A difficult card
Do stamp collectors ever look at the rates applied to mail items? With a little goodwill and the aid of a rate list, an ordinary piece of mail can either be labeled as 'manufactured work' or not. Determining whether the current rates for domestic and international mail have been applied correctly is not that difficult. We check the TNT Post website and lo and behold, everything laid out.
But what can we do if we get our hands on a piece of mail, a top-shelf piece of 'craftsmanship'? The card was sent from the Netherlands on May 15, 1951, to Tjerebon (present-day Kota Cirebon, a major port city on the north coast of West Java. The name is in Sundanese and means shrimp river) in Indonesia. Not everyone has a price list from that time!
First, let's take a closer look at the map. A complete series of summer stamps, issued on May 15, 1951,
stamped with a 'first day of issue' stamp. Additionally, three more stamps,
A red one relating to a special flight from Eindhoven to Amsterdam-Schiphol, a stamp from Amsterdam-Schiphol Airport, a stamp made of plastic especially for this occasion. And underneath that, a Philips stamp with an adjustable date. Also a registration slip from the Philips internal post office and a specially manufactured airmail slip. A motley collection!
However, the then State-owned PTT company had arranged everything in a Service Order dated May 1, 1951: 1. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken in Eindhoven, various festivities will be organized there from May 15 to May 21, for which certain facilities will be provided by the PTT service. 2. These consist, among other things, of the establishment of temporary branch offices and the provision of special stamps. 3. The following temporary branch offices will be established from May 15 to May 19, 1951: a. in the reception hall of the said NV on de Jonglaan; b. at the Stamp Exhibition in the Kindergarten on Mathildelaan; c. at the Eindhoven Market; d. in the Stadswandelpark. 4. At these branch offices, an opportunity will be provided to submit ordinary and registered mail.
5. As a special feature, all items franked with summer stamps (1951 issue) delivered to these branch offices on May 15, 1951, will be provided with an impression of a stamp containing the indication “1st day of issue Eindhoven May 15, 1951”. 6. Furthermore, on May 15th, a special flight “Eindhoven-Schiphol-Amsterdam” will be organized by the NVPhilips using a KLM Dakota aircraft, with which correspondence originating from Philips will be sent. 7. The mail items sent on this special flight will be provided with an impression of a special stamp relating thereto. But not a word about the rates and duties! Who can report whether the amount of affixed stamps was correct? 43 cents was affixed for face value. Too little or too much? A difficult card! 
Not everyone has a price list from back then.
=========
Maybe an idea for a website?
Hello editors, I am the editor of the monthly magazine Onder de Loupegenomen of the Haarlemmermeer Stamp Association and would like to submit this article WITH a question to our members, naturally with source attribution as is proper.
We would appreciate your permission for this immediately.
fr.g
WT
'@ Mr. Timmermans
With attribution, this is fine! And of course, we are curious about the response(s).
I happen to be currently busy sorting various postal items by rate, and indeed that is not always easy, despite the invaluable Domestic and International Postal Rates of the Netherlands 1850-1990 and the phenomenal Handbook of Dutch Postal Values.
Assuming that the postal item shown is a picture postcard (I seem to recall seeing the front with a beautiful colored picture), I have arrived at the following conclusion based on both reference works:
Picture postcard rate (=printed matter) to Indonesia since June 1, 1950: 2 cents up to 50 grams = 2 cents
Air freight duty for printed matter to Indonesia since January 1, 1951 = 25 cents
Registration fee abroad since November 1, 1946 = 15 cents
2+25+15=42 cents, so 1 cent overpaid.
It looks clearly artificial to me, but it is a nice piece of mail nonetheless. So even in 1951, Aunt Post was clearly not averse to commercial activities where a little money could be earned. This puts all the commentary on TNT in a different perspective yet again.
Hi,
Rates are listed on the Po & Po website.
see http://www.pop-en-po.nl
Berry
Jeffrey, I have often commented on the commercial nature of the current TNT Group, and I have nothing against healthy, 'normal' commerce; it is the intrusive excesses currently rolling off the assembly line, where all regulations/agreements with the UPU are being trampled upon.
After all, one of the rules of the UPU is;
A stamp is only a valid postage stamp if it is available to everyone in the country concerned at ALL counters.
Now, what about the province stamps and the Beautiful Netherlands stamps that are/were only available locally?
So, harmful issues. Previously, you could buy summer stamps as a single series AND as a sheet; now you are forced to take two sheets.
The goose that lays the golden eggs is not slaughtered; the goose is allowed to bleed out slowly.
As for the postage, all FDCs are incorrectly franked and are also collected by many.
Artificial work is thin. Not always 'flawless work'.
William,
You are absolutely right. It is just a shame that all those beautiful stamps issued by TNT will never end up on a letter. That would be real propaganda for our hobby. (By the way, no one is forcing you to buy even a single sheet; unfortunately, we collectors still have the idea that we have to be complete.)
I can highly recommend old letters and searching for the correct postage rates! It is sometimes quite a puzzle to figure out if a letter was properly franked. The funny thing is that you discover that things went wrong quite a few times in the past as well. Much more fun than collecting modern mint Dutch mail.
Berry, you have misspelled the Po&Po site: http://www.po-en-po.nl for the rates of postcards, letters (envelopes), change of address cards, postal sheets, airmail sheets, and as an extra, special services such as registered and express. This covers the period from 1871 up to and including 1996 (naturally not for the airmail sheets and postal sheets, as those are from much later!). Cees
'@cees,
This is another piece to savor. Simply delicious. We can't get enough of it!
‘@Wim
Are you sure you are citing the UPU rules? Don't you mean the FIP?
The UPU couldn't care less whether the stamps were available everywhere in the country 😉
Established in 1874, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) with its Headquarters in Berne (Switzerland), is the primary forum for cooperation between postal-sector players and helps to ensure a truly universal network of up-to-date products and services.
With 191 member countries, this specialised agency of the United Nations fulfils an advisory, mediating and liaison role, and renders technical assistance where needed. It sets the rules for international mail exchanges and makes recommendations to stimulate growth in mail volumes and to improve the quality of service for customers.
Sorry, I didn't have time for the translation, but it should be clear that the UPU is the governing body for all postal traffic, whereas the FIP, according to my information a federation for philatelists, has no authority whatsoever over postal matters.
I also believe that this is an FIP rule.
The collector must be protected from such practices. The Post doesn't care as long as they sell.
In the past, such seals were marked in the catalogue by, for example, a pastille or by slanted writing.
Incidentally, this actually still applies.
The collector is free to save or collect these stamps.
However, she does not show them at an exhibition. They do not belong there.
You can compare the sheets of Beautiful Netherlands and Province stamps with the Sperrwaarden of the former GDR.
‘@Albert
Why always refer to the GDR?
Stay in the Netherlands: guilder values from immediately after the war could only be purchased through a stamp society [1 copy per person]; the stamps were intended for acquiring currency. The 15 and 25 LP were truly restricted values, even though there were no readily available values in the series 😉
What nonsense, Haan, to bring up the GDR. Perhaps collectors were better protected there than here—buying one series if you are a member of an association, and sending the rest to the countries that boycotted the GDR and had to pay much more because you couldn't pay with GDR marks in the West, so they had this trick up their sleeve.
This was just one example; there are dozens of such cases to mention.
Besides, everyone should collect what they want. You only have to follow the rules if you participate in an exhibition.
But surely everyone already knows that.
‘@Albert
Indeed, rules are rules, as a government minister said not long ago, and whoever is in charge determines the rules.
The only question is whether those exhibition rules were really determined so democratically? 😉
In any case, they don't understand anything about what has happened in the world since 1945……
I assume that the rules were determined democratically.
Times change, and so do the rules; they have kept pace with the times as well.
If you have a good proposal to change certain rules, please pass it on to the jury advisory committee, who will then review whether this can actually be changed. This committee can also place this on the international agenda, so that your suggestion can be changed.
So what is wrong with the regulations?
The collector can take his objects anywhere when it comes to exhibiting them.
such as: Open class, Album pages class and propaganda.
So what does man want?
The art is to show something that the regulations prescribe. That is the sport. The individual sport. And it is exciting.
‘@Albert
How terribly naive!! “Democratically” changing the rules from the bottom up takes years – if it yields anything at all – and that is of no use to a young, enthusiastic collector who wants to show off some of the interesting things he or she has come across in these times.
He returns frustrated after an exhibition, because that jury understood nothing of his intentions.
After all, jury training starts with the principles of eo-philately via 1852 up to perhaps 1923, a bit of concentration camp mail, and then it stops…
Nowadays, assessing long-running emissions for their printing and postal variability is not part of the process; there is no in-house expertise for this, and the training program has not covered it either.
The same applies to the requirements for an 'expert'. I recently read a list of requirements for an expert in Poland. It boils down to the fact that they must be able to assess all local posts in Poland from around 1918-1920 for authenticity and freedom of craftsmanship. Everything that comes after 1920 is modernism, so it requires no experts. That is the tenor there in Poland, and it is really no different elsewhere in this philatelic world.
You don't change that mentality with a gradual change of the rules. Placing the 'open class' alongside 'the album pages' as an example that it is possible to change the rules is an outright travesty. Shelf fillers versus free thought….
The dinosaurs once went extinct, and no democratically made decision was involved!
The Dutch Association does everything to ensure a well-trained corps of judges. Every member receives sufficient further training. It is also up to the judge to attend this further training.
The recent change in classical philately and post-historical philately is that pre-1945 and post-1945 are judged as equivalent.
In this way, the opportunity has been provided to receive a high distinction even with modern equipment.
The regulations are alive and not dead.
Therefore, true philately will not die out like the dinosaurs.
(Incidentally, there are always people to be found who can also inspect Poland 1918-1920. Think of Jungjohann and Petriuk.)
‘@Albert
The latest version contains nothing about a division into time classes. You are right in that regard. But with the dino mentality, there is plenty of escape possible:
– difficulty level
– philatelic interest
– the rarity and the
– relatively difficult to obtain
of the chosen material
With these 'criteria', any discussion regarding modern material is haughtily dismissed. For example, stamps and stamp editions have been issued in the Netherlands over the past 10 years that have proven to be many times rarer than stamps from prehistoric times. Knowledge of this has not reached the jury members. It is therefore impossible to assess “Research is the presentation of new facts in relation to the chosen subject” without doing the submitter endless injustice.
This is the case in the Netherlands, but also elsewhere. At Belgica '06, frames with relatively modern material were displayed without any show of recent knowledge: Marchand and Elstrom issues. A relatively high catalogue value for some pieces was decisive…
In short, the regulations might allow it, but the implementers are still in their infancy….
DUTCH FEDERATION OF PHILATELIC SOCIETIES 102.03
GENERAL REGULATIONS of the FIP (GREV)
4.5 The “Treatment” standard requires an assessment of the completeness and
the accuracy of the material that the submitter has selected for
illustration of the chosen subject.
4.6. The “Philatelic importance” standard requires an assessment of the
philatelic significance of the subject that the submitter has
chosen, with regard to the scope and difficulty of the
subject and the philatelic importance of the submission.
4.7. The standards “Philatelic and related knowledge, personal study
and research” require the following assessments:
– Knowledge is the knowledge level of the submitter, shown by the
selected pieces and the accompanying explanation;
– Personal study is the proper analysis of the selected pieces;
– Research is the presentation of new facts in relation to the
chosen subject.
4.8. The “Quality and Rarity” standards require an assessment of
the quality of the displayed material, taking into account
adhered to the standard for the material that exists for the chosen
subject, the rarity and the relatively difficult availability
of the chosen material.
4.9. The “Presentation” standard requires an assessment of the entire
line aesthetic tones of the submission.
6.2. The FIP General Rules for the Judging of Entries
in the competition classes at FIP shows (GREV) is
approved at the 66th FIP Congress on 15 October 2000 in Madrid.
It enters into force on 15 October 2000.
‘@albert
That is why true philately will not die out like the dinosaurs.
By the way, there are always people to be found who can also inspect Poland from 1918-1920. Think of Jungjohann and Petriuk.”
Indeed, the dinosaurs are preserved and cherished here, and thus the survival of our knowledge of dinosaurs [better known as 'true philately'] is given full priority…
Rein, reading all your comments like this, you hardly get any pleasure out of collecting stamps anymore. If that is the goal, you are doing a pretty good job of it.
But I hope that many collectors pay no attention to that and simply continue with their hobby however they wish. Just from the doormat, via eBay, as a subscriber to a philatelic service, or as a member of a stamp society. Have fun, everyone!
'@Cees
We – and I included – have strayed quite a bit from the UPU regulations to those of the FIP and NBFV.
Thanks for your response to my Sperrwerte attack. It is good to consult some official instructions, but that doesn't mean we have grasped the underlying agenda.
If you know me a little, you know that I don't let the pleasure of collecting be spoiled for me easily. Not even by any sort of pompous regulations. Which I thoroughly detest, and which I will not fail to proclaim everywhere…
A little "house rumor" is allowed on this blog, right???
I don't really like these kinds of blah-blah stories, yet I want to rule because I am being called a dino.
I am indeed over 70 years old, so according to RBvB's standards, I am a dinosaur in philately.
On top of that, I am also an 'expert', as he calls it. So I should know everything, but know that I don't know much yet!!!
I have worked as a jury member for more than 25 years, both nationally and internationally for many years.
I know a tiny bit about what I'm talking about.
In the past, and I am certainly talking about the beginning when I became a juror in the early sixties, the majority of the jurors were more interested in the "old stamps".
This changed very quickly, and the periods after 1900, as well as later collecting areas, were "delighted" with high accolades. I participated in that myself. It reminds me of an entry with Germany after 1945 that received a gold award at the national competition.
So RBvB, don't be so disparaging about the later post-war periods or the contemporary ones.
One of our members of the CFV (Contact Group of France Collectors) participated in exhibitions featuring modern France. At first, this was viewed with skepticism, but soon people became interested in the later periods, which at that time were the last stamp periods.
At a certain point, this also became normal for the Netherlands; it reminds me of the Beatrix series, which received substantial and high accolades.
However, one should not expect all jury members to be knowledgeable about everything. Knowledge of printing techniques and the ability to recognize genuine and forged stamps and/or postmarks is an area of which very few people have expertise.
And even then, one learns something new every day by occupying oneself with it.
Then your response regarding whether it is the UPU, FIP, or something else that determines whether stamps may be exhibited.
There is an organization, of which the UPU, FIP, and others are members, that tries to prevent unwanted issues from being made.
This is pursued by not allowing stamps on the material displayed in an exhibition if they are not for sale at all counters.
That this is difficult is evident from the very long lists that have now been published of stamps from various countries that sell these kinds of items.
Was that not also a certain Mr. Lehman in New York who was dealing with this?
It is quite normal that material is sometimes displayed at an exhibition for which the submitter provides no clear description. After all, it is only when a book is published that people who always shout that they know better and can do it better react. They should have just published it.
Many submitters sometimes have an idea of what something should be because they have obtained the knowledge about it from a book. They themselves have never seen how this material is made or used.
A small example. Some writers talk about a kind of stamp and the way the date is set, while they have never held a stamp in their hands and therefore do not know whether what they say or write is correct.
Another example is the concept of 'test'.
Just read the literature, and you will read different answers for sometimes one and the same end result.
Many people believe that they must write about the printing of stamps and everything related to it.
The question is, have they had their hands in printing ink, handled type lead and typesetting, know what a cliché is, an offset plate or other printing material, and even made/produced one? Behind the printing press, or rather, worked with the printing press, not only practicing old graphic techniques but also engaging with modern techniques to know how stamps/printed matter and everything associated with it can be made or produced.
You see, there is still a lot to learn.
Also when judging a collection at or during an exhibition. Try to put yourself in the shoes of others, and you will notice that others sometimes have just as much difficulty as you do.
Hopefully, writing this piece has helped us to 'mirror' ourselves in others a bit more, and not just criticize them.
Henk©
'@Henk
Some jury members will proceed more conscientiously and with more knowledge. You surely belong to that group, and with your good attitude, you do not belong to the dinosaurs [whom, by the way, I did not introduce on age grounds 🙂]. It remains my impression – both in the Netherlands and in Belgium – that the modern material is not understood, nor does it wish to be understood, by the jury members. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of engaging in heated discussions with Belgian jury members about 'modern,' with the reply that the modernists should just provide their own jury members. A Belgian friend of mine volunteered and eventually got bogged down and stranded in the swamp of the dinosaur requirements. No more exhibitions for him! He now publishes to his heart's content and knows that whoever writes, stays. And thus has more influence than the exhibitor who is supposed to please the jury…
There is much to learn, Henk! I do it every day, but some things you write remind me of the old adage that music critics are always failed musicians and that you cannot judge or appreciate music unless you have played the recorder yourself for a short while.
I’m not taking anyone personally – I’m putting a category of philatelists in the spotlight, and perhaps not always the nicest or friendliest… That could be judges, but just as easily cataloguers who are quite the expert 😉
Dear Rein, as a “Young” ex-jury member, I have to defend myself and my former colleagues. I certainly don't feel like a Dino, but I did know what I was talking about. I have always prepared for an exhibition as well as possible—submitters have to send in their plans. I am not all-knowing either, and I have learned something from many a submitter. And as I said, the jury panel is alive and always keeps up with new developments.
What existed in the past, even before my time—those tough, stubborn jury members—and I write from personal experience, is no more.
Rein, if you dare, bring your collection to an exhibition and have it judged according to modern FIP standards. Dare!!!!!!!
‘@Albert
As an example of progressiveness and openness to new developments, a fragment from the guidelines for youth collections [2006], where one really has to wonder how seriously this should be taken:
3.2 Presence of important documents
In a traditional collection, the collector chooses a specific period or a particular issue from a country. The importance of the collection can be measured by the availability of material from that period or issue. However, the chosen period can also serve as an indicator of importance. The traditional study of, for example, the Netherlands 1891 issue type “Wilhelmina hanging hair” can be important because material in the higher denominations, in particular, is difficult to obtain. This is in contrast to the “Beatrix inversion” issue, which was released quite recently. Over the course of a number of years, such a collection may become significant because the material will then be harder to obtain. Some denominations, such as the 75 cent from a roll or from a stamp booklet used on postal items in the correct period, are already
becoming scarce.
Hi,
I have such a card available, but someone has removed the stamps from it. The postmarks, R-label, etc., are still on it. The card is a painting of Eindhoven by Mr. D. Wildschut (Philips Jubilee).
If anyone wants that card, they can have it for next to nothing.
Hineni.
Dear Rein,
It can sometimes take a while before a democratic process is completed. In the interest of this process, patience is a virtue.
Regarding the jury training and the Jury Advisory Committee, I refer you to the article by Bert Goofers in the monthly magazine Filatelie in response to the article by Gert Holstege on pages 850 and 851 in Filatelie of November 2002.
Will you accept Albert Haan's challenge?
Piet Alderliesten
NBFV Commissioner for Jury Affairs
The discussion on modern philately is fascinating, but in my opinion, it almost always runs into the same problem: those involved are initially few in number and often not organized in the same way as the institutions and related individuals, such as jury members, but also (specialist?) traders, cataloguers, etc.
As a result, a discrepancy almost by definition arises between the knowledge and insight of specialized philatelists on the one hand and the others on the other. This, coupled with the culture existing in the Netherlands—at least to my firm impression—of naturally distrusting, rejecting, and even condemning the new in philately outright, certainly does not lead to a rapprochement, broadening, or deepening of philately. As examples, I can cite the complete lack of attention and interest within the organized philatelic world (from the NBFV via traders to album makers and everything in between) for, say, parcel stamps, registered stamps, guaranteed postage stamps (are those postage stamps???????), counter franking strips, booklets (or mailers in TNT jargon), hanging blocks in their many variants, prestige booklets, and personalized stamps. It is precisely in these collecting areas that there is a great deal of interest to discover and collect from a philatelic perspective. By categorically ignoring these areas, an enormous scarcity of much material arises in advance (and that is certainly nice for those currently engaged with them), with the consequence, however (and this is a negative development), that future generations will be saddled with collecting areas that will be accessible only to a select few, whereas a much larger group could have enjoyed them if broader attention had been called for in a timely manner. Organized philately, even where trade is concerned, consistently manages to keep this side of the philatelic coin out of the picture. In my opinion, change here is extraordinarily necessary and desirable.
'@Piet
I briefly skimmed through Gert Holstege's article and can imagine that the words "simple little course" don't come across very well, but that is separate from what I was saying. At least, I haven't read Bert's response yet – where is that?
Dear J. Schaminee
Parcel stamps, registered stamps, guaranteed postage stamps, and counter franking strips are not postage stamps, but they are PHILATELY. And that is what we are dealing with, after all—at least I am. I think I may call myself a philatelist, not a stamp collector.
Dear Rein, I hope to see you someday with your collection at an exhibition.
And don't just pull that out of thin air and say the jury knows nothing about it. I hear that far too often, especially from people who have never participated or... people who have participated and, in their opinion, received too few points. They most certainly haven't had any jury interviews. In my “career” as a juror, I have had satisfied entrants during and, especially, after the interview. Differing opinions were reconciled in a decent conversation, so that the entrant could get back to work on improving their work with satisfaction.
'@ Albert Haan,
That cancellation stamps are not postage stamps is quite clear to me (and to many others, I reckon). Cancellation stamps do belong to philately, I can understand that too, but why parcel stamps, registered stamps, and guarantee stamps would NOT be postage stamps is something I fail to understand at all, unless the definition of a postage stamp dictates that real stamps must be perforated and fit in a box in the DAVO supplement. An interesting question in this context is also why telegram stamps, safe deposit stamps, parcel settlement stamps, postal receipt stamps, and, as the latest addition, the "blue beaks" (sorry: blueprints) are included in the NVPH's special postage stamp catalog. In my opinion, those products simply CANNOT be considered postage stamps, whereas the three groups of stamps I mentioned certainly are. And what about personalized stamps? Surely those are also ordinary, REAL postage stamps, even though some were only issued in prestige booklets?
'@Johan
The blueprints are not only not stamps but also do not belong in philately; unless perhaps in the literature class, where all printed matter concerning philately and its practitioners may have a place? Or in the “Open Class” with an exposé “80 years of NVPH and the influence on Dutch philately” ….
'@Piet and Albert
I have since read Bert Goofers' reply in Filatelie 2003, pages 146-147. It is not that difficult to take down Gert Holstege, demonstrating that thorough jury training can take as long as 10 years. But what purpose does this actually serve?
For umpteen years now, organized philately has been throwing all its trump cards at exhibitions to attract new people. Has this ever been evaluated? Okay, just as it has never been evaluated whether filling a column for years has been effective.
‘@Albert
When I walk through an exhibition and see something captivating or interesting, I expect—I hope—that the exhibitor is standing there waiting, beaming with pride (Bokito—proud), for an interested person to come along and grab them by the scruff of the neck. Direct communication with your audience. You know…
Everyone knows where to find me when it comes to my written stories. I know from my articles on parcel stamps, registered stamps, and guarantee stamps that this has led to imitation. Not to mention the hanging booklets and notepads.
An exhibition framework is a less adequate medium for me – although I did try it once in Rotterdam in 1981 with TP&NG postal rates and at Bruphila '95 with my Belgium book.
Therefore, Albert, you will just have to keep an eye out for my literary works for the time being, and who knows, perhaps one day I will hang up a collection of personal stamps [whether or not in hanging packaging]…
'@Piet
It can sometimes take a while before a democratic process is completed. In the interest of this process, having patience is a virtue.
Which process? And which objective?
I have been delivering constructive criticism of the SC since 1983 and am still waiting for “evolving insight”.
For example, nothing new has been discovered in the Netherlands' 1852 emission for 40 years. The 35 points at exhibitions for “philatelic and related knowledge, personal study and research” can conveniently be withheld. And therefore, no more metal can be awarded 😉
The same applies to most Dutch emissions from before 1924.
Issues from after 1924 require knowledge of stamp production and thus of printing techniques, and you should not expect that from jurors [with thanks to Henk vd Vlist]. And the idea that even the more classic printing techniques [letterpress, plate printing] have evolved is going completely too far. Indirect letterpress vs. offset? Etched, and therefore not engraved, plate printing forms? Stochastic halftones, electromechanical engraving?
Machine-made paper? Paper transparency and the relationship between the watermark [on the printer!] and the paper direction? Phosphorescence in the coating and whitening-free paper?
In which academic year is that scheduled for the jury training program? Or should I ask if it will be included in the curriculum before 2050? We are patient!
In 1981, no one on the jury in Rotterdam could be found who considered themselves capable of assessing the postal rates of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. At least that's fair! Not getting an assessment isn't pleasant, but at least you know you aren't receiving an unfair assessment just because someone had the pretension to know something.
Dear sir,
of course I cannot understand all what is said and dicussed (I don’t speak Dutch), but I have exactly the same postcard (stamps and all special prints). The only difference is the address. Mine is addressed in Tunis.
Do you have any idea of how many postcards were posted for this special fly? Best regards Michel SOULIE