Interesting topic, QSL'ing, along with an interesting perspective by Pat Martin. Pat ought to know since he has kept up the tradition of writing reception reports for many, many years.
Even though the only QSLs I've gotten in the last quite a few years have been from amateur radio contacts, I've done a fair amount of reception report writing in my day so maybe I can offer another perspective. QSL's have always been tough to procure, even back in the 1960s and 1970s. Some chief engineers just wouldn't respond, even after several follow-ups. Possibly a matter of not enough time in the day or possibly lack of interest. So in special cases, I sent a report with a prepared, stamped post card for the chief engineer to sign and drop in the mail. Even ppc's failed a percentage of the time. On the other hand, some stations would 'automatically' send their QSL card no matter what. Not that I ever send a report that wasn't for an authentic reception. Many cards and letters I received over the years were vague and I'd have preferred they were more specific in terms of verifying reception. I've even had my reception reports signed 'verified' and returned to me. >From my perspective, modern times have had an impact on what is acceptable as >proof of reception. Back 'in the day', we didn't have personal computers; >today, I personally would have to consider an email QSL valid. Maybe not as >desirable as an actual letter or card from the station; however, better than >nothing at all. I look at QSL'ing in terms of individual standards and my standards for what constitutes a verification have dropped over the years. I admire someone like Pat Martin who still goes to the effort involved in writing a reception report and getting a verification back from one of his enviable DX catches. Ernie Cooper, may he rest in peace, was an outstanding QSL collector. There's much to be said for getting an attractive card, letter, pennant or combination thereof back from a prize catch. Quite a few years ago, I decided that in lieu of writing a reception report, I would at least get a recording of a reception. This same topic was thrashed about back in the IRCA in the 1960's and some interesting perspectives arose from those discussions. A big topic, back then, was whether a 'tape' would constitute a verification. I don't remember how that one came out. One thing I do think is that I could write a better reception report NOW than I could when I was much younger. Maybe because I understand the concept of 'making someone want to reply' better now - hi hi. Enough of my rambling for now, Jim Nall - Louisville http://www.n4fxc.com _______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list IRCA@hard-core-dx.com http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org To Post a message: irca@hard-core-dx.com
