Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Botanical Congress 6c 1969 issue U.S. stamps.jpg

File:Botanical Congress 6c 1969 issue U.S. stamps.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2022 at 09:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Stamps
Info created by Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Designed by Stanley W. Galli. - uploaded by MrFrosty2 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every stamp is unique and interesting. The resolution is high enough considering that it is a block of stamps not a single one, it is not necessarily possible to get a higher resolution with your average scanner. I don't know about this one --Lupe (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharp scan. (The resolution could be higher, but it is high enough to study how the stamps were printed, so it’s OK.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see why a fairly low resolution scan of a block of common stamps should be FP. Anyone with a scanner could produce a better scan in a couple of minutes. There are many US stamps that might be worthy of FP, but this isn't. Not rare; not valuable and no philatelic interest. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp --Karelj (talk)
Oppose per Karel and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Andrei (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]