USPS Frustration !!

Actually, apparently it does make a difference. When the 0 meter is put on the envelope/package, that tells both the postal worker AND the automated machine that the item has already been postage verified. A couple of people I know mailing from different locations in the US have already tested this in various ways -- the results: mail with USPS meters (even 0 meters) get there as fast or faster than those without meters. Several postal employees have also verified that it can make a difference in processing time, especially with unusual items (like packages with 10-20 stamps on them!).

By the way, Kirk, good to read your posts again. Haven't read much from you in the past few months!

Another case in point. I received one package affixed with some specific stamps and S/S's that are difficult to find with genuine postal usage. Except the stamps had been removed off of the package. The 0 meter proved that the stamps were there when accepted by the post office. Somebody at the post office took a blade and sliced out the stamps off of the package. The postmaster agreed that's what happened. I had no intention of getting anybody fired over the incident, but I told them I would like to have the stamps back if possible, no questions asked, and also assurances that this type of activity would not happen again. This event coincided with a change to my normal USPS sorting/delivery center. It had never happened before this change.

Needless to say, I never got the stamps back (they all had a pretty decent premium). It also never happened again.

The 0 meter didn't help prevent the theft of the canceled stamps, but it kept the package from being held up because of no postage, and it also proved that there was originally sufficient postage affixed.

One response:

Stamps, like money, are obligations of the issuing state. Like
banknotes, you can possess them as though you owned them (with a few
restrictions - like prohibitions on defacing them), but you can't own
them. That wouldn't apply to private carrier's stamps. Like
software - you "buy" it, you can "use it", you can even toss it out
(or like coins, melt them or otherwise destroy them). But, you can't
own it if the real owner / creator / issuer is only willing to license
it to you.

Some countries "demonetize" them - i.e., abrogate the contract they
represent... I guess then, maybe, you could "own" that which the state
has declared to be worthless and essentially abandoned.

Remember the old adage "possession is 9/10ths of the law"? It
represents less than the perfection of ownership. Guess what the
tenth tenth is.

Len Nadybal
Washington DC

It is true that USPS will not reimburse you for stamps removed "in transit". You are insuring the contents of the package, not the packaging itself. They will not honor a claim because part of the packaging is missing; only if the contents are missing/damaged.

However, the postal managers and workers have all told me the same thing -- any postal worker caught removing stamps from from packaging and not authorized to do so is subject to dismissal. That was in fact the first thing the branch manager told me when I told her my stamps were missing; and which is why I stated to her that I wasn't interested in getting anybody fired, I just wanted my stamps.

Regarding Len Nadybal's reply, it doesn't make sense to me. The refusal of USPS to reimburse for missing stamps is an insurance issue, not an ownership issue.

Stamps are quite different from money. In the US, it is technically illegal to deface paper money. There is no such restrictions on stamps. In general, USPS does not retain any ownership other than copyright for stamps issued since 1981. Once you buy a stamp from USPS and receive it, USPS cannot confiscate it as long as the sale was not obtained through illegal channels/arrangements. In the past, they've actually tried to retrieve major errors that were purchased legitimately over the counter. They huffed and they puffed, but the buyers would refuse, so all they could do was walk away.

However, you could face sanctions if a third party is involved. For instance, the CIA employees who noticed the $5 invert and swapped out the part sheet. The stamps actually still belonged to the CIA (government), even though they had swapped them with normal $5 stamps. The one employee who refused to return their allotment was fired.