主題 : 參加國際郵展必讀
級別: 討論區版主

UID: 164
精華: 7
發帖: 67107
升級點數: 29537 點
金錢: 267184 金幣
線上時間: 10192(時)
註冊時間: 2005-07-30
最後登錄: 2021-12-04
樓主  發表於: 2016-09-03 20:55



If proof were needed that the International Federation of Philately (FIP) jury system is broken,
one has to look no further than last month’s results from the World Stamp Show-NY 2016 philatelic extravaganza
 in New York City. Some aspects beg for closer examination in bright sunlight. 
A social gathering for members of Dutch philatelic groups took place the evening of the day exhibit awards were announced.
Obviously this became the focus of many conversations. 
It soon became apparent that almost every exhibit of Dutch material, or by Dutch exhibitors, had been taken down one and
sometimes two levels from awards earned at previous FIP shows. A few exhibits retained their previous levels, but not one exhibit
received a higher award.
A similar pattern became apparent with exhibits that had previously been judged under Federation of European Philatelic Associations
 rules. What could be the cause? 
My own exhibit on World War II mail handling in the Netherlands and Dutch colonies was demoted from a gold for five frames in Singapore
(August 2015) to a large vermeil for eight frames in New York. This despite the fact that I had added choice items from two recently
acquired collections. 
RELATED: Which exhibit took top honors at World Stamp Show-NY 2016?
I and others knowledgeable felt it was a much stronger exhibit. But I was told by one high jury official that the additional frames “looked
a little thin.” Such an analysis is hardly a basis for downgrading the more complex larger exhibit, and I have to believe this was
a smoke screen to hide lack of knowledge about the subject.  
One exhibitor with a three-time FIP large gold stationery exhibit (96 points, 97 points, and 96 points with special prizes)
was dropped to a gold with 92 points in New York. Checking the palmares showed that all three large gold awards in this
category went to Australian exhibitors. Several other exhibits that received an FIP large gold at a previous show were reduced to gold.
Yet another Dutch exhibitor who had received a gold award at Portugal 2010 was reduced 10 points and two medal levels to a vermeil in New York. 
He had not been able to attend the show, but he contacted the heads of the jury by email. He was told that the FIP had no record of his previous
 accomplishment, but it turned out that the FIP had simply failed to post the result to its database. Even so, why should judging have to depend on
a database if it were competent, fair and consistent?
It is my understanding that British exhibits in the postal history class were also badly treated. And there were said to have been many other examples. 
Discussing the judging process and jury appointments in public has long been taboo, especially when the commentary is critical. And for the unfortunate
 person who does this, the “reward” is likely to bring an end to having his or her exhibits accepted at FIP shows; and if an FIP judge, no more invitations
to judge at FIP shows.
In this way the FIP insiders have been remarkably successful in silencing critics, which prevents people watching the parade from seeing the king
in his naked state. And yet it is well-known by those who must work with the FIP that there is great dissatisfaction with the way that the FIP
operates and makes demands on international shows. And there is much frustration among exhibitors with FIP judging. 
While the New York show was still going on, and based on what happened in the exhibiting segment, I sent an email to jury
president Peter McCann, jury secretary Steve Reinhard, honorary jury chairman Bob Odenweller, and commissioner general
Steve Schumann, requesting clarification about the drastic reductions in medal levels and furthermore if there was a parallel
with exhibits from other countries. 
To their credit, Odenweller and especially Reinhard tried to address the many questions created by the questionable judging.
In my view, the judging problems are caused by a number of factors. 
First, some FIP judges with FIP positions judge so often that they have become the arbiters of what is acceptable, and what the rules mean.
Other judges who judge far less often dare not contradict them, or they will find themselves with no more invitations.
Second, some of these insider judges (not the Americans, as far as I know) take the imperative to try to assure that their countrymen are
fairly treated — to the extreme of pushing those results up and pushing other results down. I have heard many stories. So much for impartiality.
Third, judges are barely accountable to the exhibitors as they are in the United States, where exhibitors can ask for feedback in a public forum,
 and can and do complain loudly if they don’t get satisfactory answers.
At FIP shows, there is only a two-hour period at the end of the show where judges are to be available at the frames their team judged,
 and if they say the most outrageous and unhelpful things, as noted above, they are not held accountable.
Fourth, it seems that bloc voting has invaded the FIP. I saw that in New York, especially in the grand prix results. And FIP leadership
encourages that dynamic by whom they choose to put on each jury. In that way, “horse-trading” goes on and results can be manipulated. 
Fifth, even the competence of judges has to be examined. Many judges from small nations have little judging experience because
their countries have no or only one large exhibition in a year, and their small amount of judging experience is limited to their own specialty.
Contrast this with the United States or England or Canada where there are multiple exhibitions and judges are required to judge the entire show.
Yet the countries with judges who have significant experience are limited to a single judge (beyond the FIP insiders) so that all the small countries
 with only a few FIP-accredited judges can also have a judging slot.
Never mind that the great majority of the exhibits come from those same countries where the judges are truly broad and experienced.
Need I add that judges from the small nations who judge much more frequently at FIP shows are the ones most likely to rise to team leader status.
Finally, the practice now followed in the United States is that exhibitors are expected, even required, to submit a synopsis to assist the judges i
n understanding what the exhibitor has accomplished; this is not required by the FIP.
For World Stamp Show, several exhibitors provided synopsis pages that for some reason did not make it to the judges; and for those that did,
FIP rules do not require that the judges actually read them.
The totality of this situation — or set of situations — is that exhibitors who work hard and over many years put hard-won resources into their
 exhibits are not fairly treated.
Many of my Dutch group were on a limited budget. They wanted to attend World Stamp Show-NY 2016, and they made financial sacrifices to do so.
They paid very high frame fees to participate and often stayed in a cheap motel in New Jersey, taking a bus into Manhattan each day
. No one complained because everyone came for the love of the hobby. 
These are people that the FIP elite should be grateful to. These are the people paying the bills, and there should be more emphasis on making
certain that the judging is fair to them, and totally free of elitism. 
The entrenched FIP elite has done much damage to the hobby. I have talked to many exhibitors since the New York show, and too many are unhappy.
A significant number swear they will never participate in an FIP event again. 
One thing, to me, is certain: These wonderful collectors, these incredibly knowledgeable philatelists, deserve better. 
In my view, it is time for a big broom to sweep out the FIP establishment as was done with FIFA, soccer’s international governing body.
If that is not possible, we ought to consider some alternative process outside of the FIP for international exhibitions.
源自 USA Linn's Stamp News 2016 七月刊

級別: 討論區版主

UID: 1159
精華: 26
發帖: 24929
升級點數: 7108 點
金錢: 114979 金幣
線上時間: 4394(時)
註冊時間: 2005-09-02
最後登錄: 2021-11-17
1樓  發表於: 2016-09-04 10:39

The voices of the losers !!
]☆☆圖文版權所有☆☆ E_MAIL   [email protected] 編者按:本文僅供參考之用,並不構成要約、招攬或邀請、誘使、任何不論種類或形式之申述或訂立任何建議及推薦,讀者務請運用個人獨立思考能力,自行作出投資決定,如因相關建議招致損失,概與編者無涉。 https://www.facebook.com/groups/543645966105110/
級別: 郵務工
UID: 7125
精華: 0
發帖: 127
升級點數: 52 點
金錢: 582 金幣
線上時間: 63(時)
註冊時間: 2015-10-17
最後登錄: 2021-11-24
2樓  發表於: 2016-09-04 11:50

級別: 郵務佐
UID: 6145
精華: 0
發帖: 707
升級點數: 327 點
金錢: 2865 金幣
線上時間: 547(時)
註冊時間: 2012-08-25
最後登錄: 2021-09-09
3樓  發表於: 2016-09-19 10:22

"No one complained because everyone came for the love of the hobby. "..............what about you?

"A significant number swear they will never participate in an FIP event again." = "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
級別: 郵務員
UID: 83
精華: 6
發帖: 1499
升級點數: 972 點
金錢: 5949 金幣
線上時間: 362(時)
註冊時間: 2004-03-04
最後登錄: 2019-10-08
4樓  發表於: 2016-12-10 02:34

這位老美我在新加坡才認識. 他的5框首次參加世展就拿金, 可以說是世界奇蹟! 在亞洲5框要拿金如同登天. 他沒說為何他會拿金.  
因為他的展集與我有相同之處, 我特別去仔細看了, 好巧印尼一位參展人也在場, 他說他早看過了! 他也要組一步同樣參展! 意思是難度不高! 他的想法跟我一樣.
這位老美錯了. 我的荷屬東印度航空是獲得金牌的, 並非所有與荷蘭有關的郵集通通槓龜, 沒有人拿金或是全部降級減分. 他這次好像是當徵集又當義工, 應該是期盼更上一層樓拿個大金. 出錢又出力, 反而被降分, 心中的不滿可想而知!
據我所知, 這位老美是紐約集郵家俱樂部的會員, 發表過郵文, 這個高級郵會的會員一向自我感覺良好! 他沒當過評審, 很多事是他不知道的:
1. 5框得到金牌, 8框未必得金, 因為展集的濃度會被稀釋, 況且他的分數差5分是在可以接受的範圍之內!
2. 他沒有注意到展集內容的均衡! 他分3部分: 荷蘭, 荷屬東印度, 荷屬西印度.他展出太少的荷屬西印度封片! 再者廉價品太多.
3. 評審團是各國評審組成的, 不可能打壓特定國家!
4. 他說大國, 英美加的評審有經驗, 這是哪番道理?
5. FIP不接受Synopsis(說帖), 影響分數! 這次台北世展有位參展人提供了13頁的說帖, 如果每位參展人都如此, 評審資料將會有數萬張! 主辦單
6. 失敗一次就氣餒! 建議他, 再接受評審或是其他人的建議, 再參展, 否則就不要參展!
級別: 討論區版主

UID: 1159
精華: 26
發帖: 24929
升級點數: 7108 點
金錢: 114979 金幣
線上時間: 4394(時)
註冊時間: 2005-09-02
最後登錄: 2021-11-17
5樓  發表於: 2016-12-11 00:07

林教授說的話       金言玉語      參加國際郵展必讀   !!!
]☆☆圖文版權所有☆☆ E_MAIL   [email protected] 編者按:本文僅供參考之用,並不構成要約、招攬或邀請、誘使、任何不論種類或形式之申述或訂立任何建議及推薦,讀者務請運用個人獨立思考能力,自行作出投資決定,如因相關建議招致損失,概與編者無涉。 https://www.facebook.com/groups/543645966105110/
Time now is:12-04 15:10, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v7.3 Certificate Game Code © 2003-09 PHPWind.com Corporation style by xiaoqiang.name