Talk:Clive Feigenbaum

Clive Feigenbaum

I am the lead researcher on the printing company that was owned by Clive in the '80s. I need help with editing as much new information has been uncovered and the page needs some drastic changes. Much of what is presented on the page has been taken from what I shall call UN-RELIABLE sources. We now have documented proof that many of the timeline written edits are not true, or off key. Please contact me directly at golowenow@comcast.net. We must discuss much before editing. Thank you for your time in this. I tried to edit once and it was rejected I believe through you for not having reliable sources. A good thing. I have absolutely no experience in editing and will need your help to reveal the truth about this man. Format Researcher (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message but it is not my policy to exchange emails off-wiki about Wikipedia work. Please communicate here or on the talk page for the article. Please make your edits with reliable and verifiable sources or don't add the information. There is a link to relevant policies on your talk page. Feigenbaum is dead so you can't libel him but we still need to ensure content is accurate. If you don't have verification for your information then don't add it. If nothing has been published to back up your claims, then you could consider asking a journalist to write an article in a reliable source, or having the information otherwise published, which would then enable you to add it to the article. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for messaging me Philafrenzy. I am beginning to understand how to work with the Wikepedia system now. We are in process of getting documentation proving facts of editing. Coorespondence letters, Trial evidence documents, Lawyer documents and much much more. This evidence is being obtained via Clive's son and has never been revealed to the public at large. We plan on presenting this evidence in a special folder I will be posting on my website which is the leading reference site on the Format International Security Printers Ltd. I have been researching the printing company and the last owner (Clive) for many years. Much of the shall we say minimal "reliable sources" out there have used falsified and biased statements sometimes influenced by enemies of Mr. Feigenbaum right down to outright lies being made about what happened at the time. This needs to be changed to show the truth of what really happened as, as you can see, it has spread a very bad light on Mr. Feigenbaum in general. I would like to have help and your approval or disapproval on these matters as we take the Wikepedia page to major changes as the evidence will show. We will take the first item being "Expelled from the Philatelic Traders Society" and show evidence to change the history of why, how, and possibly WHO caused this to happen. Yes he was expelled but the accusations were false to begin with ect;. The ASDA supported Mr. Feigenbaum through it all. The PTS were too quick to judge and even expelled Urch Harris at the time with no evidence to back up their reasons. Interesting yes? Please post your views to this please. Regards.

Format Researcher (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, the only message that I have sent you is the one posted above. You are more than welcome to correct any inaccuracy in the article as long as the information that you add is verifiable and from reliable sources. Please read our guidance on this (linked from your talk page) before adding anything. I would particularly caution you against adding information about living individuals that might be seen as defamatory - we have rules about that too. I am going to move this discussion to the talk page of the article where it more properly belongs. Can I make it clear that I do not own that article, nor does any other Wikipedia user, nor do my comments or opinions have any particular status on this project above any other contributor (just in case you were under that impression) and it is not up to me to approve any particular actions you may wish to take. Having said all that, any attempt to make the encyclopaedia more accurate is always welcome. Good luck. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Philafrenzy, we will be sure that all things are in order before editing. No living nor passed on individuals will be used by name in a defamatory sense. Only solid facts and evidence will be used in defense against defamatory comments and statements against Mr. Clive Feigenbaums name. This I can assure you of as Mr. Feigenbaum is well experienced in receipt of said defamatory information. Please stay tuned to the page as the process will take some time to unravel. The search of the files has only begun and there are many. Mr. Feigenbaum saved everthing. Not a sign of a person trying to hide anything. Thank you for your help.Format Researcher (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

POV

"for which one of his firms produced "stamps" of doubtful validity." Large parts of this article seem to have been written by someone with an axe to grind. Unless these statements are sourced.I think it would be best to trim a lot out of the article.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that actually the article is fairly accurate. It is well referenced and the general tone does agree with everything that I have heard about the man, although clearly there are those who have posted above who appear to disagree. I think Feigenbaum was just one of those characters who was always up to some sort of dubious deal or another, though he did manage to stay out of jail (just). Philafrenzy (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No reply to message left on talk page of user 21 August so I am going to remove the POV tag. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Format International

Whilst I appreciate that this only a short article (at present) surely something should be included about Format International and Feigenbaum's involvement therein. The various altercations over, for example, the "Leaders of the World" series must be relevant to far more philatelists then the included mention of the Staffa stamps - though I am not suggesting the latter be removed. To omit any mention of Format International is akin to writing a writing about Einstein without mentioning relativity!

Clearly there are a wide spectrum of views regarding Feigengbaum as witnessed by the contrast between the article and the comments by Format Researcher in the first section of this talk page. However I do not see it is impossible to include something on the Format International involvement whilst maintaining a neutral POV.Kermitstan (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, put it in. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bernera Islands

Here is what needs to be changed in this section. I do not know how to get the reference into the reference section so here is what I wrote with the link to the reference.

The description of the postal service for Bernera Islands is completely wrong here. At the time there was no postal service provided by the Royal Mail postal service. The mail was picked up by a private boating company and transported to the mainland. Then British stamps were applied to the letters and mailed at the mainlands post office. The costs to do this were a lot. It is a long boat ride. The service was provided for tourists. The face value of the British Locals for Bernera Islands was used to pay for the transport of the mail to and from the islands and also the proceeds went to the Bernera Community Council. £10 is nothing in light of what they were used for.

And the link Where is it? Descriptions of Illegals and Locals

This is just a start. Can you help me get it in the section please. Format Researcher (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the Royal Mail postal service as that might be wrong, but the rest of the section is based on an article in The Times and is a reliable source. The link you have provided is to some notes on a stamp dealing website that give no sources for their information and cannot be regarded as a reliable source. It also appears to deal with the situation now. The proceeds may now go to the council but there is no evidence they did in 1985. It seems unlikely that the local council would have exploited tourists to that extent but please provide the evidence if you can show they did.

Also, the cost of a first class stamp in the UK today is 60p not £10. Ten pounds in 1985 would be more like £20 or £30 today. Do you really argue that tourists were paying that much to have a novelty stamp applied to a letter and taken on a boat ride to the mainland to be posted? Since you say it was for tourists, couldn't they just have waited until they got back to the mainland and posted it themselves (cost 17p first class or 12p second class, not £10) as tourist mail is unlikely to have been urgent.

If the Avion webpage is reliable, I note that it says "Postal rates are double those of the United Kingdom" so that makes them about £1.20 today twenty seven years later. This section is about the service provided in 1985 in return for £10 "Gold" stamps.

Historic stamp prices here; http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/27/60p-price-stamp-royal-mail Philafrenzy (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit Philafrenzy. An excellent start on this. We are working on getting documented proof on the monetary usage status. All of this takes time as there are hundreds of files and sources to go through. Format Researcher (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Involvement with Stanley Gibbons

Here is a new link to the article refered to in this section noting it is not archived. I have archived it. Chairman Resigns at Stanley Gibbons

In this section the referenced comment by David Stokes needs to be elaborated on. As you can see in the article the "bad press" referenced to was in regards to Mr. Feigenbaums relation to the Philatelic Traders Society (PTS). This ties with other sections on this biography on Mr. Feigenbaum. Basically concerning the stamps of Staffa and Mr. Feigenbaum's refusal to call them Tourist Souvenir Labels. This caused a conflict between the PTS and Mr. Feigenbaum. Mr. Feigenbaum stated he resigned. The PTS states he was expelled. The truth will probably never be known as both sides contend and will not admit fault. This needs to be addressed. In present day according to the latest Catalogs on British Locals the stamps from Staffa are considered just that. British Locals falling under the same status as Lundy island stamps. Mr. Feigenbaum held his ground and beliefs in these stamps and refused to change their description according to an outdated committee's decision, namely the Stamp Trade Standing Committee established jointly by the P.T.S. and B.P.A. created in 1966 and of which to this day the PTS refuses to budge on the decisions of this committee made in 1969-70. Mr. Feigenbaum was also a lifetime member of the ASDA since 1961. He never had a problem with them. Therefore we need to firstly correct this section and then work on the Staffa and the expulsion sections.

I have the documents from the standing committee's decisions. I have letters from the PTS showing the requested information on the stamps by Mr. Feigenbaum. These I can archive as needed.

I have archived an article written in the Evening Times announcing the release of the first Staffa stamps and their usage. Perhaps this will help in our modifications. Please read it. Here is the link. Staffa Stamps Out of time for now. This is facinating though is it not? Puts a different light on things. Format Researcher (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding this in. Have read the referenced article Source #6. Basically the only thing this source does is "reference" to the article source #7. The referencing to the Diana issues for North Korea and Locals of Easdale Island have nothing to do with the press release nor his involvement with Stanley Gibbons. The last paragraph of source #7 shows exactly what the problem was.

Quoting: "The report had outlined Mr. Feigenbaum's interests in "local label" stamps which are not officially recognized. A disagreement over the description of "propaganda labels" in advertising promotions led to his expulsion (I state here he has stated he resigned) from the Philatelic Traders Society in 1970." end quoting.

Therefore I propose that reliable source #6 be deleted from the list of reliable sources as far as the involvement with Stanley Gibbons is concerned.

Should you wish to use it on the Easdale Island section that can be possible. But that is another subject which also must be presented in greater detail as it is, granted an oddity, but basically under "legal" standing locals of Easdale are contracted the same as other locals. No covers found atm but they can be used in the same manner.

Another reason not to use the source #6 as a reference is because of the biased presentation of the written article. Firstly referencing the FULL content of the statement made by the Easdale Island representative here. Easdale Scout Local Post Issues As you see the last part of the statement is conveniently left off in the source #6 article. This is because it shows that the stamps CAN be used in the same way as Lundy, Bernera etc; locals are used. Same concept. Ferry boat to the main post. Whether they have been used as such is up for debate. research still ongoing. Interesting yes? Format Researcher (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at this in detail at the moment but will review your comments as soon as I can. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Philafrenzy. Not a problem. This whole thing is going to take a lot of time. I should really start another caption for STAFFA but am still working on it. I just found an interesting cover that shows usage of the Scout issue in 1979. It was sold on eBay a month ago. Proper placement of the locals postmarked with the Staffa cancel. Franked with British 7p and postmarked in OBAN. Interesting thing is the Oban postmark is almost 3 months later! I theorize that it sat in the letterbox on the island that long perhaps? wow. Am contacting previous owner as he may have others. Thank you again. Format Researcher (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read these links, but I have to say that they do not tend to change the overall picture of Mr Feigenbaum which seems to be unremittingly negative. The only nice thing I have found about him is that he apparently liked cricket. I changed the PTS bit to make it clear that he said he resigned but in doing a search of news sources I regret that I found only negative news about the man. No one doubts that there are examples of genuine local posts in the UK, including Lundy Island and Scout Christmas posts of the type you link, however, I don't think that Mr Feigenbaum's activities can realistically be put in the same bracket given the vast amount that he charged for this supposed service. He was no philanthropist. I suggest that if you want to change the overall impression that you find something nice to say about the man, perhaps he was kind to small children or animals? (But we will need evidence from a reliable source). I suspect that you knew him, perhaps he was a friend of yours, but I regret to say that he simply does not seem to have been a very pleasant individual and that is all there is to it, sorry. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Philafrenzy, Thank you for reviewing and doing some more editing. I have been ill for a bit from a bad cold so not much time. Firstly I must state I did not know Mr. Feigenbaum personally. I have had some dealings with his son Jonathan and he has helped me in obtaining many documents in regards to the printing practices and such of the printing company. I became involved in Mr. Feigenbaums history only as it became a part of my research into the stamps printed by the Format Printers. In uncovering the evidence in regards to the stamps I have also uncovered evidence in regards to Mr. Feigenbaum. The two go hand in hand. Jonathan has asked me to see what we can do to get this documentary on Mr. Feigenbaum into a fair and truthful form. It was written with complete bias against the man and in such a way as not to be sued for defamation of character. He asked me because I am unbiased and impartial to either side. I strictly look at the evidence and am impartial to either side. Much of what has been used as reliable sources in this document are not reliable at all. They are articles written by biased columnists in certain newspapers and magazines which when you look at it cannot be reliable as they in turn do not show reliable sources of what they are writing about. They use hearsay and make statements with no proof whatsoever in regards to what they wrote. A for instance: Nagaland. "Believed". What reliable source shows this to even be a relavent topic in this document? We could add he is "believed" to be involved in the recession or the collapse of the world economy also. Do you see my point? Where is the solid proof that he was involved? A gold stamp? I guess he was involved in all the U.S. gold stamps that are everywhere also then yes? I could go on but I think you can see my point. From my resources I have seen a different view of the man. People with who I have made contact and who have known him and dealt with him state he was a charming individual and quite courteous. The community that live on Easdale Island of which he was the owner and now Jonathan is have stated they both always have looked out for the welfare of the community and the island as a whole. These are not statements that would be made should the man be as unpleasant an individual as these articles portray him to be. Rightly so he was a keen businessman or he would not have become a millionaire. Do you not think that along the way he did not make some enemies? The people he had to fire. The companies he took over. The stamp dealers who to this day wish to keep his name defamed because of dealings that went awry and did not work in their favor? Yes I have names but cannot show them because they would come after me for the same situation. Defamation of character. But I can assure you they exist and are in powerful positions in our little market. This is why the changing of this document needs to be done carefully and with absolute certainty. The addition of Mr. Feigenbaums statement that he resigned is fair and balanced Philafrenzy. It shows there are two sides to the story not one. It still needs to be modified though. This sentence: for selling "labels resembling stamps" without indicating that they were not genuine postage stamps Needs to change to: for selling what the Stamp Trade standing committee recommended in 1970 which was to call stamps for Staffa Island "Tourist Souvenir Labels" whereas Mr. Feigenbaum refused to accept and continued to his death to call them "British Locals" which fall under the category of "stamps". Mr. Feigenbaum claimed that he resigned for this reason, rather than being expelled. Then this sentence: In 1984 he applied for re-admission but withdrew his application before it could be considered following adverse press comment about his business affairs.

This sounds like the same sentence used in the Stanley Gibbons Stock market thing. He withdrew his application because the PTS still would not bend in regards to the naming of Staffa locals which is what the expulsion or resignation was about in the first place. He knew then it was useless to reapply. In 1985 he phoned for the PTS's information and got responses in letters and printouts of the Standing committees decisions. His notes were not happy on them. It does not matter that the island is unihabited. What matters is was the service available and was it used. The answer is yes to both. Full properly used covers exist which are used in exactly the same way as Lundy Island locals are used.

You see Philafrenzy...it all ties together. Also I have been gathering more articles written by this Michael Horsnell and I can tell you this...the guy did not like Mr. Feigenbaum and shows it in his writings. He is quite accusatory and again I must state without proof. We need to work on this more. I see you found another source with the newsbank.com site. The source is limited though. Does not have many of the articles. Also they are not in "original" form. Still it is good. We need any source we can get. Format Researcher (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To deal with your points in no particular order:

• The newsbank source is not a new source as such, just an electronic archive of the text of old newspaper articles. It is as reliable as the underlying sources but since we are talking mostly about The Times of London and the Sunday Times I would tend to view them as reliable sources in our terms, particularly where they report court cases.
• The Nagaland stamps are widely believed within UK philately to be Feigenbaum productions, certainly the first ones, though I would agree that there is no definitive proof in the public domain and anyone could produce stamps bearing the words Nagaland. This claim is sourced to a newspaper article that pre-dates significantly this article but I see, having had another look, that this point actually came from an earlier Sunday Times article and I will change the article to make the original source clear. I will also see if I can find anything else to support/refute the point.
• I agree anyone can produce "gold" stamps, however there is strong evidence for the fact that Clive Feigenbaum did produce them for Staffa.
• You are correct that the full details of the argument with the PTS over the status of the stamps or labels that were produced for Staffa, and possibly other places, are not in the public domain, however, I believe that the paragraph, based on an article in The Times, accurately conveys the substance of the dispute without getting bogged down in terminology.
• You can't libel the dead. Here we only include material that is already in the public domain so any damage was done years ago.
• To add new facts you need to publish them in a reliable source such as a newspaper, magazine, website of a reliable source or philatelic periodical. Everything here is second-hand, nothing is unpublished original research or theories.
• This might be a good time for me to record that to my knowledge I have never met or had any business dealings with you, any Feigenbaums, or any company associated with them, though I have acquired Nagaland and Staffa stamps in various stamp collections I have purchased from collectors over the years. Some of them are not too bad, even if the printing quality tends to leave a bit to be desired. Judging from what I have seen on eBay, they seem to be quite collectable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Philafrenzy, I commend your excellent and professional views, editing and research into the subject. I do not claim to know everything about the man. Only that I have obtained quite a bit of information not known publicly. Much of the documentation from the trials, the printing company, PTS etc; are not in public hands anywhere except in mine and Mr. Feigenbaums sons hands. Most Security Printers and such destroy most documentation. The documents from the trials were destroyed after 7 years by the British Court system. The trials against the printer and associates was in 7 volumes of which there were around 600-1000 documents in each volume. Two volumes were recovered. The other five I am sad to say are probably already destroyed. If my research had been a few years earlier it would possibly have been that all 7 would have been recovered. A boon to those who do not wish the information known.

Try to find out quantities issued by many countries and you will find all records are destroyed. This is especially true with many countries that had issues made by the Format Printers. And we are not talking only during the short span of Mr. Feigenbaums ownership but years before that. Did you know that the Format Printers produced many of the later Sand Dune issues? How do I know? Because of what was found in the archive and other receivers of press sheets have in their possession from the company. The printers did not put their logo on the sheets at the time so it is very difficult to define. Another branch of the research.

Again I wish to tell you of my appreciation and the collecting communities appreciation for the work being done on this. The truth needs to be known.

Starting this section.

Tanzania

The stamps in question were a secondary printing of the issued stamps only they were inscribed "85th Year of H.R.H. The Queen Mother" rather than "85th Birthday of H.M. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother". I believe they were simply a variation that the crown Agents did not want to go with simply because the Royal Family wanted the Queen Mother to be called "Her Majesty". This has occured many times with many countries during the span of the Format Printers and I am sure the same hold true with the Holder Printing Company as well which is the company that produced the stamps. The second quoted version were issued and except for the inscription are the exact same stamps. You can view both versions on eBay right now from different sellers. I note that the unissued version I viewed had all perforations intact and complete. This gets back to the biased articles produced by this Michael Horsnell. I have the referenced article in front of me.

• 1.) He never mentions anything about the issued set in the article. He words it so one thinks that thousands of the unissued were "issued".
• 2.) It is his statement that the perforations do not penetrate the paper which we can now see simply is not true.
• 3.) He states the British Crown Agents recommended they destroy the stamps but does not state their reasons for the request trying with words to tie bad perfs and errors as the reason.

My take is that it was simply because they were going with the second quoted version under Royal Guidlines.

• 4.)They were organized under Mr. Feigenbaum and various other entities including the British Crown Agents who contracted them. They would not have been involved in accepting or rejecting these issues unless they were totally involved.
• 5.) The man then drums up all the old news on the expulsion, his resignation ect;.
• 6.) Errors and varieties exist for both versions. I have full uncut press sheets of some of them which also include Locomotives, Automobiles, Chess and others.

Philafrenzy, can you not see that the Royalty wanted her called "Her Majesty" not "Her Royal Highness" and that is why they were rejected? I must state here that most of the stamps produced by the Holder Printing Company are of a lower quality in comparison to the Format issues. Format was the leading printer using the latest technologies. In ending we can both see that Scott and Stanley Gibbons list the H.M. version therefore this section needs to be totally revamped.Format Researcher (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look at this when I can, you are of course free to change the article yourself. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I revised it. The Times article was dated 14 August 1985, the corrected stamps were issued in Tanzania 30 September according to my catalogue. It seems they simply made a design error in the originals and I have taken it that the rejected stamps were the original eroneous printing as that seems to make sense. I think the statement that the Crown Agents recommended their destruction can be taken at face value so I have left that in. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely perfect Philafrenzy. The subject is now presented with true fairness and unbiased. The unissued stamps are available as many such unissued stamps and series from both the companies are and will be forever. I believe most of the Holder issues were somehow tied with the sales and liquidation of the Format Printers. It is an interesting side company of which there is very little information on. Here is an interesting twist. Did you know that Questa and Format are tied together? The addresses on both Presentation Folders for progressives are the same in many instances. Hehe, but that is for another research project. This section of the document I agree should stand. Thank you. Have to go atm.Format Researcher (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Expelled from The Philatelic Traders Society

Inserting this section because it is not clarified.

• Firstly re-linking the Staffa Stamp Article here which shows date they were first issued and their purpose.

Staffa Stamps

• The expulsion happened in 1970 because of this.

Stamp Trade Standing Committee Decisions

• This is image of a properly used cover from Staffa in 1979. Others..yes rare...exist.

Properly used Stamps of Staffa

• I have archived the "Stanley Gibbons Faces writ for £45,000 From Dealer" article here.

Stanley Gibbons faces Writ for £45,000 from Dealer

Here is an interesting question. Who were the six dealers? I know who several were and they were complete enemies of Mr. Feigenbaum. Noting Jonathan Clare is also in question in motives and wording of his articles also. Have to go again. But will work this some more. You can see there is definitely a big conflict as more and more evidence is being uncovered. Format Researcher (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who the six were and it really doesn't matter, they are only mentioned to show that there was opposition to his re-joining the PTS. Their motives are not really something that it is appropriate to cover here as it would be speculation and run the risk of defaming living persons. Please be careful not to add any defamatory content here.

• The article in the Evening Times is clearly simply quoting a publicity or press release and from the context may not amount to a reliable source. I note the humorous and children's pieces adjacent. The article actually uses the word publicise and puts the phrase "postage stamps" in quotation marks because the writer clearly knows that this is not an entirely genuine postal service.
• The cover apparently from Staffa is rather weak evidence as it is clearly philatelic and shows a three month delay from being "posted" on Staffa to being re-posted in Oban. It also bears 45p Staffa stamps against the UK postage of 7p. Who would pay 6 x the normal postage for three month delay in the transmission of a letter that could simply have been posted on the mainland in the first place. Since no-one lived on the island and all visitors were from the mainland in the first place what would be the point? Also, how do we know that this was not simply a Staffa cover got up for collectors, reposted on the mainland subsequently. This philatelic cover is poor evidence for the existence of a genuine postal service.
• I am uncertain what your point is about the £45000.

Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

These same type of ads and such can be found next to Michael Horsnell's articles as well as other "reliable sources". His articles are listed under "Hobbies". I never stated they were "postage stamps" and the writer did obviously also know this. They are British Private Locals which are in a category of it's own. Simply the conflict is are they "stamps" or are they "labels". If evidence proves they were used in the same way as Lundy Islands stamps then they indeed fall under the same category. Some philatelic experts have deemed them as such refering to the British documents made back in the 30's honoring them as such as long as they are properly used as the cover shows. Most British Locals are just that...to publisize the point of origin.

To understand the cover you must look at all aspects of it's usage. It was posted in February. The bad time of year for boat trips to Staffa Island. Landing all depends on conditions of the sea. Possibly and more than likely posted on an odd trip to the island until May when the season starts again which is usually May to August. You can find this information simply by looking up when tours to Staffa Island are. The letter sat in the letterbox until May when it was picked up and taken (by private boat) to Oban and properly franked and posted.

You need to look at many British Locals in this same way. Many are just a novelty in a way but the point is that they are "required" for a letter or postcard to be picked up and delivered to the official postal system. This is what the article in question states and shows for Staffa. The price is irrelavent. If they want to charge $100 it is their choice. Not to say anybody would use it then but...hehe...you see my point. 45p is nothing.

I have seen this contraversy over and over again. "Genuine postal system". The conflict lies between "official postage systems" and "Local postage systems". British Locals will never be considered "official". That is why they are to be placed away from where "official postage stamps" are to be applied. It is the termonology that is the conflict as Mr. Feigenbaum showed and stood for to his last days. If the National Trust of Scotland wanted to start the program to receive revenues for upkeep of the island and such it would once again be legitimate British Locals. Or would we consider the new issues "Tourist Souvenir Labels" just because the island is uninhabited?

The £45000 article was not archived so people can view it in it's entirety. So I archived it. What is interesting is there is no mention that Mr. Feigenbaum is the one who bought out Urch Harris. Owned it until he closed it down and created Stampdile. You can see by the article there was bitterness due to being "shut out". A small example showing how Mr. Feigenbaum had enemies. His takeover of the Format Printers was very harshly received by previous owners ect; The context of these actions has caused most writings on the man to be in a bad light. As one can see he was a very quiet individual. Low profile shall we say. One reason there is not a lot of public information on his side of the story.

I do hope this shows a more clear picture of why I started this section on the talk page. Perhaps it is a way for others to post more evidence for or against thus solidifying the base of the documentation. As I stated in the beginning this subject is much more complex than just a few lines from one or two articles. And yes my view and research is a bit not accepted by the philatelic Community because of the rumors and overexaggerated statements made by a few which has been instilled into the community for over 20 years now. I too was at one point on the "other side" basing my opinion on these same articles but the evidence and such that is being uncovered does paints a very different picture of what really happened and this needs to be shown to make things fair and balanced. The subject is still young in its creation and for it to be allowed to exist in such a public form...needs to be unbiased either way.Format Researcher (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the article is wrong, or that you can usefully expand it, you need to add the content to the article rather than here, you are fully entitled to and evidently you know how. You will need to provide a reliable source for anything you add and other users reserve the right to change what you have done if they disagree with it. As Stan correctly indicates below, this talk page is not a forum for a general discussion or analysis of a subject, it is to discuss the article itself. You have now made 14 lengthy contributions but have yet to edit an article directly. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I just have not done such yet because I do not have full knowledge on adding the reliable sources. When I try I cannot get into the section to do such. I get a reflist2 with no list. I would like to know how to add for instance the "archived here" for the £45,000 article. Could you please explain steps to do this? Please, do not do it for me, I want to do it myself so I know how. For the most part much has been improved and stands. Your suggestions on having some of the research published has not fallen on deaf ears. I am looking into some well known authors in major philatelic magazines doing a few pieces.Format Researcher (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Search help for the numerous articles on formatting your text. Edit the article as a whole rather than a section to see the references section. I use http://www.webcitation.org/ to archive a live web page. Experiment with it, it's free. It only works with things that are already live on the web. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Philafrenzy for the information. I need to state here that quite a few of the newly added reliable sources are not able to be accessed by the general public. Therefore I would request that they be archived in their entire form at your archiving website of choice. Without being able to look directly at articles referenced on the subject it is hard to give merit to what is being stated in the subject. Every reliable source needs to be able to be accessed easily for the readers or it should not be considered as such in the subject. In many cases things are taken out of context from articles and such and when the full article is viewed things can look entirely different. Therefore when full disclosure is available it will present the subject as fair and balanced.Format Researcher (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I take your point. Unfortunately, The Times historic archive and Newsbank both require a log in. For that reason I have not provided a link. Many UK public library users are able to access these sources for free, however, so they are not exactly hidden but I agree that it is not ideal. We don't exclude sources just because they are offline or behind a log-in if they are the only or best sources. If you explore academic or library electronic resources where you are you may be able to find a way in to The Times archive or Newsbank. I will see what I can do. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Philafrenzy. Sorry I have been away. Illness got me good. Yes I have accessed the newsbank through..hehe...special ways. My point though is that most readers will not figure out how and in most cases it is just allowing the convenience. Some of the articles noted I have copies of and will work on archiving them. Reading through the documentary again it really does look a lot better! It is agreed that Mr. Feigenbaum was involved in a lot of aspects of the philatelic world and yes some were in a gray area or you could say riding the line. The documentary is showing much more of both sides of the coin now though and in the end it is up to the reader to determine. We are giving them much more information than has ever been published before now and when collectors and such read this they can also see that what was once taboo in the philatelic community and did actually create conflicts is today a common practice in stamp production in many countries. A for instance is a late article in Linns about the U.S. production of certain stamp issues in uncut press sheets which are imperforate. You can only get them on order (not over the counter)and only on the uncut press sheets of which thousands are produced. Sounds a bit familiar does it not? But...it's ok.....now, and they are of value! Unlike the much more limited quantities produced by Format which are apparently to some still....wallpaper. Hmmmm..interesting yes?Format Researcher (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Strategy

While all the discussion here is interesting, I'm concerned that things are starting to drift towards original research. We really don't want to be in the business of evaluating primary sources vs secondary sources; it would be better for researchers to complete their work independently of WP, publish it and get reviews independently of WP, and only then do we consider how WP should summarize. I note that the wiki format is a good vehicle for collaborative research, and that for work of this depth it's most appropriate to create a new wiki (with Mediawiki it takes just a few minutes set up, many hosting services offer it on their control panels already) rather than borrowing a WP talk page. Stan (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is getting a bit out of hand. I have repeatedly asked Format Researcher to get his information published elsewhere so that it can be used here (see various messages above). I have also asked him to add content directly. I don't think, however, that there is any original research in the article. In fact it is unusually well referenced with good quality sources, so there is no problem with the article, only the talk page. I personally am not researching this area, either on my own or in conjunction with Format Researcher, whose views I think are not generally accepted within the world of philately. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

Hello, I came back in to view a few items on this reference and have found that links to references are dead and/or do not link to archived articles on the various subjects. I was looking at the section called "Star Wars and Teletubbies stamps" and found the link to number 26 no longer links to the article. Apparently the Harrow Times no longer has the article archived and this has in turn been lost on the Wayback Machine which was used as reference. Luckily, I took a snapshot of the article years ago.

I have uploaded the snapshot of the article to the internet archive. Here is the link. https://archive.org/details/teletubbies-article_202207 Can someone edit this as I cannot change links.

The link for number 2 no longer exists as the Stampdile website no longer exists.

The link for number 29 no longer exists as the Stampdile website no longer exists.

The External Link for Stampdile Limited no longer exists.

The owner of Stampdile, Mr. Jonathan Feigenbaum has shut the website down about 5-6 years ago.

Thank you for getting this fixed. Format Researcher (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)