Talk:Penny Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Philately WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of philately and stamp collecting. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or check out the Philately Portal.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

An event in this article is a May 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

I'm going to change the first sentence to make plain that they were sold from 1st May 1840, for use from the 6th... Arwel 03:08 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have any reference that makes the distinction - are you saying that a random member of the public could buy them from May 1, but not use them until the 6th? Stan 04:47 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this comment until now, but yes, the stamps were put on sale 6 days before they were to come into use, which is how a few came to be used early. As to references, this is something I've always known, but take a look at http://stamps.about.com/library/weekly/aa083102a.htm ! -- Arwel 11:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I found a couple mentions of the two dates since then too, but forgot that I had asked the question! Stan 14:42, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The VR official bits should mostly go to VR official, don't have time to do it right now though. Stan 14:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I never noticed before that the corner letters of the old image were impossible... At some point I'll scan mine in at 600dpi so readers can groove on the details of the engraving. Stan 05:58, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 two pictures 3 Date Format and Currency 4 Penny Postage

[edit] Cleanup

I posted a cleanup tag because of the quality of the language. I am not a good one for prose, but this sure as heck needs some reworking. Cockneyite 06:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This article need major re-working .... a lot of the details are wrong or are presented in the wrong context ... They were not issued in Bath they were issued nationwide, prob with London recieving the first supplies. The treasury comp was not done by Hill, in fact he saw this as a delay to putting his plans in place. And here are many other points ... If you want me to rewrite it I will but someone else will need to go over it and wiki it .. Tallanent

[edit] two pictures

Is there any reason we have two pictures of the stamp? Borisblue 03:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one is of a nice mint stamp while the other shows how the first cancellation, the Maltese Cross, was used to cancel the stamps though this is not made clear in the text. Actually, IMHO, this article needs some cleanup done on it to clarify some matters. ww2censor 03:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date Format and Currency

I understand that Americans make up a large portion of Wikipedians, and I usually do not have a problem with the writing of American articles using American English and American Date Formats but since this article is specifically about the birth of stamps in Britain, I feel that it would be respectful for British forms and conventions to be used.

Date "Although May 6 was..."

I feel that the dates not only should be in the original DD/MM/YYYY format, as this is an English article but should have the proper -st, -nd, -rd, or -th suffix; so for example, it think the line should read:

"Although 6th May was..."

Currency: "In 2000 a used copy cost about US$200 (around £110)..."

Since the stamps were on sale in Pounds Sterling for many years before the dollar was conceived, I feel that the currency information should read:

"In 2000 a used copy cost about £110 (around US$200)..."

I feel this way because I believe respect should always be shown for an articles nativity but maybe I'm just being unnecessarily picky.... 81.208.165.239 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Following British English in this article is reasonable, and is one of our standard guidelines, it's not out of a misplaced sense of "respect", but because it's a compromise that forestalls otherwise-endless fighting. However, note that we prefer modern BE, and favor "6 May" over "6th May". Stan 04:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am English and everone I know would write the date as '6th May'. Dropping the 'th' is definately American.

As I can see from YOUR OWN Wiki signature, the date without th is used in Britain too. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Not quite. As the Wikipedia software is written by Americans, and can't be altered to suit other national preferences, that's why the date on the signatures reads like that. Not QED at all. 217.155.195.19 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with the sentiments concerning the British format of the date and quoting the prices primarily in pounds sterling. However, the price quoted for a used copy (£110) is outrageous. Looking through recent NPS auction catalogues, I've found two recent examples of Penny Blacks, one with a reserve price of £4 and the other at £5. Admittedly, they were both poor copies, but I doubt if a good copy would fetch more than £25, unless, of course, you're foolish enough to go to Stanley Gibbons. Of course, if it has unusually large margins or a postmark of an unusual colour (blue, magenta etc.), then it will go for much more. [user: Allan Deeds, 02:24, 3rd February 2007] {Sorry - I seem to have put this comment in the wrong place. It was meant to go in the section above, under 'date/prices', but I don't know how to move it. I'm fairly new to this game.}

Hmm, they must be more expensive in the States. The right way to handle in the article might be to quote a variety of specific prices, naming auction/dealer, specific year of specific catalog, etc. I never like putting prices in stamp articles, because they are so variable, but if you say nothing, the non-expert reader has no way to know whether a Black is a £1 or a £1000 stamp (many people think all old stamps are super-expensive, WP's role should include correcting this mistake.) Stan 02:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(To move things just cut-n-paste in the edit box.)

This discussion is somewhat out of date regarding the price. There has been quite an increase in the value of PBs in recent years. A good looking, four margin example will set you back £120 plus now. A superb used example is £200 plus. Horrible ones fetch £12 to £15 at least. Even faulty but nice looking PBs are about £30. But is the current price of a PB relevant to the article? Bigger.Simon (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penny Postage

I miss a reference to the introduction of "Universal Penny Postage" which was the reason for issuing this stamp in the first place.--dunnhaupt 15:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

While there is an article on Penny postage there is none for Universal Penny Postage though these topics it might be appropriate to make a redirect page but don't forget about New Zealand who on 1 January 1900 introduced of 1d universal penny post system of their own. Penny postage is certainly an article that could be expanded. ww2censor 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the idea of universal penny postage was that it was the same throughout the empire, and that it dates from around 1900, not 1840. In 1840, a lot of the "empire" was rather too disorganized even to have consistent currency, let alone postage rates. Stan 02:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stan is correct, so we really need to make a new article AND expand the existing one. I must find some references for both if no one else does it first. I think what dunnhaupt means is the Uniform Penny Post not the Universal Penny Postage. Cheers ww2censor 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)