Home ContactUs Join FeedBack Services Exhibiting Exhibits
Awards News TPE Links Youth We
 
Diamond Award Ruby Award Hennig Award Herdenberg Award Neil and Jennings Awards

Award Of Honor - Gold Award Of Honor - Silver Title Page Award Novice Award Creativity Award Headings and Plan Award

AAPE - Hennig Award
2007    2008    2009    2010   



AAPE AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE AND IMPROVEMENTS IN PHILATELIC JUDGING

by Eliot A. Landau, Committee Chair

All members of AAPE have been self-selected for their interest in exhibiting philatelic material at stamp shows on local, national and international levels and, many of us, are involved in serving as judges for those exhibitions. We all depend upon the quality and work of those judges for help in improving our performance as exhibitors and even as fellow judges. But, up until now, there has been no mechanism for recognizing those judges who have done an outstanding job by sustained excellence in their work or by innovating and improving the judging process or both.

On August 10, 2007, at the AAPE Board meeting at APS STAMPSHOW in Portland, Oregon, the Board approved the creation of a new award to give that recognition. A committee was created consisting of Eliot A. Landau, Chair, Jerry Jensen and Ronald Lesher to develop and polish criteria for the giving of the award and a mechanism for receiving nominations for the award and deciding to whom the award will be given.

It was also decided that one award will be given each year. It would preferably be given at the annual convention of AAPE but that it could be awarded at some other national show when circumstances involving the award recipient might require. The award can only be given once to any person. Philatelic judging includes literature.

While the Board and Committee believe that those who would already have received the award are probably in the best position to evaluate future nominees, it is recognized that for the beginning four or five years of the process, there will not be a sufficient number of award recipients available and able to participate in making that decision.

The Committee has recommended to the Board that all nominations for awards to be given in 2008 through 2012 shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Committee. Recommendations will then be submitted to the Board for its consideration and final decision. All three members of the Committee are frequent exhibitors who are active in their local WSP shows and also serve as philatelic judges at many different WSP shows across the country. After 2012, we should be able to switch to a permanent committee arrangement.

A permanent committee on awards can come into being when there are at least three awardees who are active and able to serve. We suggest that the permanent committee consist of the three most recent awardees and one other judge and one exhibitor who is not a judge, the latter two to be appointed by the Board.

All exhibitors and judges can submit nominations for consideration by the Committee. They should keep in mind that the award is not given for good performance as a judge. Rather it is for a living person whose work has been outstandingly above average for a significant period of time. The nomination should detail why the nominee deserves consideration.

CRITERIA FOR NOMINEE FOR JUDGING EXCELLENCE

  1. The criteria for giving the award for judging excellence are that a philatelic judge has been active as a judge for seven or more years at the World Series of Philately level but can include quality work done at local or regional shows as well as serving as an FIP accredited judge at international shows.
  2. A nominee should have reasonably broad philatelic knowledge in various exhibiting disciplines. The nominee must be fair and unbiased as to areas and subjects of exhibiting.
  3. A nominee comes to a show well prepared to judge and comment on the particular exhibits to be judged. Preparation must include the substance of the exhibits to be judged, but shall also address matters of treatment and presentation.
  4. The judge’s comments during Jury Critiques are correct, relevant and helpful and made with a view to help the exhibitor improve the exhibit for future showings as well as be helpful to other exhibitors attending.
  5. A nominee should be one who gives freely of time to exhibitors outside of the Judges’ Critique to mentor the exhibitor and who gives relevant, helpful detailed advice based upon a careful review of the exhibit after the assignment of exhibits to first responder judges.
  6. A nominee is one who shows collegiality to the other jury members and can express reasoned opinions to them without being abrasive and gives consideration to differing opinions
  7. Nominees take seriously the responsibility of evaluating and mentoring and encouraging apprentice judges.
  8. Also to be considered is a nominee’s serving with distinction as chair or member of the APS Judges Accreditation Committee (CANEJ) or the FIP equivalent.
  9. Consideration will also be given to those who have written multiple articles on exhibiting and judging in The Philatelic Exhibitor or other philatelic publications and the Manual of Philatelic Exhibiting.

CRITERIA FOR NOMINEE FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDGING:

  1. The criteria for giving the award for judging improvements are that a philatelic judge has been active as a judge for seven or more years at the World Series of Philately level but can include quality work done at local or regional shows as well as serving as an FIP accredited judge at international shows
  2. This nominee will be someone who has initiated worthwhile changes in the methodology of performing one or more of the parts of the judging process including but not limited to scoring, mentoring, educating exhibitors, educating judges or developing judging criteria.
  3. Nominees for this award include those who take an existing part of the judging process and make worthwhile improvements in it so that it functions better, more fairly and more accurately.
  4. Changes in this category can include the addition of a wholly new element to judging beyond the old purely traditional function of medal evaluation. It can also include the creation of new and improved materials and references used by judges in performing their duties such as writing contributions to and editing the APS Manual of Philatelic Judging.

FINALLY, A JUDGE CAN QUALIFY FOR THE AWARD BY A COMBINATION OF EXCELLENCE AS WELL AS IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDGING.

If you can think of any other criteria or items not covered above which you feel would be helpful in the consideration of candidates for this award, please contact


Eliot A. Landau, elandau@aol.com
John Hotchner, jmhstamp@verizon.net
Ronald Lesher, revenuer@atlanticbb.net

I have personally pledged $500.00 to a fund to cover the cost of plaques for the awards and will match the next $500.00 given by AAPE members who have already started donating. Donations may be made by check to the AAPE treasurer and should say they are for the “Judging Award.”


Nancy Clark and Tim Bartshe talking about the Hennig (11 minutes)