Text Stamp Groupings
This Spring 2010 work is oriented to gathering as many images as possible for the various text series to try to
decide which stamps we KNOW exist versus what we think exists or what might exist, or what ought to exist. I am displaying
them in both year order and sorted by series because there is useful information to be gathered both ways. These
first series represent both Charles and my collections and there are still a LOT of holes. I would appreciate scans
or descriptions of any stamps not shown here. Ideally a scan should be 200 dots per inch or higher and saved as a high-quality (85 or higher) jpg file
or another format like gif or bmp. ANY description or scan is better than none at all. If you are providing information
not directly from your stamps, please indicate the information source. Thanks - Howard
- These are in varying states of being checked out.
- Catalog numbers are from the not-yet-published "Charles Souder's Long Awaited Hunting and Fishing Stamp Catalog"
- Athe end of the list are PDF files optimized for printing. You can print the HTML versions using your browser, but the resolution won't be very good.
- contact: Howard Richoux h_richoux yahoo.com or Charles Souder ccsouder hotmail.com (I've left out the "@" connector)
The HTML files are organized as a series of by-year images, followed by a group of
by-series images. These should look fine on the screen, but printing is not satisfactory.
The PDF files are optimized for printing - stamps are reduced in size enough not to waste
as much paper, but resolution should make the text still readable.
PDF files -- optimized for printing (but much larger)
- The stamp images have been reduced somewhat to try to balance the amount of screen space needed to see them and paper needed to print them with
the need to be able to read what is on the stamp. I'm not 100% satisfied with the status and can be persuaded to increase or decrease sizes....
- In most cases, stamps are listed as existing if there is even a shred of evidence supporting them. This leaves a number of series with a number of stamp listings
where we don't have even a single example of any year. This is mildly suspicious. Sometimes, the only indication that a stamp should exist is the
existence of a listed fee in hunting or fishing pamphlet for the year. This typically does not say that there is an actual stamp for the fee.
- The Existence of a stamp designated "Resident" could either imply that there is a comparable "NonResident" stamp, or it could imply that only resident hunters
were allowed to do whatever the activity is. It REALLY takes an example stamp to substantiate the guesses.
- Sometimes the same stamp is used for both a resident and a nonresident fee.
- There is a range of guesswork involved in filling in things like FaceValue or color. I have elected to guess that the a missing year between two existing stamps implies that the missing year stamp exists.
If the fee on both sides is the same, I fill in the missing fee. If the adjacent fees are different, sometimes the fee can be guessed if there were changes in
fee for other series during the same year. This is getting pretty fuzzy.....
- More difficult than filling in stamps between two others is figuring out the begining and ending years for a series.
- Scanners have improved over the years, but there are some colors, especially in the reds, where the stamp scan looks only marginally like the original.
- My stamp master picture file is a GIF file which compresses the image by allowing a palette of only 256 colors. Im most cases, especially in text stamps,
this does not create a problem, but sometimes it does. In the past, I have only made things worse by using PhotoShop type editing to "improve" the
appearance, so I am trying not to do it.
- For those of you with postage stamp collecting backgrounds, you are used to precise and universal color names like "carmine rose" which may be a
distinct stamp from a "deep carmine rose". Text hunting and fishing stamps have colors never before encountered (and probably never again). It would be nice to
standardize, but probably not worth the effort.