To our APS Community:

I would like to address as President of the APS some of the controversy regarding the judging of exhibits which has been a topic of discussion across the hobby since the end of the Boston 2026 World Expo.

But rather than just discussing details of what may or may not have occurred, I will speak about a path forward for the APS.

The essence of the controversy was that only one US exhibit was nominated for the Grand Prix National. While it is not unprecedented for there to be only one nominee, it was certainly unexpected. Many of the actions I will outline will be brought before the APS Board. Also, and very importantly, Boston 2026 was a tremendous success on many levels.

Unfortunately, a single event has caused distress for the many who had worked for years, some for more than 10 years, leaving them with a sense of diminished accomplishment. That is very unfortunate and undeserved. None of this reflects on the individual exhibiting results and awards. If you exhibited at Boston, your results are fair and appropriate. There is no correlation to be drawn from the Grand Prix National situation to other judging.

 

The Background

The exhibition was held under ‘Fédération International de Philatélie’ (FIP) rules, and was managed by the Boston 2026 show committee, which was given its “franchise” over a decade ago by the APS. Consequently, the APS did not have direct control over the show, with Boston FIP jury procedures contractually agreed to between the parties several years ago.

The exhibition had nearly 700 exhibits and a judging corps of 43. The actual detailed judging was divided by exhibit class and assigned to small-sized teams of judges.

The Grand Prix National (GPN) is awarded to those exhibits focused on the philately of the host country, in this case, the United States. These exhibits were judged by a team that was composed of 4 judges including the Jury President. This team would then make its recommendation(s) for the GPN, which would be brought before the full Jury Presidium (President, VPs, and secretary) who could then follow through on it or send it back for reconsideration.

Somewhat unusually, but not without precedent, this team submitted a single exhibit which in their collective judgement was the best candidate for GPN as sole nominee for consideration. Had there been additional nominees, this would have been put to a vote of the entire jury of 43. With only a single nominee no vote was taken by the entire jury beyond that nominee. Herein lies the controversy: there were three exhibits potentially eligible for the GPN with scores of 97, and additional possible candidates that scored 96 points. Therefore, the consternation that has ensued is not without reason.

 

What happened in Boston can be improved

In retrospect, the National Team’s opinion that there was a single outstanding candidate above and beyond the others was presented to the entire jury. Based on numerical scores alone there were several extraordinary exhibits with equal ranking which deserved consideration.

There has been the suggestion that the result was “rigged.” This assertion is unfounded. The outcome was ultimately a result of the initial nomination by the GPN team, which was unchallenged by the jury president, who given his extensive prior experience would normally ask the GPN team to reconsider their nominations. Based on the outcome this did not occur. The failure to act, given the presence of several apparently equally qualified exhibits is the source of concern.

The APS had no standing in final jury selection, scheduling, process, and team composition as set forth in a series of signed agreements entered into with the FIP over a 10-year period.

The Boston jury cannot revisit its decisions. The APS cannot hold an “inquest” into the jury’s deliberations. These are subject to FIP confidentiality rules. The violation of jury confidentiality would set a very difficult precedent for future juries. Juries need to operate with openness and frankness without details being shared. The fundamental issue is that jury leadership did not properly exercise oversight. There never should have been any allegation of bias.

 

Moving Forward

What occurred in Boston cannot recur. The APS must evaluate the causes, and assert fuller representation in the process going forward.

Shortly after the conclusion of Boston 2026, the President of the jury was asked to resign from any official role representing the APS.

For 100 years, the APS as the U.S. national federation for philately delegated its administration of international shows to ad hoc specially formed committees. As a result, the APS lacked direct control and was constrained in its actions by this relationship. This structure is virtually unique worldwide and will be re-evaluated. For future shows, the APS will be looking to acquire greater direct oversight. The reputation of the APS is paramount. The APS needs greater control in FIP show oversight than it has had to date.

The APS’s current relationship with the FIP leaves the society at a strategic disadvantage. The APS currently has no representation on the FIP Board, and the APS’s cohort of FIP accredited jurors has contracted markedly. Reestablishing influence within the FIP requires sustained effort, particularly given the multi-year nomination, qualification, and development cycles involved.

The APS is actively working to place qualified candidates into positions that will strengthen its future representation and influence. At Boston 2026, the APS made meaningful progress and laid a foundation for continued progress in the years ahead.

Nevertheless, our recent experience with the FIP at the show reinforces ongoing concerns. We are seeking a positive and productive relationship with the FIP going forward, as the current one can be improved.

APS leadership term limits are already in place. There are currently ‘soft’ judging term limits in place which need to be rethought and more formally codified. The FIP has also recently removed all of its published references to age limits from their Jury Guidelines.

Exhibiting makeup and evaluation have continued to evolve, with techniques and expectations changing more rapidly than the regulatory framework. I am appointing an independent committee to report directly to me as a sounding board. By recruiting from outside traditional sources, I hope to bring a diversity of viewpoints.

Again, thank you for your valued input.

 

Respectfully,

Mark Banchik

APS President