1. SINGAPORE 2004 ASPECTS OF THE EVALUATION OF THEMATIC EXHIBITS Dr. Ing. Giancarlo Morolli, Chairman Prof. Dr. Damian Läge, Vice Chairman FIP Thematic Commission Seminar for International Jurors & Team Leaders

2. 2 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR OBJECTIVES OF THE SEMINAR  Improve common understanding and implementation of Thematic Regulations  Circulate results of the Team Leaders Seminar held in Bonn

3. 3 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR OUTLINE OF THE SEMINAR A.How to evaluate  Title + Plan and Development  Innovation B.How to reach a maximum of consistency? C.How to reach consistency for  Plan, Development and Innovation  Thematic & Philatelic Knowledge  Rarity and Condition  Presentation D.When the Maximum of points should be given?

4. 4 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR TITLE Plan page Title & Plan, and Development are components of the main criterion named Treatment. Story line Pag. 2 Pag. n Story line 2 1 3 Note: Correctness of thematic facts and text is assessed under "Thematic Knowledge". No double counting, please! How to evaluate Title + Plan and Development

5. 5 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Story line – detailed view at Page level Story line

6. 6 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR 1.Take the Title as the reference for assessing the scope of the exhibit 2.Analyze the plan in terms of  Consistency of the structure of the exhibit within the scope defined by the title  Correct order and balance of the main chapters and their subdivisions along a "story line" that demonstrates the flow of the plan rather than listing its main aspects  Coverage of all major aspects relevant to the title 3.Analyze the development in terms of  Consistency with the plan  Correct order and balance of the thematic details along a "story line" based on the sequential arrangement of each item on the page  Depth and width of analysis The evalutation process is integrated and interactive

7. 7 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR How to evaluate Innovation Innovation is demonstrated by a personal elaboration of the theme, that transforms an exhibit from a sequence of classified items into an "original" story 1.Introduction of new themes  A new theme, by itself, is not sufficient, when not sustained by an innovative plan & development 2.New approaches for known themes  E.g. Historical approach, that widens the scope for analysis 3.New aspects of an established or known theme  New chapters, paragraphs 4.New thematic application of material  To support new thematic facts 5.Customisation of Plan and Development by considering  Environment, Causes and Effects, Consequences, Relationships, Cross References,etc.

8. 8 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR How to reach a maximum of consistency?  Evaluation of thematic exhibits requires capabilities on three different levels: qknowledge and understanding of evaluation criteria (1st level) qbroad thematic and philatelic knowledge (2nd level) qconsistent allotment of points according to criteria requires an agreement about proper scales (3rd level)  “Starting level” at 80% qaverage of thematic exhibits at FIP exhibitions (80.5 points) qproposal: 80% = absense of errors, but nothing special

9. 9 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Plan(maximum: 15 points)  aspects which are required for 12 out of 15 points: qconsistency between the plan and the title qpresence of the plan page qadequacy of the plan page qcoverage of all major aspects necessary to develop the theme  aspect which awards additional points: qcorrect, logical and balanced structure (the degree to which a ”story” is told instead of a list of aspects appears)

10. 10 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Development(maximum: 15 points)  aspects which are required for 12 out of 15 points: qcorrect assembly and positioning of the items in conformity with the plan qconnection between the items and the thematic text qelaboration of all aspects of the plan  aspects which award additional points: qdepth, shown through connections, cross references, ramifications, causes and effects qbalance, by giving to each thematic point the importance corresponding to its significance within the theme

11. 11 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Thematic knowledge(maximum: 15 points)  aspects which are required for 12 out of 15 points: qappropriateness, conciseness and correctness of thematic text qcorrect thematic use of the material  aspects which award additional points: qpresence of new thematic findings for the theme quse of material that has a thematic qualification which is not immediately obvious and needs to be discovered by the exhibitor

12. 12 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Philatelic knowledge(maximum: 15 points)  aspects which are required for 12 out of 15 points: qfull compliance with the rules of postal philately qappropriateness of postal documents qappropriateness and correctness of philatelic text, when required qpresence of a good range of postal-philatelic material  aspects which award additional points: qpresence of the widest possible range of postal-philatelic material and its balanced use qpresence of philatelic studies and related skilful use of important philatelic material

13. 13 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Condition(maximum: 10 points)  maximum of 5 points: qcommon and modern material in good quality  maximum of 8 points:  common and modern material are in excellent quality plus  all uncommon and scarce items are in their best condition  maximum of 10 points:  top rarities are in condition well above average (9 points) qall top rarities are in their best condition (10 points)

14. 14 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Rarity(maximum: 20 points) qcommon material only (8 points) qat least 2 uncommon or scarce items per frame (9 / 10 points) quncommon / scarce items throughout the exhibit (11 / 12 points) quncommon / scarce items throughout the exhibit plus a number of rare pieces (13 - 15 points) quncommon to rare items throughout the exhibit, but no “top rarities” (16 points) quncommon to rare items throughout the exhibit plus a few “top rarities” (17 points) quncommon to rare items throughout the exhibit plus several “top rarities” (18/19 points) qrare items and “top rarities” throughout the exhibit (20 points)

15. 15 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Presentation(maximum: 5 points) q3 or 2 points if far below average or even ugly q4 points around average presentation q5 points, if well above average

16. 16 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Judging rarity: scales of importance  Distinction postal elements / non-postal elements qnon-postal elements are of no importance for thematic philately qthey have to be ignored when judging rarity  Borderline items  acceptable if they form the only means to document important thematic details qno philatelic importance: no points for rarity  Philatelic „core material“ qdegree of general philatelic importance can vary significantly

17. 17 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Example no. 1: Proofs and essays qworld statusessays and proofs for the most classic stamps qhigh importance: accepted drawings and essays, unissued stamps, die proofs for controlling engraving process qmoderate importance: rejected stamp drawings, colour and plate proofs proofs (production process), presentation sheets, cards for asking final approval qlesser importance: preliminary drawings of accepted designs, presentation issues (including artist‘s die proofs), colour proofs for philatelists, modern colour separations qno importance: preliminary drawings of rejected designs, imperforated stamps from French countries, modern specimen stamps, photographic archive material Items from the latter two catagories do not substantially improve the philatelic quality of and exhibit.

18. 18 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Example no. 2: fancy cancellations from the USA qworld statusthe finest of the 19 th century fancy killers on cover  high importance: the finest of the 19 th century fancy killers on stamp; other 19 th century fancy killers, on cover; 1927 – 1930 registered covers (backstamped) qmoderate importance: 19 th century fancy killers, on stamp; 1931 – 1934 registered covers qlesser importance: 1927 – 1934 First class covers  no importance: 1935 – 1950 cachets, additionally to datestamp Items from the latter two catagories do not substantially improve the philatelic quality of and exhibit.

19. 19 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR When the Maximum of points should be given? 4Maximum of points for a given criterion should be given when close to the best performance possible (rounding) qBest of “Subject” qBest of “Thematic Arena” 4Remember the influence of time factor qMaximum is a “rolling” target > not permanent assessment, hence it should be a motivation to keep that level (constant improvement) 4What if next time somebody else does it better? qThat exhibitor is no longer up to the best level, hence he do not deserve the maximum of points. 4Avoid the "school master's" or "best-in class'" syndrome!

20. 20 SINGAPORE 2004 INTERNATIONAL JURORS AND TEAM LEADERS SEMINAR Beware of "Tables" 4The following table has been calculated (Excel) on a direct proportion, rounding the result (no decimals) 4The spread of rounded marks indicates the need for an “adjustment” at the highest levels 4In most classes often just the main 4 criteria are used, so the case of giving the maximum of points is less frequent.