|
['The Revenue Society' is proud to be working
with the FIP Revenue Commission
until they have their own web site up and
running]
Table of Contents:
Chairman's Message
Editorial
Some thoughts on
Revenues and Philatelic Importance
The Ideal National
Revenue Delegate
Revenue Literature
Join a Leading
Revenue Society
Revenues - the
SREV's
The Bureau and it's
Members
Meetings of the FIP
Revenue Commission
Revenue Display at
Efiro 2008
Chairman’s Message
A New
Newsletter, a New Editor and a New Focus.
Many of you will be
receiving this newsletter via email – that’s the most economical and fastest
way to get news from the FIP Revenue Bureau to you. With limited resources
that makes the most sense. In the world of fast communications increasingly
email and the World Wide Web will be the most important source of news and
information.
The focus here will be on
collecting and exhibiting. We hope this will become an important source of
information for collectors, exhibitors and judges. We need your input. Not
just what you would like to see, but your contributions to the discussion of
collecting and exhibiting revenues.
Revenue collecting is alive
and well. Updated catalogues are being published; the array of exhibits at
Washington 2006 and Espana 2006 was breathtaking. Join with us to embrace
this part of philately.
Ronald E. Lesher, Chairman,
FIP Revenue Commission.
Editorial
Welcome to the first
Newsletter for the FIP Revenue Commission.
There are eleven FIP
Commissions, many produce occasional newsletters and a small number actively
maintain web sites. To date the Revenue Commission has provided neither a
newsletter nor a web site!
It was a stated objective of
the present Commission upon their election at Singapore in 2004 to join
those Commissions that circulate a newsletter. Indeed various contributions
were drafted but unfortunately the nominated editor was unable to organise a
finished version. A few weeks ago I volunteered to edit this – the First
Revenue Commission Newsletter. It is the intention to circulate this to all
national delegates who nominated by their national philatelic bodies to the
FIP to represent revenue collectors and exhibitors .
However even the circulation
of a simple newsletter raises a number of problems. To date the Commission
has contact names and postal addresses for some sixty national delegates and
we will endeavour to send the newsletter to them all. This highlights the
first difficulty as the list is not complete and there is a chance that many
of the addresses are likely out of date and the list is not
complete. The linked problem is that for most of the delegates there
is only a postal address with only a few also having an email address. This
means that the combined postal charges for a complete circulation are
substantial and there are no FIP funds to assist Commissions to circulate
delegates! Rather than further postpone the circulation of a newsletter we
intend to circulate all those delegates for whom we have addresses.
So please when you receive
the newsletter contact us to confirm its delivery and if possible please
send us a contact email address. Indeed if future newsletters are to be
produce and circulated this may well become a necessity. These replies can
be sent to Kurt Kimmel (the Secretary), to Ron Lesher (the Chairman) or
myself as Editor. Full addresses, postal and email are listed above.
Now to the aims of the
Commission and the Newsletter.
A major aim is to provide a
forum to encourage contact between FIP national revenue delegates, revenue
exhibitors and collectors.
To some collectors and
exhibitors the FIP is perceived as a rather remote organisation whose focus
is solely upon international matters of little concern to individuals. If
this perception is widespread it is a shame! The structure of the FIP
Commissions, one for each exhibiting class, provides an excellent
opportunity for exhibitors to make their views known to the premier body for
international philately. Each national delegate in each class has the
opportunity to help with the evolution and promotion and each exhibiting
class.
The FIP structure is sound –
the difficulties seem to be lie with the implementing a system by which
collectors views from across the world can be mobilised to promote
exhibiting and indeed all aspects of our hobby.
The contributions to this
newsletter are designed to provide collectors and exhibitors of revenue
material with: information on topics of interest and to stimulate discussion
and contributions on these and other issues. Sections of the Newsletter are
aimed therefore: To initiate discussions, suggestions are outlined in this
newsletter that relate to possible changes in the exhibiting of revenues.
These do not necessarily represent the view of the Editor or the Commission
but we would welcome your comments. To provide information on revenue
literature.
This has special appeal when
it relates to listings and accounts of revenue stamps for individual
countries.
To give guidance on how to
exhibit, especially those that devote space to the problems posed by the
revenue class.
To present information on
journals and websites that focus on revenue stamps.
It is my pleasure to edit
this first Newsletter, its future success depends on contributions from you
and from other revenue collectors and exhibitors.
Can you help?
The Revenue Commission lacks
names and addresses of national delegates from the following FIP Member
Countries.
Armenia, Belarus, Peoples
Republic of China, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, Estonia, Honduras, Lithuania,
Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Nigeria, Qatar, Romania, RPD Korea, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Uruguay, & Vietnam.
We would welcome
information, especially names and email addresses, of representatives from
these FIP member countries.
Some Thoughts on Revenues and Philatelic Importance
Ron Lesher
How is one to evaluate
importance in revenue exhibits? The following includes personal reflections
and questions to stimulate discussion. If some statements seem to get under
your skin, upset you, and provoke you to speak out, I will have achieved my
goal. Through the ensuing discussion it is my earnest hope that judges and
exhibitors can come to some general agreement of the importance criterion
which is used to evaluate exhibits in FIP competitions. exhibits of the
revenues of a small Indian state, the municipal revenues of Budapest,the
adhesive bill of lading stamps of the Gold Rush era of California, and
personal identity stamps of Latvian municipalities.
Each of these was selected
because the geographic boundaries of the governmental authority are smaller
than the nation. Since California is the largest geographic unit among the
four, is the California exhibit inherently the most important?
Does the small geographic
boundary of the political unit necessarily make each of these less important
than an exhibit of the national revenues of India, Hungary, the United
States, or Latvia (each of these, of course, is the national political unit
of which the states or municipalities in the first list is a part)?
One could construct a nearly
limitless list of such examples. But the basic question still remains. Is
either area or population a factor in determining importance of an exhibit?
History and
Time Considerations
Staying with the same four
examples above, let us imagine that the small Indian state exhibit spans the
years 1890 to 1947; the Budapest exhibit spans the years 1900 to 1945; the
California exhibit spans 1858 to 1866; and the Latvian exhibit spans from
1918 to 1940.
Do longevity considerations
dictate that the Indian state exhibit is the most important of these
exhibits and that the California exhibits the least important?
How should one weigh the
explosive growth of California following the discovery of gold in 1849 and
the need for state services in assessing the importance of this exhibit?
Departing from the above
examples, there are other considerations that may come into play in a
consideration of importance. One could imagine a revenue exhibit of a given
geographic area which shows the different systems of taxation under several
different national identities. The region of Alsace Lorraine comes
immediately to mind. How does one rate the importance of an exhibit from a
geographic area that has changed national association several times?
Does a shorter, specialized,
and historically interesting (however that might be determined) period rank
higher in importance than a longer time span of the same country?
We have inherited from the
postal side of the hobby a tendency to associate greater importance with
age. Does an exhibit of eighteenth century material rank higher in
importance than material from the second half of the twentieth century?
Economic
Importance
Given the relative gross
national products of the two nations for any year, is an exhibit of Great
Britain inherently more important than an exhibit of Bhutan?
Is an exhibit of New York
stock transfer stamps more important than an exhibit of the taxation and
licensing of alcohol in the same state of New York? The stock transfer
stamps were used for transfers on the New York Stock Exchange and by the
transfer agents on issues of new stocks. They collected enormous sums of
money. On the other hand the use of stamps for collecting the alcohol taxes
was confined to prescription alcohol in the first decade of the twentieth
century and a brief period at the beginning of National Prohibition
(1920-33) in an attempt to still market alcoholic beverages. The total
amount of taxes collected by these stamps is rather small in comparison to
that collected on transfers of stock.
Does the total amount of tax
collected contribute to the importance of a revenue exhibit?
Other
Considerations
Are some types of revenues
inherently more important than others? Possibly because of preservation
considerations, most collectors first encounter various forms of documentary
stamps. These were preserved in company files and in public files of record.
As other means of preserving the records have become available, many of
these files have come into philatelic hands. At the same time accessibility
to the laws and regulations from both government records and from business
publications has aided collectors to be insightful in their collecting of
the various forms of documentary taxes. Does the combination of
accessibility and information which allow a more detailed
and sophisticated treatment carry
over into importance?
Although we are told that the
judging criteria are independent, can this ever be so?
Some efforts of taxation led to
imitation by other neighbouring political units. The method of various state
governments in the United States collecting taxes on the shipment of farm
products to advertise and market a given crop were extended in the 1930s
from one crop to another and from one state to another. Does the success of
the initial taxing effort leading to other similar taxes, both within the
political unit and in other political units impart importance to such an
exhibit?
The Exhibitor’s Role in
Determining Importance
Both the list of factors
that might be considered in determining the importance of a revenue exhibit
and the difficulty of combining these factors is a fact of life. There
is probably no one who has thought more about these factors than the
exhibitor. Why does each of us collect what we collect? If we the collectors
do not have a rationale for the importance of what we collect, why should
anyone else (unless we care to admit that what we collect is unimportant)?
Ed: Should we take a totally
different approach and consider `importance’ as a measure of how difficult
it would be to assemble a better collection/display of the subject chosen?
The Ideal National Revenue Delegate
Dingle Smith
Revenue exhibiting is now
well-established at FIP level but it is less clear as to whether this has
been matched by increases in the number of revenue collectors and exhibitors
at less distinguished levels. National revenue delegates form a key role in
that they are the main link to the wider philatelic community and their
prime role is to promote this branch of our hobby. Ideally how should we do
this?
The role of national
delegates should extend to extolling the joys of revenue collecting at all
levels by encouraging newcomers to the field to take the first step as well
as assisting established local and national exhibitors to enter FIP shows.
How can national delegates promote revenue collecting and displaying? I am
unsure if national philatelic bodies require their national delegates to FIP
Commissions to restrict their role to FIP matters or whether they also
require them to play a promotional role
at all levels. Certainly the Australian Philatelic Federating takes the
wider view. There is no magic formula but here are some suggestions.
By offering to give revenue
displays to stamp clubs – large or small.
The most appropriate
displays are not necessarily those that follow FIP exhibiting rules. To gain
interest examples that show the diversity of revenue material are best. The
use of material on documents and the like is an excellent way to link
revenues to a wider social historical context. It is fun to put together
such an exhibit and once assembled it can be regularly used for such
displays.
Displays and
talks at stamp shows
This is essentially an
extension of the displays described above. A variant of this approach which
may become more common in the future is to have a computer based
presentation. This should again be illustrated with both stamps and
documents. Although not of a high professional standard I produced a display
of documents. It is surprising to me that displays that use some form of
projection are not more widely used in philately. They are ideal; to show
actual stamps especially varieties and errors. Although not of high
professional standard I produced an a display of this kind as an
introduction to the revenue stamps of Australia and its colonies for a
meeting at Pacific Explorer in Sydney in 2005.
Meetings at stamp shows that
include a revenue class can also take advantage of providing a tour of the
frames. One thing this is constant across all philately is that exhibitors
all enjoy explaining their exhibit to others – the only tip here is to
explain to them before the event that their talk must have a set time limit
for presentation!
Writing
articles for club and society journals
Articles illustrating
aspects of revenue collecting help to reinforce the `talk and show’ methods
outlined above.
What are your problems, as a
national delegate or enthusiast, in promoting the collection and exhibiting
of revenues? Do you have any guidance to offer to others attempting the
same tasks? Can other delegates to the Commission help you?
Clive Akerman [UK]was kind
enough in a letter to me regarding the publication of this newsletter to
offer some thoughts.
Clive was the author of
Collecting and Displaying Revenue Stamps published in 1995 [more fully
referenced elsewhere in this newsletter]. This slim volume provides an
excellent introduction to what revenues are all about and at that time Clive
as able to say `...it is clear that revenues have come of age’. He is less
convinced that progress over more recent years has been as positive. Further
he regards the need as`... to get more energy into the Commission and for
their national representatives to take a more active promotional role’.
This may well be true.
Perhaps there is a need for books similar to that written by Clive but
geared more specifically to the revenues of particular countries. These
should not reproduce the annotated catalogue listings that are necessary
once a collector is hooked but illustrate the range of material that is
available and its relevance to social history.
None of us are ideal
national delegates but all of us should strive to more fully promote revenue
collecting and exhibiting.
Revenue Literature
Dingle Smith
Revenue collecting has much
in common with traditional philately, restricted to stamps used to pay
postage. If one’s interests are to collect the postage stamps of a country a
plethora of stamp catalogues that can easily consulted. Further such
catalogues are usually readily available for purchase or available to view
in most philatelic libraries – even those of modest size. This is clearly
not the case for listings of revenue stamps.
For anyone who has judged
revenue exhibits at a competitive show, from international to local, the
task of acquainting oneself with what will be contained in the exhibits is
frightening. Similar problems face collectors who decide to collect revenue
stamps for individual countries. For many countries there are no catalogues
that provide even a basic listing of revenue stamps.
The only attempts at
comprehensive listings of revenue stamps, similar in style to postage stamp
catalogues of Stanley Gibbons, Michel or Scott are very old and unlikely to
cover material issued after the early nineteenth century.
Those that do give such listings frequently omit embossed markings.
I cannot think of a more
useful task for the Revenue Commission than to ask national delegates to
provide information on the best basic texts available for their country.
However it is essential that such a list of basic texts not only provides
title, author and date but whenever possible information on the address from
which the listing can be purchased together with cost of purchase and
postage and packing.
One of the possible
criticisms of the FIP Commission structure is that they only infrequently
co-operate with other Commissions. Perhaps this is an area where the Revenue
Commission could undertake a joint project with the Literature Commission? I
admit that I have not contacted the Literature Commission to seek their
views on this matter. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Literature
Commission has recently commented that literature entries to FIP exhibitions
should be accompanied by details of availability and price.
I would go further and
suggest that this could perhaps be extended to request (require?) that all
literature entries to exhibitions are accompanied by a 1-page sheet, perhaps
a printed form, that gives such information. To go a stage further it should
not be difficult to add a contact address for purchase and price to the
actual exhibition catalogue. This has the advantage that it would likely be
a popular addition from the perspective of the exhibitor who is entering the
literature exhibit! It would be hard to think of a more closely targeted
audience that the catalogue to an exhibition?
REVENUE
EXHIBITING
Although the first FIP
revenue exhibits were displayed in New Delhi at India 89, wider interest in
preparing material for competitive exhibiting requires the availability of
`How to do it’ guidelines.
For new revenue exhibitors
the essential first step is to obtain and carefully read and follow the
instructions of the Special Regulations of the FIP for the Evaluation of
Competitive Exhibitions (usually abbreviated to SREVs) which can be easily
viewed on the FIP web site
www.f-i-p.ch These are the rules to be followed and they are
accompanied by `Guidelines’ which are provided by the appropriate FIP
Commission as an interpretation of the SREVs.
The SREVs are the rules that
apply to all FIP exhibitions. However the majority of national philatelic
bodies follow the same rules and guidelines for National-level exhibitions.
But the rules and guidelines do not give detailed guidance on how to best to
prepare a collection of revenue material for competitive display. How to
obtain help with these aspects of exhibiting is the most frequently asked
question from prospective revenue exhibitors.
The available literature on
such matters is relatively sparse, but two accounts will assist those
approaching such a task for the first time.
Collecting & Displaying
Revenue Stamps,
Clive Akerman. 1995, Published by The Revenue Society of Great Britain. 72 pages.
This excellent account was
published `to satisfy a need for an introductory volume, explaining the
nature of revenue stamps and giving the beginner or interested bystander an
insight into and enormous and under-developed aspect of philately.’ It is
highly recommended by unfortunately is out of print!
The Philatelic Exhibitors
Handbook, Third
edition by Randy Neil updated by Ada Prill, 2006. Published by Subway
Stamps. 308 pages The price is US$39.99, details of how to order, charges
for postage and packing an be obtained from the following web site
www.subwaystamps.com
This book was launched in
May at Washington 2006. It is without doubt the most comprehensive and
useful handbook of its kind. It is profusely illustrated and has numerous
examples illustrating page lay-out. In addition there are sections devoted
to each FIP exhibiting class. Among these is a 14 page account by Ron Lesher,
(the Revenue Commission Chairman!). All exhibitors whatever their level of
attainment and regardless of the material they wish to exhibit should have a
copy.
Join a Leading Revenue Society
Dingle Smith
To keep abreast of what is
going on in revenue collecting it is essential to have access to leading
journals in the field. I list below two of the major revenue journals, both
produced in English. There are many other revenue societies that produce
articles of interest to revenue collectors but those described below are
ones with which I am familiar.
Future newsletters and our
hoped-for web-site would welcome comparable information from other revenue
collectors.
The Revenue
Society of Great Britain
The Society was founded in
1990 and publishes a well-produced and illustrated quarterly journal, The
Revenue Journal of
Great Britain.
In addition it holds regular postal auctions and on occasion, circulates
additional accounts of revenue interest to its members, for an example see a
review elsewhere in this newsletter. The articles and news are not confined
to Great Britain revenues and in recognition of this the name of the society
and journal have been changed to The Revenue Society and
The
Revenue Journal!
The annual subscription to
the Society is £15 for members resident in the United Kingdom and £20 for
overseas members. Details can be obtained from the Secretary Andrew
McClellan either by post to 40 South Park, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 1TJ, UK or
email to
secretary@revenuesociety.org.uk Membership forms can be
downloaded from their web site
www.revenuesociety.org.uk
The American
Revenue Association
Founded over fifty years ago
the Association publishes a bi-monthly quality journal, The American
Revenuer (The Journal of the International Fiscal Philately),
complete with abundant colour illustrations. The Association also holds
postal auctions for members. Annual subscription US$21 plus extra postage
for air mail delivery of journal to overseas addresses. Details from
Secretary Georgette O. Cornio, 12803 Windbrook Drive, Clinton MD 20735, USA
or email
bshober@comcast.net
Web sites
This is undoubtedly the way
of the future for fast interaction especially among specialised collectors
often located at considerable distance from their fellow enthusiasts.
The best place to start is
www.revenuesociety.org.uk This site is in the process of major
developments and in addition to providing information for The Revenue
Society it presents a number of outstanding exhibits, revenue societies,
dealers, auction houses and links to a wide range of other sites that
feature revenue material of interest to revenue collectors. Dave Elsmore,
the web master, is happy to incorporate additional displays or information
that has a revenue focus. Kindly the site has agreed to reproduce this
newsletter.
Revenues – the SREVs
The special regulations for
the evaluation (SREVs) for revenue exhibits and the guidelines for the class
were first used for at the FIP show in India 1989.
Subsequently they have
formed the basis for judging and exhibiting at perhaps fifty or more FIP
shows and at a much larger number of regional and national exhibitions.
Undoubtedly the team who
formulated the Revenue SREVs and Guidelines deserve fulsome praise for
clarity and content. Overall remarkably few problems have arisen for either
exhibitors or judges. Notwithstanding this success, are there revisions or
additions that could be made?
The Revenue Bureau would
welcome comments for any national delegates or indeed, from any dedicated
revenue collector. Meanwhile here are some thoughts on possible
modifications.
At Malaga in 2006 there was
broad discussion across FIP Classes as to the merits of a greater focus on
`modern’ (say post-1900) material as opposed to `classic’. The motivation
for this is a (perceived?) bias in judging and assessment in favour of the
earlier material; It could be argued that separate classes for classic and
modern material are especially apt for revenues, if only because listings
and descriptions that apply to modern issues are sparse. Many revenue
collectors (certainly those who collect `modern’ material) will have
sympathy for these suggestions.
However how is the problem
to be addressed? Would there be sub-classes for classic and modern material?
Would there be separate judging teams? What about exhibits that include
classic and modern material - I have to confess that most of my revenue
exhibits do this!
Some have suggested that
revenues exhibits could either focus on a `traditional’ class approach with
an emphasis upon perforations, papers, watermarks and the like or a `postal
history’ approach with the emphasis upon the use of documents and rates of
duty charged etc.
It is interesting to note
that very few revenue exhibitors to date have taken what could be termed a
modified `topic’ approach. This would take a revenue theme across a number
of issuing authorities. For example beer duty, taxes on horses, passport
stamps, cypher labels etc. Would a sub-class encourage new exhibits?
Several Australian
collectors and exhibitors would like to see railway stamps become part of
the revenue class. The accepted class in which to show these is
`traditional’, on the grounds that they represent a special form of `local’
post and because the SREVs for the traditional class contain the phrase `an
exhibit will be considered to be traditional philately unless it is
otherwise entered as an exhibit in one of the specialised FIP classes’. The
problem is that railway stamps, although clearly representing an acceptable
collecting field, do not present well when located among frames of classic
traditional material. Whether they would fare better in revenues or not is a
point for discussion. True there is a fee for transport of the item but that
is close to arguing that any payment for postage is a fee and is therefore
technically acceptable as a revenue!
The aim of these comments is
to stimulate you to let us know your views on changes or additions to the
current rules and regulations.
The Bureau and its Members
Ron
Lesher was elected Chairman at Singapore in 2004 with Ralph Ebner (Germany)
as Secretary and Kurt Kimmel (Switzerland), Dingle Smith (Australia) and
Eugenio Berisso (Argentina) as Bureau Members. In late 2006 Ralph resigned
as Secretary and as a Bureau Member.
At Espana 2006 held in
Malaga in October, Kurt Kimmel took on the role of Secretary and Dingle
Smith agreed to editor the inaugural Commission Newsletter.
The Congress at Malaga
passed a resolution that permitted Commissions to appoint two additional new
members to each FIP Commission.
It is a pleasure to report
that Joaquin Amado (Spain) has accepted an invitation to join the Revenue
Bureau and it is hoped that an additional member will also be recruited from
a FIAP member country.
Elections for all FIP
Bureaux will be held at the FIP Congress to be held at Efiro 08 in Bucharest
in June 2008. Kurt Kimmel has indicated that he will not stand again and we
will be actively searching for a new Secretary as well as other Bureau
members and active national delegates from all FIP member nations.
Biographical accounts for
Kurt Kimmel, Ron Lesher & Dingle Smith are given below.
Kurt E. Kimmel
Born March 17, 1941, in
Budapest,
Swiss nationality, married
with two children. Since 1991 domiciled in Massagno Switzerland.
Professional
Career
Swiss private banker,
chairman of several companies and charitable trusts which support
international music and art organizations, AIDS research, etc.
Philatelic
Postage stamp collector
since the age of six, formed notable collections in different language areas
with outstanding exhibits from a range of FIP classes. Many of these have achieved LG FIP
awards.
The selection below demonstrates
the range and quality of these exhibits.
Austrian-Italy 1850-1866
includes the Grand Prix Youth International, Hamburg, 1959, and LG Tokyo
1991. Ceylon with LG for traditional displays (Korea 94, Espana 04, Grand
Prix of Swiss National; Exhibition (Baden 06), LG Ceylon Postal Stationery
(San Francisco 97, London 00).
Venezuela with exhibits in
traditional, postal history, aero and revenues. Awards include LG
Traditional (Malaga
06), Revenues Escuelas 1879-1880 (LG Kerkrade, NL 05).
Lombardy-Venetia, postal
history (G Moscow 97, G Milano 98, G Sindelfingen 99, Revenues of
Lombardy-Venetia LG (Zimbra 05, LG Baden 06).
Other exhibits include
Electric Telegraph in Switzerland, 1853-86) Meyrin 05 and Postal History of
Yunnan, China.
Publications
Contributions to a range of
national and international publications, including SG and Scott catalogue
sections on Ceylon Pence Period and Venezuela 1840-1940.Tapling Medal 1991
for studies proving the Ceylon 1d 1857-1867 were printed from two different
plates.
Judging
A Swiss national juror since
1965 and President of Swiss National Jury in 1995. An established FIP judge
and team leader in traditional philately, postal history and postal
stationery and Vice-President of International Jury at Praga 98 and Bangkok
03.
FIP
Commissions
FIP Postal History
Commission, Secretary 2000-2004,
FIP Revenue Commission,
Member of Bureau 2004-2006, Secretary 2006-2008.
Proposed member of FIP
Expert Team.
Contributions to Philatelic
Organisations
President of the Swiss
Postal History Society. President of the Ceylon Study Circle.
From 1972 expert Swiss
National Expert federation, later also BPP & ALEP
Awards
APS Luff Award for
Distinguished Philatelic Research 2004, Roll of Distinguished Philatelists
2004 and Prof. Brűhl Medal for contributions to philately, 2005.
Ron E. Lesher
Born December 1, 1942 USA,
resident in Maryland since 1993.
Professional Career
Retired from New Jersey
Department of Education; currently High School teacher.
Philatelic
Collector since 1956; has
formed postage stamp collections of United States, Netherlands, and Russia.
Exhibitor at the National Federation level since 1972.
Numerous vermeil or higher
level multi-frame revenue exhibits, including Maryland State Revenues,
Pennsylvania Beer Stamps, Lock Seals. Several one-frame exhibits of Meat
Inspection and Taxation of Distilled Spirits, 1791 - 1802 have achieved
vermeil or higher awards. In 2002 his exhibit of U.S. Wine stamps appeared
in the Champion of Champions competition at APS Stamp Show, Columbus, Ohio.
At the international level
has exhibited Two Cent Revenue Stamped Paper of the United States,
1865-1883; United States Distilled Spirits, 1868 - 1896; and Wine: U.S.
Customs Duties and Internal Revenue Taxes, each achieving a large vermeil or
higher award.
Publications
Writer, has published
numerous articles in State Revenue Newsletter, The American Revenuer, and
The American Philatelist. Wrote a column for five years under the name of
Roscoe Irwin for Stamp Collector; regular columnist for Scott Stamp Monthly.
Contributed section on Revenues to The Philatelic Exhibitors Handbook
2006.
Judging
Accredited APS judge since
1988; accredited FIP revenue judge since 2004
FIP
Commissions
FIP Revenue Commission,
Member of Bureau (1998 - present), FIP Revenue Commission, Chairman (2004 -
present)
Contributions to Philatelic
Organisations
President, American Revenue
Association (1992 - 2000)
Director, State Revenue
Society. Director-at-Large, American Philatelic Society (2001 - 2005)
Organizer of seminars on
revenues presented nationally and internationally; taught APS Stamp Seminars
on Introduction to Revenues and Advanced Revenues.
David I.
Smith (`Dingle’)
Born, February 16 1935,
London UK, two children, since 1976 resident in Canberra, Australia.
Professional Career
University teacher in
geography and environmental, research into water and water policy, retired
from the Australian National University in 2000
Philatelic
Serious collector since
mid-1970s, current interests include Australian States revenues, Jamaican
postal stationery, aerophilately, thematics and maximaphily linked to
water resources. First exhibited at national level in 1982 and
internationally in 1984.
Vermeil and better medals at
national levels in Australia and New Zealand in most exhibiting classes.
Jamaica Postal Stationery G Washington 06, LS medals for revenues of NSW and
for Queensland.
Publications
Contributions to
international and national journals, including The Revenue Journal of
GB,
on a variety of topics. Joint author with RC Peck of The Revenue and
Railway Stamps of New South Wales (1999). Editor of Capital Philately,
1989-1998.
Frequent contributor and,
since 1988, member of the editorial team of The Asia-Pacific Exhibitor.
Judging
Qualified as National Judge
in Australia 1986, Jury Chairman at Canberra 1998, 2000 and 2002, Newcastle
1997, completed FIP Apprenticeship in Postal Stationery at Tokyo 2003.
Judge PS and Revenues
Pacific Explorer, Sydney 2005.
FIP
Commissions.
FIP Revenue Commission, Member of Bureau
1998-present.
Contributions to Organised
Philately
Member of ACT Philatelic Council 1979 to
present, currently Secretary.
Member of organizing committee for
biennial stampshows in Canberra 1982 to present.
President Philatelic Society of Canberra
1983-4.
Convener for interNational Association for
Philatelic Exhibitors (NAPE) from its formation in 1988.
Awards
Member of Philatelic Order of Australia
1996.
Meetings of the FIP Revenue Commission
Minutes of meetings of the
FIP Revenue Commission held at Singapore in September 2004 and in Malaga in
2006 are presented below.
Commission
Conference September 1, 2004, Singapore
1.
Commission Chairman Ron Lesher welcomed the Delegates, Observers and Guests.
He asks the
Secretary Ralph Ebner to keep the minutes
and for a Roll Call which revealed that the guest from India had no valid
proxy. After hearing the explanations, the FIP Board member in charge of the
FIP Revenue Commission, Charles Peterson, decided that the guest from India
could represent the Indian Federation. Therefore, 13 nations were
represented.
2.
Report of the Acting Chairman:
Ron Lesher reported on the outline of educational seminars that members of
the Bureau are willing to conduct at FIP shows and other national shows. The
seminar consists of: (1) an introductory “What are revenues?” (2) a
specialized presentation, such as “Collecting, Mounting and Exhibiting
Documents”, and (3) a sampling of the revenues of the country in which the
seminar is held. The importance of building support groups at the national
level was emphasized. While most countries reported few individuals actively
collecting revenues, there are societies that have been quite successful,
notably the American Revenue Association, the Revenue Society of Great
Britain and a German research team for revenues. Additionally, it is
recognized that the preparation of catalogues are a very important part of
encouraging the collecting of revenues. Joe Ross of California has been
working with individuals in several countries to publish catalogues. Iraq,
Jordan, Qatar and El Salvador have been recently published. The Acting
Chairman concluded with a brief report on the need for new judges, training
and consensus building.
3.
Report on Activities from National Federations:
The delegates of the following thirteen nations reported on the status of
collecting revenues: Malaysia, Singapore, Norway, Argentina, New Zealand,
Cyprus, Finland, Switzerland, Netherlands, India, Germany, Australia and the
United States.
4. Bureau Nominations and
Election:
Nominations were as follows:
Chairman: Ron
Lesher US
Secretary:
Ralph Ebner, Germany
FEPA:
Kurt Kimmel, Switzerland
FIAF:
R. Bicahlo, Brazil; Eugenio Berisso, Argentina
FIAP:
Dingle Smith, Australia; Muhtu Chellapan, Malaysia
Charles Peterson of the FIP
Board supervised the election with the following result:
Chairman:
Ron Lesher, US
Secretary:
Ralph Ebner, Germany
FEPA:
Kurt Kimmel, Switzerland
FIAF:
Eugenio Berisso, Argentina
FIAP:
Dingle Smith, Australia
5.
The meeting concluded with two presentations:
“What are Revenues?“ by Dingle Smith and “An Exploration of Importance” by
Ronald Lesher.
Commission Conference
October 12, 2006, Malaga/Spain 10.15-11.45
1. Commission Chairman
Ron Lesher welcomed the Delegates, Observers and Guests. He asked Kurt
Kimmel, as the only Bureau member present, to keep the minutes. Bureau
member Dingle Smith (Australia) sent his apologies.
Apologies had not been
received from Secretary Ralph Ebner (Germany) or Bureau Member Eugenio
Berisso (Argentina).
2. The Roll Call
could not take place because the Secretary had not sent the List of
Commission members promised for the end of June 2006.
3. The minutes of the
Commission Conference in Singapore 2004 could not be approved because
the Secretary did not send them although requested to do so several times.
Francis Kiddle (UK) reminded the Bureau that keeping minutes is a duty of
the FIP Commissions. Charles Peterson as Director of FIP in charge of the
Revenue Commission considers this a serious problem and intends to take this
matter up with the FIP Board.
4.
The Commission Chairman reported on the activities of the Bureau: We
made good progress on getting the list of delegates completed as far as
possible. However, we have still not achieved the publication of a
newsletter although the Secretary promised to do this by end of August 2006.
The hope is to at least circulate the newsletter as an email attachment and
if possible to produce a website by the end of September 2006.
A Bureau meeting was held
after the Commission Meeting at WASHINGTON 2006. Different opinions
concerning “Postal Notes or Money Orders” were expressed in NAPE (Asia
Pacific Exhibitor bulletin), but the Bureau decided not to add it to the
list of Revenues as these are already listed as Postal Stationery, however,
to permit such items in Revenue exhibits if properly treated as revenue
items.
Thoughts on Revenues and
philatelic Importance written by the Chairman and expanded by Kurt Kimmel
were published in NAPE nos.66 and 67. The Chairman plans to organise a
Revenue judging seminar in the fall of 2007 either at the RPS in London or
the CC in New York.
5. Reports from the
Federations show
that in most countries there are only few Revenue collectors of which less
than five are exhibitors, except Spain, the UK and USA with over 100 Revenue
collectors and where enough material is available. The Commission Chairman
encourages the delegates to organise more seminars at national levels in
order to promote Revenue collecting.
6. There
are no proposals from Federations.
7. Next Commission meeting:
Bucarest, Romania probably 28.6.2008 After closing the meeting the Chairman
presented a paper concerning Revenue Exhibits which was followed by
discussion.
Revenue
Display at Efiro 2008
The
next FIP Congress will be held at Efiro 2008 in Bucharest, Romania from
15-22 June. We are delighted to announce that Francisc Ambrus will give an
illustrated talk, in English at the Exhibition, entitled The Revenue
Stamps of
Romania. Similar
presentations introducing the revenue stamps of the host nation were given
at Espana 2004 in Barcelona, Pacific Explorer 2005 in Sydney and Washington
2006. These provide an important focus for all revenue enthusiasts
home |