GBStamp.co.uk

One major difference is often the time frame of mail studied by postal historians. Pure philatelists - who confine their interest to stamps alone - can only begin their studies from 1840 onward after the postal reforms credited to Sir Rowland Hill paved the way for the Penny Black, now acknowledged as the world's first postage stamp. Postal historians, however, often study the mail services, associated rates and postal markings from much earlier, before stamps were used on mail.

But I would argue that many philatelists often confine their interest to specific periods of time much later than 1840, so why would studying items before that date - the so called pre-stamp period - preclude postal history from being included within the all encompassing term of philately? After all, philately does not mean stamp collecting. Pure philately is the actual study of stamps - whether or not you collect them - and the mail services they were used to pay for.

If the airplane were invented before 1840 would aero-philately - the study of air mail stamps, covers, routes and history - be called something else other than philately because postage stamps were not in use for part of the period of study?

Most major philatelic society competitions now welcome exhibits in to an "open class" competition where, typically, the rules allow up to half the content in an entry to be related items and ephemera to help illustrate the subject of the exhibit rather than stamps alone. If high level competitive philately recognises that good collections aren't just about stamps, then that seems to underpin my view that postal history is simply one of the many specialisations encompassed by philately.

In reality the majority of readers will be collectors first and foremost. Most wont object to being called either a collector, a philatelist or a postal historian. So what's in a name? Just carry on doing what interests you!

Tweet