Talk:Cover (philately)

Assessment reduction

I disagree with downgrading this from a start-class to a stub. A stub is a short article of a few sentences or maybe one or two paragraphs, while this is significantly better than that with quite a bit of information already. Stamp tongs is a stub but this is not. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I’ve done an edit of the article and now placed project to start. StampOnIt (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

History of cover collecting

Since this article is about collecting, it would benefit from an additional section briefly summarizing the history of cover collecting. At the moment it only defines the subject without giving much idea about how the field developed. Also, I think a gallery of the different types of covers that are popularly collected would be a good idea; I'd be happy to scan and add some from my own collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulliux (talk • contribs) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

John Wise

re: authorized first flights: Ww2censor, where are you getting the idea that John Wise carried US mail without authorization? Gwillhickers 20:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that the US is so important that it is the only place where first flights take place and the Confederate States is the only place where censorship took place? Try reading the article about him, as well as the Mackay, James A. (1971). Airmails 1870–1970. pp. 17–18. ISBN 0-7134-0380-2. Is that not a first flight? Besides which who said authorisation is necessary in all instances? ww2censor (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the US "is the only", and that is not what I asked you. Again, where are you getting the idea that Wise flew mail without authorization from the US post office? When has ANYONE delivered the mail without authorization in modern times (1840 onwards)? Perhaps, somewhere, you can dig up a freak exception to the rule, (though I doubt it) but my original statement regarding authorization is the rule, and was a correct statement. Also, I did read the article about Wise. Not a word about how he came to fly the mail without authorization. You asked me to read the article. To what passage were you referring to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's something you might find interesting:

"The first official US airmail delivery took place sixty-six years later, on August 17, 1859. On that day, veteran balloonist John Wise (1808-1879) carried 123 letters and twenty-three circulars from Lafayette to Crawfordsville, Indiana, a distance of thirty miles, in his balloon 'Jupiter. " Smithsonian National Postal Museum -- I think it is safe to assume that Wise's official flight had authorization. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Delivery is not a necessary requirement for a first flight as you suggest though it may be an aspiration: carrying is the point. While I will not waste my time trying to find a freak exception as you suggest, you have no source to support you statement that an FFC must have authorisation even if it is the majority scenario. However, there are many instances where mail has been carried by favour on first flights without any post office authorisation. Are you telling me these are not FFCs? Yes, I am well aware of Wise's official mail carrying flight of August 17, 1859 (it is one of the citations on the Wise page for the staement) but I did not gave you the proper source for his unofficial mail carrying flight of 17 July 1859 where he carried a mailbag of Pacific mail entrusted him by American Express per this. What I actually gave you was the citation for the same 123 letters he carried later in 1859. Anyway, besides favour carried covers, I am certain that during the pioneer period there are other examples of unauthorised mail carrying flights, if not in the US then elsewhere. Your claim that all first flight were authorised certainly appears unverified and is suspect, unless you have a source or perhaps this is synthesis? Please don't make blanket statements that are not verified and. BTW there is no need to keep posting me that you have here where a discussion is already taking place. ww2censor (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If an item was carried as a favor by an individual aboard such a flight there would be no way to ID the cover as a First Flight Cover if it wasn't postmarked and handled by the PO or whatever official entity was in charge. And if it was so handled the PO in question would be obligated to deliver it. But that wasn't your original issue, it was over authorization and your contention that Wise's flight was unofficial when you used this claim to object to my statement "..carried on an authorized aircraft for the first time". Wise's flight was official, contrary to your objection: "rubbish ... who authorized that?" Any aircraft that carried mail for the first (or any) time on an official mail route has been authorized by the given country's postal administration / government. FFC's are covers flown on an official mail route by a pilot and aircraft authorized to do so. How else would a pilot, or anyone, take possession of the country's mail, during the pioneer period or at any period, without such authorization? As for 'Pacific mail' and American Express, if they were in possession of US mail then they were authorized and it would indeed be interesting to learn the details of their official arrangement with Wise. The reference you cited was no help. If it was a load of private envelopes with no stamps or postmarks that never saw a post office, then we are not referring to US mail but something else entirely. i.e.Private mail. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Still banging the same old drum. Survey flights, favour carried mail and unofficial flight all may carry mail and post it at destination thereby making the route authorised or offical is nt a necessary requirement for a first flight. I was just reading Irish Airmails 1919-1990 and there are several examples of favour carried and some survey flights that were not necessarily official mail routes, yet, at all or ever, but were still first flight over that route. There is no need for you to keep insisting on the narrow description you wan to inflict on readers. I'm done here. ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about two types of first flight covers. Ones that were flown i.e. on survey flights and ones flown on official airmail routes for the first time. First Flight Covers generally refer to the latter. In all cases if the pilot and aircraft were carrying official i.e. US, UK mail and were given permission by the PO or government officials in question, then the flight and aircraft were authorized. This is not something I am simply "insisting on", this is a fact. Again, my original statement regarding "authorized aircraft" was correct, and certainly did not merit your exclamatory and erroneous misrepresentation of the statement, then or now. As for US-centric links, here I must agree with you and will be more mindful of that in the future. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I told you I am done here, so waffle on as much as you like, you are wrong, I am really done! You said it yourself: ""First Flight Covers generally refer to the latter. ww2censor (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I also said that "in all cases" any mail flown for the government is an authorized affair and contrary to your digressive characterizations that remains a fact. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This article - Cover (philately) - and the article Philatelic cover should be merged. This article is older and has far more links into it, so I think it should be the surviving article, all things being equal. But it depends on what people think is the better name, of course. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A Philatelic Cover is a distinct form of cover produced specifically for collectors and that article gives a list of the characteristics of a philatelic cover which distinguish them from covers generally. The articles could be merged but it would take some care to ensure the distinction is not lost in the merge. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy if it were made clear, in both articles, that philatelic covers are just one type of cover. However, how should first day covers, event covers, and commemorative covers be treated - are these all subtypes of philatelic covers? Are these sometimes philatelic covers and sometimes not? More generally, why isn't philatelic cover listed within the section Cover (philately)#Categories, rather than being listed in the "See also" section? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, first day covers, event covers and commemorative covers are all types of philatelic cover, with the minor exception that some commercial mail may also be a first day cover by chance. I don't follow your last point. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the merger.--PremKudva^Talk 06:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, don't be quite so hasty. We can and should add a short section about Philatelic covers to Cover (philately) with a section hatnote linking to the main article. If we were to merge philatelic covers to here, then by the same reasoning some of the other types of covers, such as event cover in particular, and even the Zeppelin mail & First Flight mail sections (the former has its own article and the later could do with one) would need to be upmerged here too to make this fully comprehensive of all types of covers and do away with the individual articles. And let's not forget some of the "See also" items. That would be rather foolish and unproductive. Either way, much of the prose in philatelic cover is unsourced and needs citations, while some types of covers need their own articles or improvement to those that exist. ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I undid the premature merging of these articles. Please allow sufficient time for discussion. It is not as obvious as the proposer thinks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like main article is this one, and that there are two basic types of coves: philatelic and non-philatelic (or "philatelic" and "other"). Within the philatelic covers type are first day covers, event covers, and commemorative covers. Within the non-philatelic type are everything else? (WP:SS may be relevant to how to handle this.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged, and that maybe some of the confusion stems from the choice of disambiguator - a cover is a cover whether or not philatelists take an interest (for instance it's still a "cover" when it's stampless and purely postal history material). Perhaps rename to "cover (post)" or some such? Stan (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it but there is useful content in the Philatelic Cover article, particularly the sections on identifying them, which should not be lost. It could be renamed Philatelic Mail? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in which case Cover (philately) should be renamed as Postal cover instead. Postal cover currently redirects here.--PremKudva^Talk 05:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Philatelic cover" is exactly the term that is commonly used, and it designates a well-defined concept, so I don't think that part should change. "Cover" is just one of those words that ends up used to mean a dozen different things, and at least in the postal history / philatelic world, it is always used without a further qualifier. So I don't think there is any multi-word combo that is a good substitute, and in such cases we favor the trailing parenthesized phrase as disambiguator. "(philately)" is adequate but leads to the confusion we are discussing here, "(postal history)" is OK but seems like it has a too-narrow connotation, "(post)" or "(postal)" is more general but not too much so, plus it references the general name of the category under which all this material sits. Stan (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Stan the argument here is about the article - "Cover (philately)", since it seems similar to Philatelic cover a merger was asked for. The latter article says "A philatelic cover is an envelope or post card prepared with a stamp(s) and address and sent through the mail delivery system for the purpose of creating a collectible item." in the first sentence, the former says "In philately, the term cover pertains to the outside of an envelope or package with an address,..." So for this article I am assuming a postal cover is one that is used and discarded away. On the other hand if it was written by or to a famous person it becomes a collectable and hence a philatelic cover. Since many editors here want to maintain that difference, I feel Cover (philately) should be renamed Postal cover to keep it expressly different from the latter article. The contradictory phrases should be removed from the former article, like FDC, event covers, and commemorative since that instantly makes it a philatelic cover and not a non-collectable cover.

If the articles shouldn't be merged then cover (philately) should be renamed postal cover. Postal cover should only be about covers used to send items from point A to B and then discarded and all references to philatelic covers should moved to philatelic cover. --PremKudva^Talk 04:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree strongly Premkudva| but i don't think you understand the differences between the two terms, besides which the WP:COMMONNAME is cover, not postal cover, a term no collector or dealer ever uses. Cover is the term for all covers, whether they are collected, discarded or written by notable people, while philatelic covers, or philatelic mail are essentially fabricated for, or by, the collecting community. And indeed, philatelic mail should be mentioned in the cover article and linked to the philatelic cover article though that may better renamed as philatelic mail. ww2censor (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ww2censor, from what you have mentioned, does mention of FDC and such "fabricated for, or by, the collecting community" covers deserve a mention be in cover (philately) (as it does now) or in philatelic cover? Also going through both articles it is easy to not understand the differences between the two when a philatelic cover as you describe is mentioned in cover (philately). Which is why I suppose the original request for this merge.--PremKudva^Talk 07:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, in the article Cover (philately) there should be a short section to summarise what Philatelic mail is, with some basic information and possibly listing some types, and linking to the full article. Besides which both articles need some copyediting. Of course FDC and other "fabricated covers" should be in the main cover article. Remember that originally FDCs were not made specifically for collectors, were usually very plain and were treated like regular mail (like this File:Stamp GB-Penny Black first day cover.jpg) while nowadays we see FDCs with fancy cachets and cancels (like this File:Magyar kitüntetéses bélyegek borítékon2.jpg). Remember that all philatelic mail are still just types of covers. ww2censor (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Ww2censor, for the copyedit of both articles I don't think there is anyone better equipped or experienced than you.--PremKudva^Talk 10:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support Philatelic mail which seems well disambiguated, is not an awkward phrase and is a factually accurate description of the article subject. And Cover (philately) to be retained. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

*Agree--PremKudva^Talk 10:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Philatelic mail is a redirect here (I just changed the target from Cover (philately). Philafrenzy (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A philatelic cover is an envelope or post card - wrong definition

A philatelic cover is an envelope but certainly not a postcard (A postcard made for philately is a philatelic postcard). See also pages and their distinct definition: Postcard and Cover (philately).Arno-nl (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cover (philately). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723080537/http://www.stamps.net/posthist.htm to http://www.stamps.net/posthist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory

"Because of all the fanfare surrounding the Zeppelins most of mail carried aboard were Zeppelin first flight covers.Much of the funding for the Zeppelin delivery system was generated by collectors and other enthusiasts of the period. Because of the fast mail delivery service there was a lot of commercial mail aboard these vessels." Now what? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Anvilaquarius: I've no idea what you are trying to say but this article is not about Zeppelin mail but about covers in general. Are you suggesting a specific edit for the appropriate article or what? ww2censor (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Most mail on the Zeppelin where first flight covers. 2. A lot of commercial mail was on these vessels. Now what? Was Zeppelin mail about collectors or about being quick and hence commercially viable? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Anvilaquarius: So what has your unsupported unverified statement got to do with this article? ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong redirection?

Have a look at where this talk page is redirected? Talk:Philatelic cover 2A02:AA1:1615:BCF4:B55F:F825:4AE9:BA0F (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You could actually have fixed this! ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved