USPS Office of Inspector General

Comments (383)

• 

  Bill McAllister

  USPS should not be in the business of creating rarities. You rightly pointed out that was a violation of USPS's own rules. There is a simple step that could help create the new collectors that USPS needs to help sustain the hobby. That would be to once again produce stamps that are soakable. By printing stamps on paper that allows a used stamp to be soaked off envelopes, USPS would create a way for their stamps to be used twice. Once for postage and then saved by collectors. It is the way that thousands of youngsters became stamp collectors. It would reinvigorate the hobby for collectors - old and new assuring USPS of a strong and growing collector base.

  Aug 18, 2015

• 

  Stuart Bradley

  I think that issuing only one hundred upright sheets was a real mistake. To add excitement to the release no fewer than 100,000 should have been issued to give collectors a reasonable chance of buying one from the Postal Service. I don't think it is too late to reprint the upright Jenny sheets. You could change the date on each stamp from 2013 to 2015 so that the original rarity could still be distinguished from the reprint. But then everyone could have one.

  Aug 18, 2015

• 

  grannybunny

  Personally, I thought the upright Jenny was a great idea. I purchased panes of the stamps that I would not have otherwise bought, solely in hopes of snagging one. Unfortunately, I was buying them from the Stamp Fulfillment Center, which we now learn was not putting them in circulation. I will buy future ones over-the-counter. I use the Jennies on the rare occasions when I have to send a Certified Mail item.

  Aug 18, 2015

• 

  Andrew Steinmann

  I oppose issuance of stamps that are not generally available to all who wish to purchase them. I have collected for over 40 years, and have tried to maintain a complete collection of US stamps. However, the upright Jenny as well as last year's special Circus Poster stamp that was available only to collectors who bought the USPS's year set have left two holes in my otherwise collection that is complete back to about 1940. The USPS has gotten me to reconsider whether I ought to continue to collect new issues.

  Aug 18, 2015

• 

  Robert Smith

  It is one of the best ideas to come out of the USPS for a while. It has given the hobby lots of publicity among the general public. Let's do this about every five years or so for a special occasion stamp. And also, forget the youngsters, we should focus our attention on middle age.d people who are more likely to be taking up a new hobby and who have money and time to spend on the hobby of stamp collecting

  Aug 18, 2015

• 

  Brad W. Brideau

  I spent over $600.00 buying several inverted Jenny souvenir sheets so I could find just ONE of the Un-inverted varieties. I wanted to find an Un-inverted stamp sheet so bad because I could sell the mint sheet and use the money from the sale to buy a house for my wife and kid since we live in tight two bedroom apartment. I was never able to find one and my dreams have all but gone up in smoke. Then I read in Linns that two people who bought some of the Jenny invert stamps got randomly picked to receive the special Un-inverted stamps while I was spending nearly every spare dollar I could get just to find one. Say what !? Why couldn't I have been picked to receive one!? For years I have been buying stamps from the USPS and the back of the my philatelic catalog it says that I am a loyal and valued customer to them. My family and I have been struggling to get into a house since we've been married because my job doesn't pay enough and we need to show the bank that we have saved up enough cash - the opportunity to obtain one of these Un-inverted souvenir sheet varieties could have been the ticket and changed our lives.

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Josh Keele

  At first, I was very excited about the upright Jenny's. That is, until I read about USPS randomly sending them out to customers who ordered online. I felt cheated in a way as the chance of pulling one became much harder. I decided to use all that I had collected to send gifts to my family. I don't think I would collect something similar in the future.

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Brian Kuehl

  I think the Postal Service should get out of the business of intentionally trying to create collectibles. They should issue stamps that are collectible and not collectibles that are stamps. Having an issue that can't be reasonably obtained by the public should be outside the bounds of a postal service entity. Further, as more information is revealed on this item, it apparently wasn't as random as originally indicated but rather some were held back to distribute in other ways.

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Mark Hopkins

  I used to think the government was a body of individuals you could trust to make good decisions and do what is right for the people. At least that's what I worked for as a government employee for 36 years... The US Postal Service has an amazing job every day delivering mountains of mail and parcels, and they are trying to do it without tax dollars to keep it solvent. I must say for the difficulty they must be facing they are doing a terrific job of it. However, now with the distribution of postage stamps made in direct violation of its own rules, I have to question the leadership of the postal service and its decision on the two dollar inverted bi-plane stamp. Does anyone think that introducing this intentional "error" stamp will increase the interest of new collectors? I fear all you have done is drive more collectors and potential collectors away. Where do new collectors come from, children! Start them young.. But what child is going to shell out $12.00 (and who knows how many times) to try and secure the error pane. Very short sighted of the postal service leadership. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY... Nothing else...

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Dennis Robertson

  I think it was a good idea, but it has been very poorly implemented. I feel cheated and lied to by the USPS, considering that they are stil in possession of a good portion of the "upright" sheets, and they were not all randomly distributed as promised. I figured some sheets would be randomly inseted into the online sales mix, but I read that this is not the case. I was basically buying lottery tickets with no chance to win. How many are still known to be in USPS posession, and what does the USPS intend to do with these?

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Gregory Schreiber

  American philatelists would benefit greatly if there were actual philatelists working for the post office. Nothing is worse than being greeted at the local post office by employees who don't even like their jobs, let alone stamps. And the senior management of the USPS is no better. The sole purpose of the non-inverted Jenny was to generate income from collectors, rather than provide them with an affordable collectible. For me, it has been a slow torture to see how the USPS has destroyed the hobby. Stamps are issued for people unworthy of recognition. There is no longer an artistic quality to the stamps themselves. Worst of all, you can't even soak a stamp off an envelope any longer. The cheapest and easiest way to start a kid in the hobby is with free used stamps that arrive in the mail. Oh, one more thing I want to complain about. Since 1981, National Stamp Collecting Month has been October, not September. Couldn't you even get that right?

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Bill T

  It left a bad taste in my mouth from the initial announcement. Creating a rarity. Providing "giveaways" to select customers. Not letting the public know of the promotion. Not letting the public know of what chances there were in acquiring a pane (i.e. only sent to high volume post offices in select markets; and the USPS apparently knows what "rare" panes are to be "seeded" into the SFS purchases ... and the list goes on. I suspect it goes against virtually every postal regulation related to philately that was ever written. Even for those who didn't luck out in acquiring a rarity, the regular issued panes had many printing anomalies that were not up to USPS standard with smeared ink and missing components of the plane, etc., that were unintentional perhaps, but not up to the quality control standards of the printing company contracted to make these stamps. If the USPS analyzes the number of panes sold versus their goal, only about half of the panes were purchased, even with the promotional gimmick included. That should be statement enough that stamp collectors were not pleased with this fiasco.

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Rita Kwong

  I believe the issue that discouraged new stamp issue collectors is not about the intentional upright biplanes, but the distributing method that was unfair. The randomly selected recipients may or may not be a philatelist. As a collector of new issues around the world, I would suggest USPS to look into and follow some successful examples by other postal administrations. Most notably, New Zealand Post's "Kiwi Collector Reward" program is one that specifically designs to reward loyal collectors. Through accumulating points based on how much one's purchased in the last calendar year, one could redeem special philatelic gifts at beginning of each year. I firmly believe USPS's good intention to promote philately could follow similar path.

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Wayne Chen

  A true philatelic rarity does not happen "intentionally", but is usually known and publicized through individual's long term collecting, constant learning, and discovering. The 100 upright Jenny panes were created intentionally, which is different from a typical stamp printed with error, or "unintentionally" printed but "intentionally" distributed through philatelic promotional means (such as the 1994 legends of the west recalled sheets). There are several recent/modern philatelic rare product examples, however, the distribution through random and/or "lottery" process (including give away to random collectors) does not motivate ordinary stamp collectors to buy as many panes as one's budget allows, in order to own one of the 100 panes in existence. I sincerely suggest that USPS to promote this type of modern philatelic limited edition stamp (not product such as the 2013 inverted jenny collector's edition stamp book) by a limited time only, first come, first served basis. This would ensure fairness, and reward true long-term philatelist a chance to own the special desirable item.

  Aug 17, 2015

• 

  Bernice Fields

  I want the USPS to STOP manufacturing rarities for revenue. Philatelic rarities should be just that, an accident, not an on purpose. And as with many collectors, I do not want to see living movie stars on stamps again, i.e. the Harry Potter stamps. I know that some rules have changed but stamps have traditionally honored citizens after death. Can you imagine the lobbying to be on a stamp among people with huge egos? Why would Donald Trump, or some other narcissit, not generate enough petitions to be on a stamp? Please make the USPS obey some standard rules. Thank you.

  Aug 17, 2015

Pages

• « first
• ‹ previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8