Introducing MJE7 Who, what, why APS Committee on ACCREDITAION OF national exhibitions and judging American association of philatelic exhibitors Prepared january2017

Our agenda Need for a new Manual of Philatelic Judging The Three Major Changes Medals Point Ranges Exhibit Classes Feedback Using Points 2017-03

Need for a new Manual Evolution of Exhibiting (display, postcard, crossovers) Evolution of Judging (EEF, at-the-frames discussions) Recognize two-fold purpose (help exhibitors and judges) Put WSP show guidance in separate publication Put literature judging and exhibiting in separate publications Discussion material: Exhibiting has grown out of older, purely philatelic framework. Still arguing about postcards belonging at a stamp show, but settled for now in favor of “yes.” Older editions focused only on judging, with limited help for exhibitors. Title of manual didn’t encourage exhibitors to read it. Judging is under pressure, too, with EEFs requiring helpful commentary. By identifying percentages for each major evaluation category, judges were starting to think in terms of points. Judges had continued to use points for youth exhibits, and formerly used points for single frames and thematics. Rest of world using points already. New manual has new title – APS Manual of Philatelic Judging and Exhibiting. Reflects contents. Sixth and earlier editions had guidance for putting on WSP show, but without mention in title, few searchers knew to look for it. Now in separate publication on APS site. 2017-03

Goals of MJE7 Better Feedback More creative exhibits No rules for exhibit formats Retained rules relate to ownership, counterfeits, etc. Discussion material: To encourage exhibitors to improve by offering constructive feedback – specific improvements to earn a better medal (but recognize that not every exhibit may be worthy of a gold medal) By relaxing prescriptive rules, let exhibitors show more creativity as they tell their primarily philatelic story – might this mean more pictures? Display items? We will see as time goes on “Tell us what you are going to do, then do it well.” Reduce the need to show, for example, pre-production material for a traditional exhibit, or to force a story to fit the pules for postal history. But keep an eye on the ball – what is your philatelic story, and are you telling it well with the right material? 2017-03

The Three Major Changes Eight medal levels Four exhibit classes Points by category on EEF Discussion material: Adding large gold, large vermeil and large silver now matches international standards Don’t expect that WSP shows will have to purchase extra medals – there will be some indication of medal on the award, but all golds may be same underlying medal Exhibit classes are literature (separate manual), general, single frame and youth Despite apparent accuracy of point system, judging is still an art 2017-03

Medal Levels Large gold, large vermeil, large silver added Result is eight medal levels at national (WSP) shows Conforms to other national shows worldwide Discussion material: We’ll get to the point ranges in a moment 2017-03

Point Ranges Medal MJE7 FIP Large Gold 90-100 95-100 Gold 85-89 90-94 Large Vermeil 80-84 Vermeil 75-79 Large Silver 70-74 Silver 65-69 Silver-Bronze 60-64 Bronze 55-59 Below bronze is certificate We didn’t care what FIP uses, but other countries had eight medals at the point levels we have now adopted 2017-03

Point Ranges by Subject EEF Section Gold Vermeil Silver Sil-Br Bronze Cert Importance 9-10 8 7 6 0-5 Treatment 17-20 15-16 13-14 12 11 0-10 Knowledge 21-25 18-20 16-18 15 0-12 Research 8-10 Condition Rarity Presentation 4-5 4 3 0-2 Ranges are approximate, and, for example, AN EXHIBIT WILL NOT NECESSARILY GET POINTS IN THE SAME MEDAL RANGE FOR EVERY CRITERION! Simple example: Gold material (rarity, condition) can also earn silver for treatment. (If there is a writing board to do this example, it might be clearer to the audience.) Example: So if one needs 90 points for a gold, one could lose three points in presentation, five points in research and two in importance. Looking at the levels, the exhibit would be a vermeil for importance, a certificate in presentation and research, and gold in the other categories. It is total points that make the medal, not each category. One benefit of points is that this hypothetical exhibitor would know to focus on presentation and research to move to a large gold. 2017-03

Four Exhibit Classes General (all multi-frame exhibits) Single frame Youth Literature (separate judging manual) Discussion material: For most of us the literature class is not of major importance. Also, we are either young or not, so once we are adults, there are only two exhibit categories except for authors 2017-03

Four Exhibit Classes There are guidelines but no rules for exhibit formats Appendix 2 offers guidelines for various types of exhibit (not “rules”) Added Experimental, Topical, for example Guiding principle: “Tell us what you are going to do, then do it well!” Uniform evaluation of all exhibits within classes Expect that your exhibit may do better or worse than before under MJE7 criteria Discussion material: The main content of MJE7 is pretty short – 25 pages, about half about exhibits, half about judging Long appendices, one with details of exhibit types, another on judging Total MJE7 is now 65 pages, just over half the length of MoJ6 2017-03

Feedback Goal: Provide meaningful help to improve exhibit Same five EEF categories as before Judges will provide points in each category Points and related comments should reflect strengths and weaknesses Judges are to provide useful comments Intent is that EEF tells exhibitor how to improve exhibit (and medal) At-the-frame two-way discussions also intended to help exhibitor Discussion material: The idea is reinforced that judges are there to evaluate and also help exhibitors get better medals At-the-frame discussions have been very helpful, so exhibitors should make an effort to talk to judges on the floor Judges should be available for discussions by about noon on second day of show The discussion is not intended to let exhibitors sway judges – the medals are already decided by the entire jury 2017-03

Effective use of Points Highlight exhibit strengths Help exhibitors focus on weaker areas of exhibit Help judges provide focused comments on EEF and at frames Recognize this is NOT a science, points will vary (slightly) by jury This is still a hobby Discussion material: Keeps exhibitor from re-working treatment, for example, when research is the weakness Judges’ suggestions for improvement should be clear and helpful, more “meaty” suggestions where points are lower Both sides should avoid arguments – this is a hobby. Despite using numbers with no gaps between medal levels, this is still an art. Juries will be on either side of an 83-86 point exhibit, for example, and sometimes may be very different Remember to wait as an exhibitor and not completely revamp based on just one jury. See if two or more juries agree on your weaknesses. 2017-03

Questions? What is still puzzling you? Contact any philatelic judge through APS website Feel free to contact a judge after a show via email Make suggestions for overall improvement to Liz Hisey Discussion material: 2017-03