The original portrait looked a bit staid and aloof. It made her look a bit like a smug matron at a society ball. But the final engraving just made her look very plain - almost ugly. Now, whatever you think of the Queen, the fact is that she was - as a young woman - quite attractive. So the image didn’t do her any favours. Unsurprisingly, there were a lot of complaints about the stamps, and they were swiftly changed. The later stamp - the blue one from 1954 - was done from a portrait taken by Dorothy Wilding, who shot the pictures for the British definitive stamps. The Queen certainly looked a lot prettier in the new issue.
Recently I bought a small selection of Canadian booklet panes. The picture shows two of them - one was issued in 1953 and one was issued in 1954. The red one - from 1953 - is probably one of the most unflattering representations of Queen Elizabeth ever put on a stamp. The original photo was taken by Yousef Karsh - the famous society photographer who was normally known as Karsh of Ottawa.
The original portrait looked a bit staid and aloof. It made her look a bit like a smug matron at a society ball. But the final engraving just made her look very plain - almost ugly. Now, whatever you think of the Queen, the fact is that she was - as a young woman - quite attractive. So the image didn’t do her any favours. Unsurprisingly, there were a lot of complaints about the stamps, and they were swiftly changed. The later stamp - the blue one from 1954 - was done from a portrait taken by Dorothy Wilding, who shot the pictures for the British definitive stamps. The Queen certainly looked a lot prettier in the new issue.
2 Comments
|
AuthorJack Shamash is a top journalist who writes for The Times, The Guardian, The Independent as well as various stamp magazines. He is a member of the Royal Philatelic Society London and the author of the book George V's Obsession - A King and His Stamps. Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|