Stamps/Cinderellas75 messages

Alle cinderella's staan momenteel in één grote groep. Dit is totaal onoverzichtelijk en ontmoedigt het verder aanvullen van deze rubriek.

Kunnen de cinderella's niet opgesplitst worden in de verschillende landen die er deel van uitmaken? Als dit gebeurt zoals bij het Duitse Rijk, Griekenland of India, blijven alle cinderella's in de landenlijst netjes bij elkaar staan (Cinderella's - Epirus, Cinderella's - Nagaland, Cinderella's - Neutraal Moresnet, Cinderella's - Oman, Cinderella's - Sahara, enz).

All cinderellas are currently in one large group. This is totally confusing and discourages further additions to this section.

Can't the cinderellas be split up into the different countries that are part of it? If this happens like the German Empire, Greece or India, all cinderellas in the country list will stay neatly together (Cinderellas - Epirus, Cinderellas - Nagaland, Cinderellas - Neutral Moresnet, Cinderellas - Oman, Cinderellas - Sahara, etc).

igor, er is een mogelijkheid om ze op volgorde te zetten, maar dan moet je zelf bij alle zegels bij de titel eerst het land ervoor vermelden.

en dan kun je op titel zoeken instellen.

igor, there is a possibility to put them in order, but then you first have to state the country in front of all stamps with the title.

and then you can set title search.

It's true that you could sort them by country if the title always started with the country, but I think that's only a half-hearted solution. My point is precisely that I see no reason to treat the Cinderellas differently from the ordinary countries. It would be handy that, as with a normal country, you could also show all stamps from, for example, the Sahara and sort them by year. At the moment there are not so many cinderellas in it and it is indeed not so bad with the lack of clarity, but that will keep getting worse. Or not, because who would actually like to add stamps to that mess?

@igor, everyone is busy making something tidy out of that mess.

so if you feel like working with it, just start with a land of the cinderallas, for example Sahara., and then it makes sense to add again.

I don't know how to open a new topic so I'll do it like this. I have a client in Germany and they pay with Moneybrookers or something similar. Can anyone advise me on this? I've never heard of it and don't know if it's safe and free of charge. Who can help me?

Hello Bert

Google gives you a lot of info about moneybrookers

Thanks Jan

From Germany he can simply pay with Bank

Monybrookers in the EU not Akzeptieren is the same as Paypal but runs via Credit card only costs you money (the system is staggered and is becoming more expensive) even if Seller

MoneyBookers now calls itself Skrill. It is not quite the same as PayPal and does not cost you commission as a seller. (Only when accepting credit card payments through a Merchant account, different rates do indeed apply.) Normally, the buyer pays a commission. of 1% with a maximum of € 0.50 and the recipient (with a Personal Account) nothing. However, it will cost you € 1.80 to transfer the credit from your "Digital Wallet" to your bank account. So it depends a bit on the amount whether it is profitable.

But a bank transfer from Germany is indeed just as easy for the customer.

Igor

Alle cinderella's staan momenteel in één grote groep. Dit is totaal onoverzichtelijk en ontmoedigt het verder aanvullen van deze rubriek.

Kunnen de cinderella's niet opgesplitst worden in de verschillende landen die er deel van uitmaken? Als dit gebeurt zoals bij het Duitse Rijk, Griekenland of India, blijven alle cinderella's in de landenlijst netjes bij elkaar staan (Cinderella's - Epirus, Cinderella's - Nagaland, Cinderella's - Neutraal Moresnet, Cinderella's - Oman, Cinderella's - Sahara, enz).

Jammer dat uw melding door ander  forumlid Bert wordt gezijzigd in een ander onderwerp.

Dat is onbehoorlijk.

Aartinga geeft een deel oplossing, maar het werk wel.

Maar het idee van igo zou kunnen worden verwezelijk op de volgende manier.

Invoer van land;

Omar ........ Cinderella's

Laten blijken dat het cinderella's zijn en bij de achtergrond informatie moet dat ook nog eens vermeld worden.

Cinderella's is een ondergeschoven kind en er wordt geen beslissing genomen.

Cinderella's krijgen tot op heden geen duidelijk  ""podium"".

Er is in het verleden al heftige discussies geweest.

Ik zou het waarderen als cinderella's een podium zouden krijgen; dan zijn veel verzamelaars blij.Ook veel motief verzamelaars.

Ted dit moet worden opgelost.

Mvg

Micho Rooseboom, een verzamelaar

Igor

All cinderellas are currently in one large group. This is totally confusing and discourages further additions to this section.

Can't the cinderellas be split up into the different countries that are part of it? If this happens like the German Empire, Greece or India, all cinderellas in the country list will stay neatly together (Cinderellas - Epirus, Cinderellas - Nagaland, Cinderellas - Neutral Moresnet, Cinderellas - Oman, Cinderellas - Sahara, etc).

It's a pity that your report is being changed to another topic by another forum member Bert.

That's inappropriate.

Aartinga provides a partial solution, but it does work.

But the idea of igo could be realized in the following way.

Land imports;

Omar........ Cinderellas

Show that they are cinderellas and that should also be mentioned in the background information.

Cinderella's a changeling and no decision is made.

Cinderellas don't get a clear ""stage"" until now.

There have been heated discussions in the past.

I'd appreciate it if cinderellas got a podium; then many collectors are happy. Also many motif collectors.

Ted this needs to be fixed.

Best regards

Micho Rooseboom, a collector

Indeed not a podium

I don't think the administrators themselves know.

It's a bit double with Cinderella's, on the one hand the Isle of Staffa is an islet of Scotland, and just issues regional stamps, which are classified as a region issue where no Scotland is mentioned on the stamps but Staffa.

but a federal state of russia is then placed under the cinderella's.

Incidentally, on other stamp sites also the Russian states or Nagaland are not placed as cinderella's, but simply as countries or republics or as regional editions.

You could say that those countries or provinces or states that issue stamps should in fact also be classified under regional editions. Also the stamps of amsterdam or other places that are issued for commemoration do not appear in the catologi, but are not processed as cinderell's.

I have already mentioned that Cinderell's to me are stamps where the land should not be state, and whether they are stamps that simply have not been released from a particular country.

Overigens vind ik het totaal niet overzichterlijk worden nu.

Streekpostzegels uitgave  staan onder het land in de postzegelcatalogus

fantasiezegels staan ook onder elk land  in de postzegelcatalogus

maar die staan ook onder cinderella's

en in Cinderella's staan ook weer streekpostzegels en fantasie uitgave.

Herdenking  (700 jarig bestaan van amsterdam) (400 jaar Alkmaar) die ook wel souverniers velletje genoemd worden, zijn gelijk aan de souverniers velletjes uit Abchazie

maar de een wordt streekuitgave genoemd, en de andere cinderella.

Abchazie is ook een streek...........

By the way, I don't think it's getting clearer at all now.

Regional stamps are listed under the country in the stamp catalogue

fantasy stamps are also listed under each country in the stamp catalog

but they are also under cinderellas

and Cinderella's also contains regional stamps and fantasy edition.

Commemoration (700th anniversary of Amsterdam) (400 years of Alkmaar) which are also called souvenir sheets, are equal to the souvenir sheets from Abkhazie

but one is called regional edition, and the other cinderella.

Abkhazia is also a region.......

Het krijgt geen podium.

Er wordt geen "nee" en geen "ja"" gezegd. Er worden geen beslisssingen genomen.

Laat het maar vastlopen. Dat heeft men al ruim twee jaar laten gebeuren.

Cinderella's behoren niet bij de postzegels !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aldus de bobo's

It doesn't get a stage.

No "no" or "yes" is said, no decisions are made.

Let it hang. This has been done for over two years now.

Cinderellas do not belong to the stamps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thus the bobos

Cinderellas are a collector's item and belong in CW. It also makes sense that they are included with the stamps. There are many common ground. This does not seem to me to deviate from the state of affairs in other departments.

As it is now, it does indeed seem like a mess. Sorting by country is almost a basic principle for all of CW stamps. So it's weird that someone who collects cinderellas can't do this. Now cinderellas are included as land. However, I don't know of a country called Cinderella. I see cinderellas as a motif. Then you can also sort by country. Those countries do need to be supplemented. The commercial cinderellas get the use type fantasy seals. Actually used cinderellas are given the use type postage stamps. (The question whether they are still cinderellas will be asked again later).

As an enthusiastic 'member / employee' of CW, I still find it strange that there is so little response from the administrators. Igor and Micho have asked clear questions. What is done with such a question now? Is it picked up by the administrators? Is such a question discussed in the team, or is there no team at all? Perhaps a decision will be made or cannot be resolved? Again no feedback. I experience a huge smokescreen around the administrators, a kind of North Korea when it comes to keeping out observers. On the other hand, you do ask, join our club, because we could use some help. I think that much more can be achieved in this, if there is a more open structure, less distance between administrators and, say, members. In other departments, such as records and CDs, I find that distance much smaller. As with some of the stamps department who do respond regularly.

@az60

Read on this forum:

Stamps general & gt; Survey stamp section

You will find many answers and more unanswered questions ...

@Tapir

Thank you for your comment. The discussion was before my time. I did some preliminary work, but this was unknown to me. What is striking is that the discussion comes to a dead end, although I can assume from Micho's last post that something has happened. What I mean by a dead end, that I have nowhere to conclude that the survey also took place. While there have been some tweaks, it seems to me that no decision was ever made, causing the problem to spread. I assume the survey never took place, because I miss the results and discussion about it in this forum topic. Or did I miss this topic too?

@az60

You didn't miss that !!!

a decision has never been made, Tapir tries to get out of it to just refer you after previous discussions without commenting itself.

That is why it continues to proliferate.

In that respect, Catawiki can take an example from Delcampe.net

they will not come with a story that they sell cinderella's, but just have all the countries in their file there.

Enter a country and that's it.

they don't get there with the story that The Philatelic Webmasters Organization is legally valid, and that the non-member countries are not countries because they are not illegal.

A country is a country, and if it issues stamps then that is allowed.

it has than to deal with the difference what you call it.

stamps or simply stamps.

@Aartinge

I am happy with Tapir's response. It gives me more info on the discussion that has taken place. The different points of view and arguments give me the opportunity to form my own opinion even better. I also think that everyone should have their own opinion, including Tapir. The problem is how to shape the process, where different weighty opinions exist. Do you come to a compromise or do you just have to make a decision? That is why it is a pity that the discussion surrounding the survey has come to a dead end. And that the reason for this has not been fed back.

Er lopen veel discussie bij catwiki dood. Dat is het probleem.

Binnen de beheerders en directie kan men geen unaniem standpunt krijgen.

Niet reageren dan bloed het wel dood en dan kunnen ""wij"" (beheerders) weer verder?

Maar men vergeet dat men zeer veel schade aan Catawiki toebrengt en dat mensen afhaken.

Dat probeert men bij de deelnemers van het forum te leggen.

Het was slechts een begin van een discussie en een "soort"" enquete. Eric heeft het helemaal laten zitten. Zonder argumenten , zonder een evaluatie.

En zo gaat het met persoonlijke postzegels, kinderbedankkaarten en ciderella's enz, enz,enz,enz. enz . =) al jaren.

Az 60 en als men aanblijft houden dan grijpt men weer naar middel van het opzeggen van uw account.

Wanneer deze werkwijze in het bedrijfsleven zou toepassen dan waren alle personen al lang op straat gezet.

Het  is een schaamteloze vertoning.

Maar ik blijf lachen :) :)

Met vriendelijke groet,

Micho Rooseboom , een verzamelaar

There is a lot of discussion on catwiki dead. That's the problem.

It is not possible to get a unanimous point of view within the managers and management.

If you don't react then it will bleed to death and then "we" (administrators) can continue?

But people forget that they cause a lot of damage to Catawiki and that people drop out.

This is what they try to explain to the participants of the forum.

It was just the beginning of a discussion and a "sort of" poll. Eric completely let it go. Without arguments, without an evaluation.

And so it goes with personal stamps, children's thank-you cards and ciderellas, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc . =) for years.

Az 60 and if one continues to hold then one again resorts to the means of canceling your account.

If this working method were to be applied in the business world, all persons would have been kicked out long ago.

It's a shameless display.

But I keep smiling :) :)

Sincerely,

Micho Rooseboom, a collector

@Micho

Az 60 and if they stay on, they will again use the means of canceling your account.

That's where I make myself not so busy. Rather, I'm concerned about people like you and Sinbad, who I think are indispensable to the site. I myself am much less emotionally involved. I think CW is a good site, I think the administrators put in a lot of work, I do my part to improve the site by adding emissions and correcting errors. But I also see that the site is not perfect on a number of points. I will discuss that, so that CW can become even bigger and better. I try to do that rationally and honestly. If that is not possible within CW, I would be very surprised.

That the subject is sensitive, is shown by the fact that my questions from a few days ago have still not been answered. However, I expect that after my week of vacation there will be a response.

Moet je nu al op vakantie om bij te komen van deze discussie?

het moet niet gekker worden.

wat betreft een antwoordt, je kan wel een maand wegblijven.

Do you already have to go on vacation to recover from this discussion?

it shouldn't get crazier.

as for an answer, you could be gone for a month.

.

@aartinge

I think you have been out of circulation for a while, because I missed your input for a while. Can I understand after all the attempts to take CW to an even higher level. Unfortunately, my boss doesn't approve of me staying away for a month.

Ik juich toe dat het probleem van de cinderella's weer terug op tafel is gekomen. Spijtig genoeg wordt telkens weer de essentie uit het oog verloren. We weten intussen dat de huidige classificatie van de cinderella's niet werkt en dat de beheerders geen stappen ondernemen om dit te veranderen. Dat is uiteraard ook een gevolg van het feit dat er nauwelijks concrete voorstellen worden gedaan, waarop vervolgens ook niet gereageerd wordt. Dit suggereert dat er geen draagvlak is voor verandering. Bovendien blijkt bij "enquete postzegelrubriek" dan ook nog eens dat iedereen een ander idee heeft over welke zegels cinderella's zijn.

Daarom een concreet voorstel dat verderbouwt op enkele eerdere voorstellen: We nemen alles (niet bestaande landen, niet erkende landen, streken, enz.) gewoon op in de landenlijst. De landenlijst moet gewoon een lijst worden van instanties die zegels hebben uitgegeven, ongeacht wie deze zegels heeft gebruikt of erkend (dit kan telkens in de achtergrondpagina uitgelegd worden). Bij het gebruikstype kan dan per zegel gespecifieerd worden of het een postzegel of fantasiezegel of streekpost of wat dan ook is. Zelfs al zou er dan nog discussie bestaan over het gebruikstype, ze zijn dan tenminste wel al overzichtelijk ingedeeld.

Het grote voordeel is dan ook de gebruiksvriendelijkheid. Elke zegel is terug te vinden bij de instantie die erop vermeld is. Dat is vooral handig bij regio's met streekpostzegels (bv. Antwerpen, staat nu onder België als "regionaal") en bij bestaande postzegellanden waarvan ook valse zegels bestaan (zoals Haïti) of  landen met allerlei niet-postzegels (zie bv. Mexico en Turkije bij de cinderella's). Ook de traditionele niet door de UPU erkende landen (zoals de Westelijke Sahara en het imamaat Oman) kunnen dan eindelijk op volwaardige wijze in de verzameling opgenomen worden. Als bepaalde mensen het er moeilijk mee hebben dat deze gebieden in de landenlijst voorkomen, dan kunnen ze er toch gewoon voor kiezen ze niet te verzamelen? Dan hebben ze er verder ook geen last van.

Het gebruik van het gebruikstype moet dan nog verder uitgeklaard worden, maar dat is slechts een detail als we het voorgaande al zouden kunnen realiseren. Zo wordt "streekpost" en "regionaal" nu vaak onterecht als synoniem door elkaar gebruikt. "Fantasiezegel" kan gebruikt worden om de valse zegels van Haïti te onderscheiden van de echte of voor niet bestaande landen (zoals Thomond). Anderzijds kan naar mijn gevoel wel degelijk "Frankeer" gebruikt worden voor echt bestaande niet erkende landen (zoals de W. Sahara of Neutraal Moresnet), maar als dat voor velen een brug te ver zou zijn, wil ik daar verder niet op aandringen.

Kortom, reageer massaal positief op het voorstel de cinderella's als gewone landen te behandelen, zodat men dit probleem niet meer kan negeren. En probeer te vermijden dat deze discussie weer op een zijspoor belandt door op een of andere nevenkwestie te focussen.

I welcome the return of the cinderella problem to the table. Unfortunately, the essence is always lost sight of. We now know that the current classification of cinderellas is not working and that the managers are not taking any steps to change it. This is of course also a consequence of the fact that hardly any concrete proposals are made, which are subsequently not responded to. This suggests that there is no support for change. Moreover, the "enquete stamp section" also shows that everyone has a different idea about which stamps are cinderellas.

Therefore a concrete proposal that builds on some previous proposals: We simply include everything (non-existing countries, non-recognized countries, regions, etc.) in the country list. The country list should simply become a list of agencies that have issued stamps, regardless of who used or recognized these stamps (this can be explained in each case in the background page). At the type of use, it can then be specified per stamp whether it is a stamp or fantasy stamp or regional post or whatever. Even if there would still be a discussion about the type of use, they would at least be clearly arranged.

The big advantage is therefore the user-friendliness. Each stamp can be found at the institution mentioned on it. This is especially useful for regions with regional stamps (e.g. Antwerp, now listed as "regional" under Belgium) and for existing stamp countries where counterfeit stamps also exist (such as Haiti) or countries with all kinds of non-stamps (see e.g. Mexico and Turkey under the cinderellas). The traditional countries not recognized by the UPU (such as Western Sahara and the Imamate of Oman) can then finally be fully included in the collection. If certain people have a hard time with these areas appearing in the country list, can't they just choose not to collect them? Then they will not be bothered by it.

The use of the usage type still needs to be clarified, but that is only a detail if we could already realize the foregoing. For example, "regional post" and "regional" are now often incorrectly used interchangeably. "Fantasy stamp" can be used to distinguish the counterfeit stamps of Haiti from the real ones or for non-existent countries (such as Thomond). On the other hand, I feel that "Franking" can indeed be used for really existing non-recognized countries (such as the W. Sahara or Neutral Moresnet), but if that would be a bridge too far for many, I do not want to insist on it.

In short, respond massively positively to the proposal to treat the cinderellas as normal countries, so that this problem can no longer be ignored. And try to avoid getting this discussion sidetracked again by focusing on some side issue.

I encourage IgorVdV's position on Cinderella's. Finally a workable proposal.

You already have my support.