Special Regulations
for the Evaluation of Philatelic Literature Exhibits
at F.I.P. Exhibitions
Article 1: Competitive Exhibits
In accordance with Article 1.4 of the General Regulations of the F.I.P. for the Evaluation of Competitive
Exhibits at F.I.P. Exhibitions (GREV), these Special Regulations have been developed to supplement thoseprinciples with regard to the Philatelic Literature. Also refer to Guidelines to Philatelic Literature Regulations.

Article 2: Competitive Exhibits
Philatelic literature includes all printed communications available to collectors related to postage stamps,
postal history, and their collecting, and to any of the specialized fields connected therewith.

Article 3: Principles of Exhibit Composition
Philatelic literature will be subdivided as follows:
1. Handbooks and Special Studies
a. Handbooks
b. Monographsc. Specialised research articles
d. Bibliographies and similar special works
e. Exhibition catalogues
f. Specialised catalogues which besides philatelic issues of one or more countries treat varieties,
cancellations or other specialized aspects.
g. Transcripts of philatelic lectures presented to the public (including radio, television, film and slide
show scripts).
h. Similar special works.
2. General Catalogues
Worldwide, regional and single area catalogues whose depth of coverage does not qualify them as
specialized catalogues.
3. Philatelic Periodicals
Philatelic journals and newspapers, society organs, house organs, yearbooks and similar publications.
4. Articles
Articles of a general nature, in philatelic or nonphilatelic publications.

Article 4: Criteria for Evaluating Exhibits
4.1 Literature exhibits will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
Treatment of contents
Originality, significance and depth of researchTechnical matters
Presentation
4.2 The criterion "treatment of contents" requires an evaluation of the literary style, clarity, and skill incommunication shown in the exhibit.
4.3 The criterion "originality, significance, and depth of research" requires an evaluation of the overallsignificance of the subject matter presented in the exhibit, as well as the degree to which the exhibit
displays original discoveries, research, analysis or approaches to a comprehensive understanding of
the subject matter.
4.4 The criterion "technical matters" requires an evaluation of such aspects as title page and imprint,
pagination, credits, bibliography, index, and use of illustrations.
4.5 The criterion "presentation" requires an evaluation of the effect of binding, typography, and similar
production factor on the usability of the publication. To avoid the impact of purely commercial
aspects, this criterion will only be evaluated to the degree that it represents a negative factor.

Article 5: Judging of Exhibits
5.1 Literature exhibits will be judged by approved specialists in their respective field and in accordance withSection V (Article 31-46) of GREX (ref. GREV. Article 5.1)
5.2 For Literature exhibits, the following relative terms are presented to lead the Jury to a balancedevaluation (ref. GREV. Article 5.2):
Treatment of contents
Originality, significance and depth of researchTechnical matters
Presentation
Total

4040
155100Article 6: Concluding Provision
6.1 In the event of any discrepancies in the text arising from translation, the English text shall prevail.
6.2 These Special Regulations for the Evaluation of Philatelic Literature Exhibits at F.I.P. Exhibitions havebeen approved by the 54th F.I.P. Congress on 5th November, 1985 in Rome. They came into force
on 5th November, 1985 and apply to those exhibitions which are granted F.I.P. patronage, auspices
or support at the 54th F.I.P. Congress and thereafter.

Supplementary Rules for the Philatelic Literature Classin F.I.P. Exhibitions
Rule 1:
These supplementary rules for the admission of Literature Exhibits have been developed under Article 3.3 of
the General Regulations of the F.I.P. for Exhibitions (GREX) and will apply to all literature entries in Generaland Specialised Exhibitions of F.I.P. (GREX Article 2).

Rule 2:In amplification of Article 17.1 (GREX), entries may be exhibited by the author, compiler, editor, publisher,sponsoring organization or society, or any other individual holding proprietary rights.

Rule 3:A literature exhibit may be admitted provided the exhibitor, as defined under Rule 2 above, meets thequalification requirement of GREX Article 10.1. Recently published works which have not had the opportunity
to be exhibited at a national exhibition may directly participate in a F.I.P. exhibition (GREX Article 10.3).

Rule 4:
A separate form will be used for entries in the literature class. In addition to the other information needed by
the Exhibition Management, this form should also include the publication date, publisher, number of pages,frequency of publication (for periodicals) and means of ordering the publication (address, price).

Rule 5:
Two copies of each literature exhibit shall be provided by the exhibitor: one copy for judging and the other fora reading room as per Article 6.8 of GREX. Following the exhibition these copies shall be sent by theExhibition Management to a library designated by the member federation hosting the exhibition, unless theexhibitor specifically asks for the return of these copies.

Rule 6:The entry fee for a literature exhibit shall be equivalent to the price of one frame in the general competition
class of the same exhibition.

Rule 7:The Exhibition Management shall furnish the judges a list of literature entries at least three months prior tothe exhibition.

Rule 8:
Handbooks and special studies must have been published not earlier than 5 years prior to the exhibition
year. For all other entries the publication date should be not earlier than 2 years prior to the exhibition year.
For multivolume works, the date of publication of each volume shall govern. Revised editions will beconsidered as new publications. For periodicals, the most recent complete volume or year shall be exhibited.
A selection of at least ten different newspaper articles is required for exhibition.

Rule 9:Medals in the literature class will bear the word “Literature” either abbreviated or in full. Literature entries arealso eligible for special awards (Article 8.6, GREX).

Rule 10:
Literature judges must have a reading ability in at least two languages, one of which must be any of the four
official F.I.P. languages (Article 29.3 of the Statutes).

Rule 11:In the event of any discrepancies in the text arising from translation, the English text shall prevail.

Rule 12:The Supplementary Rules for the Evaluation of Philatelic Literature Class in F.I.P. Exhibitions have been
approved by the 54th F.I.P. Congress on 5th November, 1985 in Rome, and replace all previous special
regulations for literature. They came into force on 5th November, 1985 and apply to those exhibitions which
are granted F.I.P. patronage, auspices or support at the 54th F.I.P. Congress and thereafter.
Note: The cross-references to the Statutes and GREX have been updated to refer to the Statutes and GREX
approved by the 69th F.I.P. Congress on October 13th, 2006 at Málaga.

Guidelines for Judging Philatelic Literature
Introduction
These guidelines are intended as a checklist which is detailed enough to be of service for specialized
literature exhibitions as well as for general philatelic exhibitions in which literature is only one of several
classes.

General Principles
While the majority of the principles in exhibiting philatelic literature is identical to those which apply to otherphilatelic classes as well, there are certain distinct differences.
In the first place, the significance and importance of a piece of literature cannot be seen from the outside.
Literature must be judged by its content, and obviously the judges have to be familiar with that content
before the start of the exhibition. While the three to five days available for judging will allow time forreview and some reading, it in no way suffices for each judge to read each entry thoroughly.
Second, literature exhibits cannot be taken apart and improved from one show to the next. In many cases,the exhibit represents a lifetime of research and effort which will serve philately for years to come. For thisreason, the exhibiting of philatelic literature must be looked at primarily as a means of encouraging andpromoting such literary efforts, and only secondarily as a competition for various levels of awards.
Third, it follows that the public must be able to examine the literature. A glance at a row of books in a lockedcase gives little information, and is a disservice to the viewer and the exhibitor. It is the content that is ofinterest, not the covers.
The F.I.P. has developed a comprehensive set of regulations for evaluating philatelic exhibits, incorporating
those F.I.P. principles common to all competitive classes. For philatelic literature, these principles areexpressed in the Special Regulations for the Evaluation of Philatelic Literature Exhibits at F.I.P. Exhibitions.
They are supplemented by provisions which recognize aspects of philatelic literature which are unique to thisclass, the Supplementary Rules for the Philatelic Literature Class in F.I.P. Exhibitions.
The two documents, taken as a whole, constitute the requirements for exhibiting and judging philatelicliterature at F.I.P. exhibitions.

Use of the Evaluation System
The use of a point system, together with appropriate "scoring sheets", can be helpful in reaching balanced
and rational evaluations. However, it must be emphasized that such a system cannot be appliedmechanically; the final point totals also must be looked at in terms of the overall quality of the exhibits.

It may be helpful at this point to give some concrete examples of the use of the scoring system. These
examples are not taken from actual jury results; they are, however, representative of the evaluations reachedduring jury deliberations.
1. The Postal History of the Forwarding Agents, by Ken Rowe, published 1984 by L. Hartmann:
Treatment of contents (maximum 40)
38
Very clear presentation of a difficult, worldwide subject; the book iseasy to use, and reliable
Originality, significance and depth of research (maximum 40)
37
Particularly high marks for originality; Rowe was the first to systematicallytreat this aspect of postal history (in 1966 and again in 1974), inspiringother scholars to do similar research. The subject matter is also of
considerable significance. Quite thorough, considering the worldwide
scope but Dromberg's recent work on Finnish forwarders lists many
important agents not covered by Rowe.
Technical matters (maximum 15)
A few problems with crossindexing, and with placing of notes.

13

Presentation (maximum 5)492 (= Gold)

Total:

2. Eesti Filatelist / The Estonian Philatelist / Der Estnische Philatelist, No. 30 (1984).
Annual publication of the Society of Estonian Philatelists in Sweden and the Estonian Philatelic Society in
New York. Edited by Elmar Ojaste. 288 pages.
Treatment of contents (maximum 40)
Generally well written and edited, with good use of illustrations andtables. Most articles are in several languages, or at least havemultilingual summaries. Not all articles are at the same level of clarity
and technical soundness.

34

Originality, significance and depth of research (maximum 40)
This journal is a critical source for Estonian philately, and contains
much original material. This particular issue has several articles
reprinted from other sources; also not all of the material is philatelic(some numismatics, some errinophil items).
A single journal issue of course does not have the depth of the recent
Handbook of Estonian Philately, although it must be remembered thatmuch of the material in the handbook was originally developed within
the pages of the journal.

32

Technical matters (maximum 15)

14

Presentation (maximum 5)
Occasional weakness in offset reproduction, affecting the legibility ofillustrated covers and documents.
Total:

484 (= Vermeil)

Please note that the comments above are meant to suggest the mental process used in reaching a"numerical" evaluation. Two aspects of that thought process are worth stressing.
First, judges should look first for the positive aspects of the exhibits, rather than merely looking to see "howmany points can I take off".
Second, all evaluations have to be made on a comparative basis with respect to what else has been
published on that subject, how well similar matters are handled in other publications, even such questions as
how significant a given publication may be for one country or language group as compared with others.
These comparative factors can all change from one year or one exhibition to another, and it's conceivablethat such changes may affect the evaluation of an exhibit.

21.07.05/MH
01.02.2009-AV/NRB