So, first is an article written by my friend and expert on early Afghanistan Mr. Jaromír Petřík.
Strange evaluation of Afghanistan exhibits at the Bandung 2017 World Exhibition by judges evaluating the traditional class of Asia
The jury evaluating exhibits of philatelic materials has surely not an easy work. Critical remarks by dissatisfied exhibitors are present at almost every exhibition.
But there should always be certain limits, because the jurors' defence that they can not know everything is valid to a certain extent.
Nobody knows everything in the world. But, if someone is a philatelic juror especially at world exhibitions, he should have at least basic knowledge of the exhibits whose list he or she gets several months in advance.
There is no problem to study at least basic information from catalogues such as Gibbons, Michel, Scott, or to find some information on the internet. It is also common practice to borrow the necessary literature from libraries and to browse commonly available materials on online auctions such as eBay and Delcampe to get the material in the eye if they do not know it.
All exhibits of traditional class of Asia at Bandung were judged by a three-member team led by Mr. Chen Yu-An from Taipei (China). The other jury members were also of Asian origin. It is logical to assume that an Asian jury team at the Asian exhibition will know the entire area of Asia very well.
However, as it was evident at first glance, it was unfortunately not the case in many areas. So judge yourself what the jury members did not mind on one of the Afghanistan exhibits.
In this critical article, I will deal with Afghanistan of the 19th century where two 8-frame exhibits were shown. One exhibit was mine (Jaromír Petřík from the Czech Republic) and the other was by Mahmud Sultan from Pakistan.
Both exhibits had a similar focus with the difference that I exhibited Afghanistan from 1871 to 1900 and Mahmud Sultan Afghanistan of the 19th century from 1871 to 1880 with the forerunners.
I got 87 points and a large vermeil, Mahmud Sultan got 90 points and a gold medal. The difference in the exhibits was apparent at first glance. I had at least 3 unique materials described in my exhibit and 1 significant discovery, which I have refuted the ever-reported data in the world catalogues of Gibbons, Scott, Michel, Yvert.
This discovery was related to the status of the so -called small Tiger Head stamps and was properly described and published in a study in the very prestigious magazine Fakes, Forgeries, Experts.
The unique materials in my exhibit include:
1. Block of 19 handstamped stamps - the highest number of stamps on the sheet known - the biggest Afghan rarity - Ex Theodore Light
2. Cover with a purple stamp (proof) of issue 1290
3. Cover with unissued stamp on blue paper from issue 1316 - ex Dietrich
Mahmud Sultan had no described rarities and none of his own findings.
I had correct plate reconstructions of all 4 printing plates from the 1st issue of stamps called large Tiger Head, which, apart from the exhibit of R. Jaretzki (exhibiting his exhibit in the FIP Championship class), had no other philatelist at the exhibitions.
Mahmud Sultan had only 2 plate reconstructions, while in plate A (the rarest) he had 3 errors, replacing the missing positions 1, 2, 3 with the stamps of plate B and C. Therefore, he had only one correct reconstruction of the commonest plate C.
The exhibit of Mr. Sultan also included a considerable duplicity of material, both stamps and covers.
Incorrect plate reconstruction of plate A, pos. 1 = plate B (pos.10), pos. 2+3 = plate C (pos.3+15)