Jump to content

Talk:Cinderella stamp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should Easter Seals and Christmas Seals be mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.251.27 (talkcontribs) 00:02, 9 October 2005

No doubt. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it?

[edit]

The article didn't really help me understand what "cinderella stamps" are. What is the difference between these and postage stamps??? --Cotoco 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, try it now. Stan 01:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps.
Now, do you know why they are called "Cinderella"? --Cotoco 17:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of my sources gives an explanation. OED mentions use of "cinderella" as a generic term that for things that are looked down upon but are attractive after all, after Cinderella, so probably somebody in the philatelic press used the term offhandedly one time and it stuck. Stan 18:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stamps

[edit]

I think not all of them should be considered as cinderellas. I agree that those issued by the Ffestiniog Railway Letter Service are privately printed and used in addition to normal Royal Mail postage. But we have other examples. In Belgium, they issued in 1929-1982 official stamps for franking the official correspondence of the Administration of the Belgian National Railways (Scott #O1-O96), and I doubt those were pure cinderellas. --Michael Romanov (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Service Authority stamps

[edit]

The World Government Stamps issued by the World Service Authority in 1981 and helped to convey thousands of letters between China and Taiwan (via a WSA agent in Hong Kong). http://worldservice.org/cat.html?s=4#stamps http://www.onefilms.com/garry-davis-herald-tribune-quixotic-quest-article.php Should they be listed here? (Since Hong Kong stamps were used for the actual postage and the WSA did not intend to replace national post systems).

Not unless you can find significant coverage in reliable third party sources of the stamps as stamps. I note there is already an article for Garry Davis and he clearly is notable so you could include the stamps there, but again you would need reliable third party coverage for that aspect of his story. I note that both the links you have provided appear to be commercial in one way or another. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead grammar

[edit]

So if the term Cinderella stamp "excludes imprinted stamps", does that mean that imprinted stamps are not Cinderella stamps? Somehow I suspect the contrary is intended, but I'm hardly sure. 82.21.171.200 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cinderella stamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]