• Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 6 hours ago

    I think that the post office should print up a million or so upright sheets and offer them for sale to the public.
    What they did was criminal in my mind as they selectively gave out sheets to some people. No random placement in this
    process.
    The actions by the post office has got me one step close to stop stamp collecting. Currently I make two large purchases a year.
    The other action that I totally disagree upon was force the public to by the year set in order to get the circus souvenir sheet. What a rip off to the public!!!

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 6 hours ago

    Because of the promotion, the packaging completely hid the nice design of the stamp. Many postal employees I asked didn't even know about the stamp and I had to explain what to look for. The $2 cost made them not useful for normal postal patrons and limited the audience to those stamp collectors that knew about them and the chance to "win" a prize by buying them. I would have much rather seen that great design used for a more common postal rate and promoted more for the design, rather than the lottery. The non-random distribution of the 100 panes was and is a turnoff also. As more details came out, I became more disappointed with the promotion. The three that were given away through the philatelic desk were completely wrong.
    -Jason

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 6 hours ago

    The USPS issued the 12 dollar 'invert' pane and failed to sell all of them.

    The purchase dates and locations of less than a third of the contrived 'upright' panes are publicly known. Some 'upright' panes were knowingly sold to particular patrons of the USPS, ie the well heeled and regular, high volume customers.

    The USPS should allow for refunds of any unused panes of jenny stamps, in that the USPS mislead the public, ie defrauded the public, and in particular the earnest stamp collectors who were led to believe by the USPS that the 'upright' panes were in circulation at a frequency in alignment with the frequency of 'error' panes printed.

  • Reply to: Rethinking Mailbox Access   5 days 7 hours ago

    If delivery companies want to discuss stuffing your mailbox with their packages, then that discussion needs to start with why mailboxes are reserved for the Postal Service in the first place.

    The fact is that exclusive mailbox access isn’t some kind of gratuitous privilege. Rather, it reflects commonsense ways of helping the Postal Service shoulder its enormous and unique responsibility: namely, delivering mail and packages to every home and business in America at affordable prices, and not just delivering packages to the most profitable addresses or with hefty surcharges.

    Regulators, courts, and experts who have studied the issue in depth agree that exclusive access provides many important benefits to the American people, and that open mailbox access would take away those benefits.

    • Security: Open mailbox access would make it an everyday occurrence for third parties to enter private mailboxes. It would be much harder to distinguish legitimate actors from common criminals. The RAND Corporation, a leading think tank with national security expertise, found that “relaxing the Mailbox Rule will have a negative effect on public safety and mail security,” as it would increase criminals’ opportunities for mail theft, identity theft, and explosive attacks.

    • Efficient delivery of mail: Open mailbox access would cause clutter and confusion in customers’ mailboxes. Most of what goes into the mailbox today are letters, catalogs, and magazines. If unlocked, curbside mailboxes were open to package delivery companies, however, a mail carrier would not be able to fit those very items into the mailbox, or to distinguish between outgoing mail and privately delivered items. At the very least, the carrier would have to spend extra time at your mailbox in order to figure out what’s what. This would slow down the entire mail delivery process, increase the costs of mail delivery, and ultimately raise the price tag of mail for customers.

    • Universal service at affordable and uniform prices: Whether you are sending a regular letter or card across town or across the country, the same Forever stamp will get it there. Exclusive mailbox access helps make that possible. By contrast, open mailbox access would make it easier for competing delivery services to strip certain profitable types of mail away from the Postal Service, such as catalogs and certain types of advertising mail. The Postal Service would be left delivering less profitable types of mail to less profitable areas, and yet it would have less of the more profitable types of mail with which to support those deliveries. This sort of “cream-skimming” competition would gut the Postal Service’s ability to support universal service and to keep it affordable.

    Exclusive mailbox access goes hand in hand with the sort of secure, efficient, universal, and affordable mail service that the American people expect and require. Mailbox access cannot be “rethought” without realistic consideration of how else to provide Americans with the efficient, universal delivery of letters and other mail: a public service that the Postal Service currently performs without taxpayer dollars. And yet, virtually every expert report and customer poll to have discussed the issue is unanimous in supporting continuation of exclusive mailbox access as a way to support universal postal service.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 7 hours ago

    In spite of all the teeth knashing by the old phogies, I think this was a good idea. The hobby got lots of publicity from this and it couldn't hurt. Now the fact that there are rumors that a few "insiders" wound up with one of these sheets is disturbing. What about a contest among the public (not the pro illustraters) maybe every 5 years to make an intentional error with 100 sheets out of 13 million imprints?

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 7 hours ago

    I view the Un-inverted $2 Jenny as a non-postage stamp and more like a self stick $2 raffle ticket that harkens back to Farley's Follies of the 1930's.
    Activities to enhance the philatelic program would be to reduce the amount of new issues by at least 50%, and a return to water soluble glue.
    I am an advanced stamp collector with over 55 years of collecting experience and have no interest in the overwhelming amount of new issue self stick stamps, don't collect them, and never will, as my collecting budget will be better spent on older issues when stamps were printed to actually move mail and not empty collectors pockets.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 7 hours ago

    As an amateur but avid collector I have enjoyed reading news of discovery. I realize, like winning the lottery, I will never see or own one personally, but its fun knowing a modern, attractive, rarity is out there. I realize it seems ludicrous for the USPS to purposely create a rarity that will potentially be worth thousands of dollars, but I believe it is good for the hobby, for the imaginative hopefulness of the young, novice, or amateur collector--and just might light a fire in the not-yet collector.

  • Reply to: Carriers as Conduits   5 days 7 hours ago

    thank you

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 7 hours ago

    How in the world could the Postal Service not recognize that it was creating instant rarities, and releasing them in the form of a raffle.
    This is highly inappropriate and is to be condemned.
    I stopped collection U. S. new issues when the Postal Service started putting cartoon characters on stamps.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 7 hours ago

    I thought it a clever and innovative idea. The problem is there is no opportunity to look for such an item. If the mint inadvertently created an error on a penny, collectors could search rolls of pennies for an error. That would be fun and interesting and great marketing. For the post office to create one, but it is only in the stocks in the post offices, handled only by postal workers, there's no chance of a collector to "look" for one. We'd have to buy dozens or hundreds of the sheets at the window and then look for them. Several post offices I visited didn't even have this sheet; I had to order mine online. It would be more fun (and profitable for USPS) to have issued both so I could have both in my collection.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 7 hours ago

    When I found out about this intentional "error", I went down to my local Post Office and bought a sheet. Of course, it did not have the the error. Then I thought...$12!!! This is a lottery!! .I found that some customers had ordered thousands of sheets to increase their odds. Pure speculation and greed! The Post office violated many of their rules when they printed these intentional errors. They should be ashamed of themselves....no, heads should roll!!

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 7 hours ago

    As a collector of stamps for over 60 years I have seen the field of stamp collecting hurt by a number of US postal policies: issuing a ridiculous number of new stamps, post cards, press sheets, etc. every year, the vast majority of which were not available at many local post offices and were, by the post office's own admission, designed to be bought by customers put in a drawer, and never used, just to generate more postal revenue; abandoning gummed stamps in favor of self-adhesives that deteriorate over time much quicker than the old water-activated ones and which are almost impossible to soak off of envelopes; and even omitting the layer between the stamp and the adhesive that allowed the stamp to be removed from the paper so that it could only be saved on a piece of envelope. Last, but not least, this fiasco with an artificially created error--the "univerted Jenny"--that directly violates the Postal Service's own regulations and for which no really practical or fair method of distribution was ever developed, with the result that 75 percent of the errors have not been found (as of 8/27.2015) and are unlikely to ever turn up. Ths was another nail--but a real big one--in the coffin of stamp collecting. Heads ought to roll at the Postal Service for this poorly thought-out disaster.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    USPS should not be in the business of creating rarities--period. Any stamp that is printed should be made available to all customers. This includes not only "random" distribution like the un-inverted Jenny, but I'm also very wary of stamps made available only as part of a much larger purchase, such as the Circus stamp that could only be purchased as part of an annual set.
    I'm not quite as opposed to limited issues, i.e., only so many will be printed and it's first come-first served.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    There's nothing wrong with USPS creating rarities. The Mint does it all the time. However, the way USPS did the Jenny was subject to manipulation. Why didn't they just do an online lottery? If they want more revenue from collectors, then charge $1 or something for each online lottery ticket.

    Then you can have as many rarities as you want. I know there's that rule that USPS cannot intentionally create rarities. Answer? Change the rule. The USPS already creates rarities. Look at press sheets. Issues of 500? That's not that rare, but it is intentionally limiting supply.

    Listen, if USPS issued ONE (that's right, ONE) example of a stamp, and held an online lottery for that stamp with lottery tickets costing $1 and letting everyone buy an unlimited amount of tickets, they would make millions off that one stamp.

    Hey, states have lotteries all the time. Why not USPS?

    Think it over, USPS.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    I love creativity and innovation. I have no problem with the USPS dong something new and different. I am always in favor of doing something that can help balance the financial scales in favor of profit rather than loss.

    But if the stamps were sold to customers under false pretenses then that is not right and should be corrected in some way with the purchasing patrons.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    I was bewildered when I heard the Postal Service made a printing of only 100 sheets. Was this ethical or even legal to create a postal rarity? Then to lie about all 100 sheets being randomly distributed to post offices and finding out months later that they withheld a quantity (we don't know how many-it's still a secret) and gave away a few only increased their degree of deceitfulness. Someone needs to be fired over this stamp issue.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    I think that the inverted/upright Jenny is helping to invigorate the stamp collecting hobby. I enjoy looking for the 'gold at the end of the rainbow'. I also think that stamps should be printed using soakable backing.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    I think it's a bad idea to sell the non-inverted sheets as a sort of lottery. I'm also very unhappy about the circus souvenir sheet only being available for purchase when buying the year set. What a rip off. I've been a stamp collector as long as I can remember and the USPS has made literally tens of thousands of dollars of pure profit from stamps I've bought that go directly into my collection/stock folders. If the USPS prints it, it should be available to everyone. This also means providing ALL stamps through Stamp Fulfillment. Stop gouging stamp collectors!

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    The Jenny issue has been a slap in the face to stamp collectors. I've bought way too many of these sheets and use them as quickly and as possible. If this "scam" is in fact illegal or improper under the Postal Services own rules, than why wasn't it stopped from even being put into production and marketed? This is really a matter of the USPS "eating it's own". It is perfidious how the non-invert 100 were "seeded" in such a despicable way. It is even more outrageous that the Postmaster General "gifts" sheets to customers. I buy consistently large orders from Stamp Services, but even I have a budget. Very bad judgment motivated by a blinding greed. I say Reprint the right side up version and to heck with the stamp dealers. Let freedom ring!

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 8 hours ago

    I felt from the start that the intentionally scarce upright Jenny sheets we a cheap gimmick, commercially exploitive, and uncharacteristic of the USPS. Must the USPS resort to hucksterism for survival? What's next, lotteries for stamps?

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 9 hours ago

    A stamp commemorating the Inverted Jenny was a nice idea, but like most everything the USPS has been doing, goes beyond any reasonable perspective. A $2.00 stamp was overboard. A souvenir sheet of 6 X $2.00 stamps was six times overboard. It could have been done in a much more measured way.

    The gimmick of putting out 100 random non-inverted Inverted Jenny sheets went against every principle of philately that the USPS used to uphold. Instead of creating excitement, it created scandal. It was completely exploitive, and made the United States look like a cheap nation without any standards. And, of course, it really didn't work that well, either, which is not a surprise.

    If the USPS is making stamp decisions with any philatelists' input, it doesn't show. Any philatelist would have warned against this tawdry scheme.

    If the USPS thinks it's going to realize huge gains from retention of the Inverted Jenny sheets, I would like to note that I have bought a number of sheets and use them as much as I can on mailings -- because that's what stamps are actually for, to mail things. They are not going to be hoarded. Those days are over, nobody is going to be investing in large amount of U.S. .postage like people did before.

  • Reply to: Rethinking Mailbox Access   5 days 9 hours ago

    As someone who regularly purchases items online and have them shipped to my home, I don't understand why this outdated law mandating only USPS can use my mailbox is still in effect today. I'd be much more confident in the security of my packages if all deliveries to my house went in my mailbox rather than sitting on my front porch for anyone to see. Fortunately, I live in a safe neighborhood in Iowa and do not have a problem receiving my deliveries, but it seems to make much more sense to receive deliveries through my mailbox.

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 9 hours ago

    Dear Postmaster General:
    Thank you for your concern regarding the issuance of inverted Jenny along with 100 intentionally produced upright Jenny stamp sheets. I think the Postal Service erred in this issuance. I do not believe that the inverted Jenny was worth issuing and then to have the Postal Service intentionally issue 100 sheets of an "error" version of the stamp borders on criminal activity. I feel the Postal Service should never intentionally issue an error version of a stamp and they should also never flood the market with error versions if an unintentional error is found.

    Please pursue this matter and please see that the Postal Service implements controls so that we do not have these types of issues in the future and that they follow their own rules already in place.

    While on the subject of stamp issues, I also believe that the Postal Service is printing far too many copies of far too many various varieties of far to many different subjects each year. I believe this is being done to generate financial support of the Postal Service on the backs of collectors because our congress will not take appropriate action to allow the needed streamlining of the Postal Service in this day of changing communication methods.

    Thanks for the help and Best Regards;

    Tom Geren
    (collecting since 1957)

  • Reply to: Jenny Come Lately   5 days 9 hours ago

    I think it is terrible that the USPS has printed stamps that is not available to the general public. As a stamp collector it is bad that they create a rarity that is highly priced on the secondary market. All stamps issued by the USPS should be readily available to order and secure without the need to purchase additional stamps. It is no way for the USPS to encourage us stamp collectors and appears to just be another example of the USPS extracting additional funds from the public. It is a terrible situation that should be addressed and remedied by the USPS to be more customer focused and friendly.

  • Reply to: Rethinking Mailbox Access   5 days 9 hours ago

    I think that lifting the restrictions on mailboxes would be a terrible idea. I have been letter carrier since 1988. Some mailboxes are so small that you can barely fit a standard electric or telephone bill in it. Some customers use their mailbox to store things like spools for grass trimmers. I have also had to deal with new businesses putting fliers n the mailbox (a loss of direct mail revenue).

Pages