in the main listings (based on the Baliwicks)
4. I agree with your Iceland split
5. A few other things listed may be of interest
But there is one outstanding question:
"I would suggest adding the Neapolitan Provinces as a predecessor, i.e. Naples and Sicily after they were acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia (Savoy)"
How does that differ from the Two Sicilies stamps in Italy? If you are talking about the Provinces issues under the Two Sicilies, wouldn't those be local?
Unless you see any glaring errors, that is the only outstanding issue for Europe. I just posted a preliminary summary for Africa and I'm working on Asia now. Sorry it takes so long, but you ask questions that often lead to hours of chasing many fascinating threads of history. I'm not complaining. Far from it. Thanks for you help and patience!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Hi Lars,
I have a couple of follow-up comments about the Neapolitan Provinces:
"How does that differ from the Two Sicilies stamps in Italy? If you are talking about the Provinces issues under the Two Sicilies, wouldn't those be local?"
The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies issued stamps in 1858 for Naples (basically the southern half of the Italian mainland) and 1859 for Sicily.
There was never a unified issue for the whole kingdom.
Soon afterwards the kingdom was acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia and so, yes, I guess the stamps for the Neapolitan Provinces that were then issued prior to the change of currency could be considered local in your definition.
They seem similar to me to the Saar - German Administration issues, where again the different currency was the reason they existed.
Login to Like
this post
Nigel,
Based on your reply I now realize the Neapolitan Provinces belong in BOB not because they are local, but because they are Occupation stamps.
I actually had to move the League of Nations SAAR stamp out of BOB to show the progression of SAAR in the Germany entry. There ARE times where I will bend the rules if it's necessary to paint a more complete picture, but I don't see it for the Neapolitan Provinces.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Here is my first cut at an expanded Smithsonian "One For Every Country" Collection.
REMEMBER THE RULES:
1. No Offices Abroad, Local Stamps, or Occupation stamps. Those go in last section.
2. All dates are stamp issuing dates (although Smithsonian was quite inconsistent, I tried to clean that up).
3. This is MY example of an expansion, for your consideration and comment. You may decide to go a totally different route. That's OK, and please tell us why.
First off all, I didn't like the way Smithsonian carved up Europe. When it came to Cyprus, that could go either way so I stuck with the Smithsonian decision to put it in Asia. No problem, but putting Greece and Portugal both in "Southern Europe" and aligning the UK with Finland instead of France made no sense, so I carved up Europe like this, with the Balkans combined and the Baltics with the Nordic Countries:
Starting with EASTERN EUROPE, I separated all Soviet States from the prior and subsequent countries. I also fixed the precedent countries for Russia v. Romania.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
It's nice to see your updated pages and your selection of stamps.
I particularly like seeing your Hungary stamp from 1990. It's always been one of my favourites.
Here are a few thoughts based on your rules:
Cyprus:
It seems bizarre from a European perspective to put this in Asia.
I would put it in Europe along with Northern Cyprus (unless you consider Northern Cyprus to be an occupation).
Czech Republic:
Shouldn't Bohemia & Moravia be treated as an occupation and moved to that section (similar to the General Government)?
Hungary:
I would split the Kingdom into either two or three, either Kingdom/Independent or Kingdom/Republics/Regency or Kingdom/Republics/Kingdom to reflect the 1918-1920 republican governments and issues.
Poland:
I would include Danzig here as a predecessor.
If I were doing this myself I would some add other short-lived states here and in other sections but I'm aware that you don't want to do this.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
@nigelc - Historically and culturally speaking, yes but... geographically (by geographical placement), no; Cyprus is definitely Middle East (Asia).
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
"Cyprus:
It seems bizarre from a European perspective to put this in Asia.
I would put it in Europe along with Northern Cyprus (unless you consider Northern Cyprus to be an occupation)."
I agree with Niguel. Cyprus is in my mind in Europe, Turkey occupation of a third of the Island or not. It has always (until Turkey's occupation) been close to Greece, and was a European possession of England for a long time. While some place Turkey in Europe (due to a small territory on the other side of the Bosphorus) it is undoubtedly in Asia. Similarly Cyprus, while close to Asia, has always been culturally European not Asian or Middle Eastern, and refered to as a European country. (It almost merged with Greece if you recall). It almost joined the EC too, before the invasion by Turkey. Geographically it is separated from Asia (and Africa...read Egypt) by water. It seems that the Asian continent is defined by the land mass on the West, and not the independent islands off it.
"Is Cyprus in Europe or Asia? - WorldAtlas.com
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-cyprus-in-europe-or-asia.html
Cyprus is a Mediterranean island located south of Turkey, southeast of Greece, north of Egypt, northwest of Israel and Lebanon, and west of Syria. ... Cyprus is sometimes placed in Europe, Asia or even the Middle East. Geographically, Cyprus is closer to Asia but is historically and culturally a European country."
So I would definitely move it to Europe.
rrr..
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Very nice! Logical and easy to understand.
What does the Germany section look like?
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
I agree that Cyprus probably belongs in Europe, but Smithsonian put it in Asia and I just stayed with their definition. I tried not to deviate unless I felt really strongly. Others may take a different view and that is quite understandable, especially in this case. Northern Cyprus is in Asia, just like Smithsonian.
"What does the Germany section look like?"
Patience, Tom!
Nigel, let me take some time looking over your remarks about Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. I will try to have a reply next time.
Here is the next batch of pages.
I chose to group the Baltic together and show both a pre- and post-Soviet stamp:
I also grouped the Nordic countries. Of note, I added the Duchy to Finland. This is where Greenland would go using a cultural/political model as Ralph has suggested:
Next up is the Balkan Peninsula, so I want to give everyone a chance to chime in, and get a chance to respond more thoughtfully to Nigel, before taking that up.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
Here are a few more thoughts on Europe:
Lithuania:
I would add at least one more predecessor, Memel and possibly also the Lithuanian Administration of Memel, which in my mind is more of an annexation than the typical temporary occupations we see elsewhere.
Denmark:
As discussed before, I would include the 1920 Schleswig here but I agree it could be under Germany.
Finland:
I would add the regional issues for the autonomous Åland Islands, with stamps first issued in 1984.
Iceland:
Following the approach taken so far, you may wish to split Iceland into three:
- Iceland as part of the Kingdom of Denmark
- Iceland as an independent kingdom from 1918.
- Iceland as an independent republic from 1944.
Norway
Again you may also wish to split this into two periods:
- Norway as part of Norway-Sweden until 1905.
- Norway as a separate kingdom with stamps issued from 1906.
Sweden:
And similarly here:
- Sweden as part of Norway-Sweden until 1905.
- Sweden as a separate kingdom
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Here are my replies to Nigel:
"I particularly like seeing your Hungary stamp from 1990. It's always been one of my favourites."
Mine, too!
"Shouldn't Bohemia & Moravia be treated as an occupation" - Yes, I think you are right, and I've added a note to that page.
"I would split the Kingdom into either two or three, either Kingdom/Independent or Kingdom/Republics/Regency or Kingdom/Republics/Kingdom to reflect the 1918-1920 republican governments and issues." - That was my initial plan, I even highlighted the sectional differences in my Scott catalogue, but ultimately I decided that those were brief convulsions at the end of WWI that belong in the "Back of Book". Others may agree with you, but that would lead to dozens of governments in Central America with little to differentiate them. I choose not to go that route.
"Poland:
I would include Danzig here as a predecessor."
EXACTLY!!! You will see Danzig later, as a predecessor to Germany, but this raises an issue near and dear to my heart: Predecessor of what? Let me explain.
Many times Smithsonian used the predecessor country as defined by the era and I used it defined by current geography. Danzig became a part of Germany, but is now a part of Poland. Which is the precedent country? You will see me struggling with that some more, but I agree with your position that Danzig should be moved to Poland.
Lithuania - Memel is on page 128 of BOB and I believe it belongs there.
Denmark - 1920 Schleswig - that's not really a government, but a post WWI entity that could go into BOB.
Finland - Aland - a local stamp on page 121 of BOB
Iceland - I see your point after 1918, and I agree, but would you say Iceland was a Duchy of Denmark before 1918, or just a territory?
Norway & Sweden - I'm going to have to read up on that! Please allow me a bit of time to review those comments.
And thanks for ALL of your comments!!!
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Here I changed the page layout to put all three modern Bosnia stamps on equal footing.
Sorry. I'm a big tennis fan so I had to get the Djokivic stamp!
Eastern Rumelia is an interesting case. Smithsonian placed it under Turkey from 1880-1884 and Bulgaria in 1885, but those were just the countries providing stamps. I consider it a part of Bulgaria and only one stamp is required. This is a rare instance where I actually deleted a Smithsonian stamp.
Thrace is another area of contention between Turkey, Bulgaria, and Greece. Thrace got carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey (no pun intended), and I just arbitrarily placed it in Greece.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
I have finally had a chance to research Norway-Sweden:
"The two states kept separate constitutions, laws, legislatures, administrations, state churches, armed forces, and currencies"
Were there ANY stamps issued by EITHER that even mentioned the union? Absent that, I don't see the need right now to differentiate. But I am generally persuadable!
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Western Europe - Part 1 of 2
I didn't like that there wasn't a space for "West Germany" and "Re-unified Germany". Hopefully this solution doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities. After all, there is a separate stamp for unified Vietnam.
I move the League of Nations Saar Admin here to keep all 3 together. I know it violates the rules, but it seemed "cleaner" this way.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
Norway-Sweden:
"The two states kept separate constitutions, laws, legislatures, administrations, state churches, armed forces, and currencies""
Internationally they acted as a single unit, with one diplomatic service based out of Stockholm.
I don't see a need either to divide them but I thought i'd raise the issue for your consideration.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
Some more thoughts on the Nordic Countries.
"Finland - Aland - a local stamp on page 121 of BOB"
I don't see these as local stamps but I accept it's a matter of opinion.
I really don't see the point of the BOB section other than possibly for UN agencies but that's fine.
I plan to come back to this point when I get to comments on Albania.
"Iceland - I see your point after 1918, and I agree, but would you say Iceland was a Duchy of Denmark before 1918, or just a territory?"
Just a territory.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
"Many times Smithsonian used the predecessor country as defined by the era and I used it defined by current geography. Danzig became a part of Germany, but is now a part of Poland.
Which is the precedent country? You will see me struggling with that some more, but I agree with your position that Danzig should be moved to Poland."
I agree with you that we are identifying predecessors to the current geographical stamp-issuing territories.
So we agree on Danzig is a predecessor of Poland (rather than of Germany in this sense).
I would also make the Polish Post in Danzig a predecessor of Poland but under the current rules it would be in the BOB.
I think the only problem I have is when a territory no longer issues stamps but it's the predecessor of a territory in a different geography.
Guam brought this to my attention. Guam is a predecessor of the United States but I think it makes more sense to keep it as you have done as a main entry in its own geography.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi lars,
It's beginning to get a little complicated as we get into the Balkans...
Albania:
I really like this Albania page. It shows the history very nicely but it brings up the occupation question again.
It would seem a shame to move both the Italian and German occupations to the BOB.
I'll try and not repeat myself too much but I'd rather keep occupations as part of the history of the country being occupied.
Bosnia and Herzegovina:
The three stamp-issuing companies are a bit of a problem as they don't map cleanly to the governmental units.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is split into two main units: Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Both the Sarajevo and Mostar-based companies operate with the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina, with BH Poshta and Hrvatska Poshta Mostar operating in mainly Bosniak and Croat communities respectively.
However, there isn't a Muslim government nor a Croat government.
I believe Srpske Poshte operates in Republika Srpska so that one is more straightforward.
Here I've spelt the company names with "sh" where it should be "s" with a hachek/caron accent.
Bulgaria:
I would have kept South Bulgaria and included it here or in the BOB but your call of course.
Greece::
You may wish to conder splitting Greece into:
- Kingdom
- First Republic 1924-35
- Kingdom 1935-1973
- Second Republic
I have to admit that Greece is probably an area where having the occupations and post offices in the BOB keeps the layout much more straightforward.
I wouldn't add all the Balkan War territories but I'd be tempted to include Samos.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
Some more quick thoughts on Greece:
I've had a quick look at the Local section in the BOB and I would suggest removing Rhodes (and also Chalki) from there and adding Dodecanese Islands as a predecessor for Greece rather than as Italian locals.
Another possibility would be to move it to Occupations within the BOB.
Rhodes is the main island in the group and some stamps are labelled "Rodi", others as Italian Islands in the Aegean, or the names of other individual islands.
Castelorizo should probably stay with the Dodocanese Islands/Rhodes given its similar status and history.
Serbia:
You may wish to split Serbia (Kingdom) into two, Principality and Kingdom, similar to Romania.
Technically, there was a separate State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (comprising former Austro-Hungarian territory) which existed for around a month before joining with the Kingdom of Serbia to create the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
I guess we can ignore this but it may be worth splitting Yugoslavia into two to reflect the period when it was officially called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before this was changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Nigel,
Once again, on behalf of myself and everyone else following this thread, thanks for all the thoughtful inputs. I'm sure you will understand that I will need some time to research the details, but I want to address something now that may be a misunderstanding. To be clear, I STARTED with the Smithsonian pages. I cannot think of a single instance where I demoted a stamp to the BOB section. I can think of at least one case where I promoted a stamp from BOB to the main collection. I am VERY hesitant to do anything more than EMBELLISH the Smithsonian pages with additional stamps that I think paint a more complete picture, but I don't want to get carried away.
The pages you see are mostly my pages because I've added about 16% to the Smithsonian stamp count. Only about 10% of my pages are original Smithsonian pages. I have absolutely ZERO plans to move ANYTHING you see to BOB. If you see it now, that's because I think it belongs there even if it wasn't on the original Smithsonian page. For example, when I talk about Eastern Rumelia/South Bulgaria, I'm not talking about putting that stamp into BOB, all I'm saying is that Smithsonian put ONE ER/SB stamp as a precedent stamp to Bulgaria and a different one as a precedent country to Turkey. That just made no sense to me. So I removed the one from Turkey. I try to point things out where I depart from Smithsonian in any way other than embellishment.
In some cases you may say "that's your call" when I'm saying that was Smithsonian's call and I'm hesitant to make the change. You have no idea how tempted I am to move Maximilian Mexico to North America! And I may make that move yet, but I am MUCH more likely to do that than move CSA to BOB, even though CSA belongs in BOB more than Maximilian Mexico does, IMHO. (But I'm a direct male descendant of a Union soldier, so I might be a bit biased).
The reason I want to stress this point is that there are other folks viewing this that are using Smithsonian as a starting point so I want them to be able to follow along as well.
Thanks again for all of your thoughtful inputs! When I started this many years ago, keijo (scb) helped me so much and emboldened me to attempt an expansion. What you see now are my feeble efforts to leverage his expertise to tackle an expansion of the Smithsonian project.
Cheers!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
"Albania:
I really like this Albania page. It shows the history very nicely but it brings up the occupation question again.
It would seem a shame to move both the Italian and German occupations to the BOB.
I'll try and not repeat myself too much but I'd rather keep occupations as part of the history of the country being occupied."
I don't plan to move ANYTHING to BOB. If you see it in the main section, that's where it stays. There are SOME occupations so profound they HAVE to be in the main section.
"Bosnia and Herzegovina:
The three stamp-issuing companies are a bit of a problem as they don't map cleanly to the governmental units."
Far enough. If they mapped cleanly to three governmental units I would be tempted to have 3 separate entities. But given the reality on the ground, is there anything fundamentally wrong with my presentation?
"Bulgaria:
I would have kept South Bulgaria and included it here or in the BOB but your call of course.
Greece::
You may wish to conder splitting Greece into:
- Kingdom
- First Republic 1924-35
- Kingdom 1935-1973
- Second Republic
I have to admit that Greece is probably an area where having the occupations and post offices in the BOB keeps the layout much more straightforward.
I wouldn't add all the Balkan War territories but I'd be tempted to include Samos."
I think we've already covered Eastern Rumelia / South Bulgaria.
I agree with splitting Greece as you suggest (that's another one I missed).
I like your suggestion to add Samos to the occupation page!
"Some more quick thoughts on Greece:
I've had a quick look at the Local section in the BOB and I would suggest removing Rhodes (and also Chalki) from there and adding Dodecanese Islands as a predecessor for Greece rather than as Italian locals.
Another possibility would be to move it to Occupations within the BOB.
Rhodes is the main island in the group and some stamps are labelled "Rodi", others as Italian Islands in the Aegean, or the names of other individual islands.
Castelorizo should probably stay with the Dodocanese Islands/Rhodes given its similar status and history.
Serbia:
You may wish to split Serbia (Kingdom) into two, Principality and Kingdom, similar to Romania.
Technically, there was a separate State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (comprising former Austro-Hungarian territory) which existed for around a month before joining with the Kingdom of Serbia to create the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
I guess we can ignore this but it may be worth splitting Yugoslavia into two to reflect the period when it was officially called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes before this was changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia."
I wanted to repeat all that so everyone can see the issues involved and decide for themselves what they want to focus on.
I'm satisfied with Greek island stamps I have, as is, and I don't intend to split Yugoslavia again, but there was one issue that struck a chord.
For me, it was Serbia. I ABSOLUTELY agree that Serbia should be split between Principality and Kingdom.
But someone else may have been inspired by something else Nigel or another poster wrote. That's why I'm so thankful Nigel is giving so freely of his time and expertise! Feel free to speak up if you have a different opinion or a different question. This isn't about how to build the Smithsonian album (that's a different thread), and this isn't about MY version of an expanded album per se, but using what I have developed over the past 5 years as a starting point for anyone interested in going above and beyond the Smithsonian challenge.
The Smithsonian pages have about 785 stamps. My version is around 915 stamps. Nigel can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the current list of governmental stamp issuing entities that Nigel and Keijo work off of contains over 2000 entries. That's why the input of someone like Nigel is so important to this task.
I had Keijo to guide me when I first started about five years ago, and now we have Nigel. I would NOT recommend this trip without a guide!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lar,
Thanks for your very kind words!
I'm pleased you are taking my comments in the way I intended, simply as suggestions.
I'm learning a lot from this process.
You asked me about Bosnia and Herzegovina:
""Bosnia and Herzegovina: The three stamp-issuing companies are a bit of a problem as they don't map cleanly to the governmental units."
Far enough. If they mapped cleanly to three governmental units I would be tempted to have 3 separate entities. But given the reality on the ground, is there anything fundamentally wrong with my presentation?""
No, I think the entities are fine, it's just their names.
Basically, I'm uncomfortable with the names "Moslem Government" and "Croat Government".
How about something simple like "Bosniak Post" and "Croat Post"?
We'll have a rather different issue with a country with multiple postal operators in Kyrgyzstan which has two.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
"Basically, I'm uncomfortable with the names "Moslem Government" and "Croat Government".
How about something simple like "Bosniak Post" and "Croat Post"?"
Croat Government isn't used. It's Muslim Government, Serb Admin, and Croat Admin.
My understanding is that Bosniak = Muslim, Croat = Catholic, and Serb = Orthodox
BH Pošta = Bosniak = Muslim = central postal authority with a capital in Sarajevo
Srpske Pošta = Bosnian Serbs (Orthodox) - centered around Banja Luka
Hrvatska Pošta Mostar = Bosnian Croats (Catholics) - centered around Mostar
There is a bizarre power sharing dynamic created by the Dayton Accords that created this mess.
The primary central government authority for postal services would likely be in Sarajevo, and it would be Bosniak (Muslim), so the existing designations seem OK except for one thing:
Why is it:
Muslim
Serb
Croat
Instead of:
Muslim
Orthodox
Catholic
Or:
Bosniak
Serb
Croat?
Just a thought.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
Yes, you are correct, I should have written, "Moslem Government" and "Croat Administration".
I prefer to use the word "Bosniak" here instead of "Moslem" for exactly the reason you give but I accept that that it's clear what's meant either way.
Perhaps the facts on the ground will change again soon as there has been pressure for some time for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be split formally into two units to replace the current patchwork of cantons, giving a new Croat-majority unit.
On a more trivial point, I wonder which company provides the postal services in the Brcko District which appears to be a condominium of the Federation and Republika Srpska.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
"On a more trivial point, I wonder which company provides the postal services in the Brcko District"
I don't know. If you pull up Brcko on Google maps you can find post offices for all three there!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Here is the rest of Europe:
Jersey, Guernsey, and Isle of Man are interesting, and someone asked earlier why they are here, and Aland is not. Now that we are here, it's interesting to speculate. I think a strong case can be made that Aland is very similar to the baliwicks, but they do seem more like overseas territories than, say, the Grenadines. I might be re-thinking Aland because I'm less hesitant to promote something from BOB than demote something to BOB.
I used replicas for the Swiss canton stamps and so noted.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
I have a few comments mostly about the British Islands and Italy.
Guernsey:
You may wish to include a stamp from the British postal administration before 1969 as a predecessor.
Another possibile predecessor would be the Channel Islands general issue of 1948.
Some collectors may wish to include the dependency of Alderney.
Jersey:
You wish to include a stamp from the British postal administration before 1969 as a predecessor.
Isle of Man:
You wish to include a stamp from the British postal administration before 1973 as a predecessor.
Italy:
I would suggest adding the Neapolitan Provinces as a predecessor, i.e. Naples and Sicily after they were acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia (Savoy).
Another possible new predecessor would be Campione although it was local in nature, mostly for mail to Switzerland. It's 1944 stamps were in use until 1952.
As discussed before, I would recommend that the Aegean Islands a.k.a the Dodecanese Islands / Rhodes are more appropriate as a predecessor of Greece or in the Occupations section.
I would also suggest that Fiume may make a better predecessor of Croatia.
Vatican City:
The Roman States a.k.a Papal States pose a problem as a predecessor. There's clearly a link to the Vatican City but almost all this territory is now part of Italy.
Another candidate for a main entry would be the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, based in Rome.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
I've seen some news on Macedonia.
After the long negotiation and ratification process to change the country's name, I see on another board that the first stamps have now been issued with its new name, the Republic of North Macedonia.
This would suggest a change of heading and the existing stamp becoming a predecessor.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Thanks for all the inputs!
FIRST, I want to summarize previous issues:
1. Cyprus - there is a good reason to move Cyprus to Europe. In fact, I have a note at the bottom of the map of Europe - the very first image posted on this thread - talking about Cyprus. I was tempted to demote Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to the Occupations section of BOB and put Cyprus in Europe where it belongs (politically, at least), but I am very hesitant to demote anything from the Smithsonian pages, especially a major entry, so I left TRNC in Asia and left Cyprus there as well so Cyprus and TRNC would be in the same continent.
2. Greenland: CORRECTION: As hesitant as I am to stray from the original Smithsonian pages, I just can't leave Greenland in North America. I will be moving it to Europe with the Nordic Countries.
3. Czech Republic: Added a note to Bohemia and Moravia that this was an occupation. Will consider demoting to Occupation section of BOB. A likely move.
4. Hungary - CORRECTION: Initially I was hesitant to expand Hungary further, but upon reflection I am leaning toward expansion. I have the necessary stamps on my current wish list, so when I get them I can look at possible page layouts for:
a) Monarchy: Scott #1-132 - stamps dates 1871-1918
b) First Republic: Scott #153-197 - 1918-1920
c) Soviet Republic: Scott #198-222 - 1919
d) Kingdom: Scott #306-630 - 1919-1944
e) Second Republic: Scott #631-855 - 1945-1948
f) People's Republic: Scott #856-3204 - 1949-1989
g) Current: Scott #3205+ - 1990+
5. Danzig will be moved from Germany to Poland as a predecessor.
6. Åland - CORRECTION: Upon further reflection, Åland is similar to the baliwick of Jersey, and therefore will be promoted to the main section with Finland.
7. Greece will be split:
a) Kingdom: #1-315 - 1861-1923
b) First Republic: #316-382 - 1924-1935
c) Kingdom: #383-1092 - 1935-1973
d) Second Republic: 1097+ 1973+
8. Greece - add Samos to BOB as example of Balkan War territories
9. Serbia - will be split:
a) Principality: 1-26
b) Kingdom: 27+
SECOND, I want to address previously outstanding issues:
1. Iceland - I plan to split Iceland as suggested:
a) Danish Dependency: Scott #1-107 - stamp dates 1873-1918
b) Kingdom: Scott #108-239 - 1920-1941
c) Republic: Scott #240+ - 1944+
2. Norway-Sweden - even though it was only a personal union instead of a formal one, I considered getting a King Oscar II stamp from each, such as Norway Scott #32 (SG # 37 from a 1960 catalog) with a used CV of $12.50 (2016 Scott price) plus Sweden Scott #39 (SG #23) with a used CV of $1.00. I ultimately decided on adding a text box below the two countries explaining the personal union until 1905.
3. Aegean Islands - I don't see any reason any of these stamps belong in the main section, so I plan to demote the Italian Aegean Islands to Local Stamps and review what I have for Greek occupation stamps with an eye toward the comments from Nigel. I will also likely demote Castelorizo as suggested.
4. Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man - any stamps from the British postal admin prior to 1969 (or 1973 in one case) would be considered local stamps. The only reason the baliwick stamps are not currently considered local is because UK stamps are no longer valid for postage there. That is what caused me to promote Åland.
5. Channel Islands issue of 1948 was just a normal issue. It was sold at major philatelic windows and good for postage throughout the UK. It would be like a US stamp honoring Texas that was available via the USPS web site, philatelic services, and Texas post offices - valid for postage anywhere in the US. The Galapagos Islands stamp in "Local Stamps" is another example.
6. Alderney is a shameless local issue and popular with topical collectors! I have a few in my topical collection!
7. Campione - I won't be including, but interesting to bring up
8. Fiume - definitely belongs under Croatia! I will be moving that one.
9. Vatican City:
"The Roman States a.k.a Papal States pose a problem as a predecessor. There's clearly a link to the Vatican City but almost all this territory is now part of Italy."
True, but the Papal States were shrinking such that by 1861 only Lazio, including Rome, remained. Those were lost in 1870. This seems like a logical "exception" that Smithsonian employed and I will likely maintain that, but it would also make sense to move that stamp under Italy as an Italian State. I would title it Roman States in that case.
10. Sovereign Military Order of Malta - the UN classifies it as a non-state entity like the Red Cross.
11. Macedonia - You are correct that the name needs to now be changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia. The name change, however, is not indicative of a governmental change but the resolution of a naming dispute with Greece. I don't know if that would cause stamps issued prior to 2019 to be from a "precedent country".
FINALLY, I'm not so sure about:
"I would suggest adding the Neapolitan Provinces as a predecessor, i.e. Naples and Sicily after they were acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia (Savoy)."
How does that differ from the Two Sicilies stamps in Italy? If you are talking about the Provinces issues under the Two Sicilies, wouldn't those be local?
=====================================================================================
I think that covers everything. If I missed anything important or if anyone else has any comments, jump in!
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Nigel,
Here is the summary that affects you:
1. I finally decided to go with rrraphy and move Greenland to Europe.
2. After reflection, I agree with your additional split of Hungary.
3. I also agree that Åland belongs in the main listings (based on the Baliwicks)
4. I agree with your Iceland split
5. A few other things listed may be of interest
But there is one outstanding question:
"I would suggest adding the Neapolitan Provinces as a predecessor, i.e. Naples and Sicily after they were acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia (Savoy)"
How does that differ from the Two Sicilies stamps in Italy? If you are talking about the Provinces issues under the Two Sicilies, wouldn't those be local?
Unless you see any glaring errors, that is the only outstanding issue for Europe. I just posted a preliminary summary for Africa and I'm working on Asia now. Sorry it takes so long, but you ask questions that often lead to hours of chasing many fascinating threads of history. I'm not complaining. Far from it. Thanks for you help and patience!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Hi Lars,
I have a couple of follow-up comments about the Neapolitan Provinces:
"How does that differ from the Two Sicilies stamps in Italy? If you are talking about the Provinces issues under the Two Sicilies, wouldn't those be local?"
The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies issued stamps in 1858 for Naples (basically the southern half of the Italian mainland) and 1859 for Sicily.
There was never a unified issue for the whole kingdom.
Soon afterwards the kingdom was acquired by the Kingdom of Sardinia and so, yes, I guess the stamps for the Neapolitan Provinces that were then issued prior to the change of currency could be considered local in your definition.
They seem similar to me to the Saar - German Administration issues, where again the different currency was the reason they existed.
Login to Like
this post
re: A stamp for every country (Europe)
Nigel,
Based on your reply I now realize the Neapolitan Provinces belong in BOB not because they are local, but because they are Occupation stamps.
I actually had to move the League of Nations SAAR stamp out of BOB to show the progression of SAAR in the Germany entry. There ARE times where I will bend the rules if it's necessary to paint a more complete picture, but I don't see it for the Neapolitan Provinces.
Lars
Login to Like
this post