Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

USPS "Gives Away" Right Side Up Jenny Souvenir Sheet

Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 54 / Views: 8,748Next Topic
Page: of 4
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 12/30/2014   4:58 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add wt1 to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
The "Right Side Up" Jenny Souvenir Sheet has now increased to 21 documented "finds", but this latest one seems to raise more questions than it answers:

http://linns.com/news/breaking-stam...ee-of-charge

Does anyone know why the USPS gave one of these away "free of charge"? Was it a promotion that I missed?

Something doesn't seem right.
Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
1255 Posts
Posted 12/30/2014   5:02 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add JLLebbert to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
If the sheet was still in its envelope, how did the USPS know that it was an "upright" Jenny???
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts
Posted 12/30/2014   6:30 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add stamporator to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I can understand that the USPS knew that it was an upright Jenny sheet, because they had 100 of them printed and then placed in envelopes, and then they 'supposedly' inserted these 100 envelopes into the 2 million ones of upside-down panes. That is understandable!

What gives me concern is that they either did not place 100 envelopes randomly (ie. kept back one or more....?), or they printed an extra one....or more? What are now the real odds of getting a pane? Are there only 50 inserted within the distribution? This may very well be the case as only 21 have surfaced.

Obviously this tactic is to get more online orders from individuals, so that the USPS will place your name in for a possible next drawing.

- stamporator -
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
7716 Posts
Posted 12/30/2014   7:10 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Petert4522 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Like the man said.................something does not seem right.

Peter
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
339 Posts
Posted 12/30/2014   8:45 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add TheStampNut to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Somewhat like the "Follies" all over again. stamporator makes a good point...how many were really printed? If the distribution was random, how does the postal service now give one away? If they were all placed into "blind" packaging, how come this particular one wasn't?
Something seems a bit fishy to me...and it stinks...no pun intended!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 12/30/2014   8:57 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
To quote from the last paragraph of the Linn's article:


Quote:
A total of 100 upright Jenny Invert panes were intentionally printed by the U.S. Postal Service...Given the circumstances surrounding the 21st such pane to be reported, it appears that at least 99 of them were randomly inserted into the production run of more than two million panes...


First, we not only have an unannounced "contest" for the pane, but false advertising in the claim that 100 panes were randomly inserted into the two million offered for sale, when, in fact, only 99 were, and the one leftover pane was "given away" via this promotion. Although you could take the phrase "at least 99 of them..." to mean that more may, in fact, be in the hands of the USPS.

Second, it was an "unfair" contest given that it only included online purchasers and essentially disqualified anyone buying the panes at their local post office a chance to win.

Third, the fact that this "unannounced contest winner" is apparently an avid collector and the pane is going to be put on display at an upcoming philatelic show all seems too coincidental.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by wt1 - 12/30/2014 9:03 pm
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2755 Posts
Posted 12/30/2014   10:58 pm  Show Profile Check eyeonwall's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add eyeonwall to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Just another example of the current USPS stamp administration changing their story.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
5880 Posts
Posted 12/31/2014   12:48 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add smauggie to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
It was fishy from the start.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
APS Member #: 222539 AAPE, Maplewood Stamp Club (MN), Northern Philatelic Society, US Philatelic Classics Society, Auxiliary Markings Club, Canal Zone Study Group, Minnesota Postal History Society
Rest in Peace
United States
4052 Posts
Posted 12/31/2014   09:46 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ikeyPikey to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The ReInverted Jenny mar-com stunt was so contrived, how could active deceit be far behind?

The only justice here would be if disappointing sales led them to go ripping thru thousands of packets to find a winner, rendering a pile of min-sheets for the shredder, where they all belonged all along. Hmm ...

The French Cinema has long had a talent for hysterically funny farces; the original Man With One Brown Shoe comes to mind, and this farce seems ready for their screen, to wit:

The French postal service does as has been done here, reprinting an error that was itself the subject of an earlier (TBD) scandal.

But they've got budget problems, and maybe a tawdry sex scandal in top management, and other vulnerabilities.

Along comes a powerful politician who needs to keep his mistress happy/quiet, and her favorite nephew (in the old days) or their out-of-wedlock multi-racial 'love child' (these days) collects stamps. Postal employees start ripping-open packets, by the thousands, to keep that kid-and-mistress happy.

But wait, there's more!

She's got a girlfriend, and the girlfriend is also a mistress with a love child from a powerful boyfriend - perhaps the two children attend the same single-payer state-run pre-school - and she wants one for her kid, too. The French equivalent of the US Postal Inspection Service starts staging 'audits' & 'inspections'of post offices in order to seize & rip open their stock.

More politicians show-up, and maybe a pompous wannabe-The-Nose general or two (what would a French Farce be without De Gaulle?). Meanwhile, a journalist (who needs a back story I can't bother with at the moment) starts investigating the 'audits' & 'inspections'. Okay, you convinced me, let's bother: he's got a girlfriend he's desperate to impress, and his soon-to-be father-in-law is Powerful Politician Number One (PPN1, above). Since it is now, and not then, fiddle the genders & gender roles for maximum effect.

Along comes the Innocent Little Guy - preferably a limo driver or doorman or waiter who was (earlier) insulted by PPN1 - and he finds one of the Stupid Mar-Com Contrivances in his purchases. The Special Audits Squad (yes, the initials are a dig at the cross-channel comic enemies of the French) (or, better yet, the name was chosen to provide a contemporary anti-terror disguise) start staging burglaries. The little boy of Mistress #3 (who I forgot to introduce earlier) catches them in the act of stealing his Stupid Mar-Com Contrivance, and calls the local constabulary, who bust the S.A.S. guys.

Their boss needs to get them out of jail, but he can't very well bail them out - and the investigative journalist is on his way - and how better to bribe the guards? - so he steals the Stupid Mar-Com Contrivance that he had given to his mistress' little ... okay, finally, girl. But she's having none of it, and tells her babysitter, the investigative reporter's now-surfacing daughter from his college days ...

Whew! That whole riff brought to you by just the first half of today's morning coffee.

Happy New Year,

/s/ ikeyPikey
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by ikeyPikey - 12/31/2014 09:50 am
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1524 Posts
Posted 12/31/2014   5:02 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add cjpalermo1964 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
This could be a costly gift under US tax law. Presumably the USPS's basis of the gift is $0.010 (the approximate cost of USPS printing the sheet) or $12 (face value). The act of receiving the gift does not result in income tax liability, but valuable collectibles that appreciate are subject to capital gains taxes. So, if the Atlanta collector sells the sheet at market price, perhaps $50,000, I believe he has to pay capital gains tax on the difference. If sold before December 2015, then his ordinary income rate applies, which could be as high as 39.6%; if sold after December 12, 2015, then the lower long-term capital gains rate applies. If he's wealthy, that LTCG rate is 28%, and if he's not, 15%. In any case, he's looking at a tax bill of at least $7,000 presuming market prices for the sheet hold (and they may well go up, if dealers believe that the USPS is holding more sheets so that fewer than 99 exist in the open market). Hopefully he waits at least a year to see if the new Congress makes any progress with tax reform. Or, I hope he can argue that the basis he received was the market price of the sheet on December 12, 2014, rather than the USPS's original basis.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by cjpalermo1964 - 12/31/2014 5:06 pm
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 12/31/2014   6:22 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
When talking about tax laws (and I'm no tax attorney) it seems to me this sort of a "gift" from the USPS is a public acknowledgement that the award winner received the item that is subject to taxation.

If it were simply a "find" at a local post office, the collector would have the option to keep the "find" quiet and not publicize it until he or she were ready to sell it on the secondary market, the very reason why many collectors suspect there may be more "finds" out there than the tally of 21 would suggest.

Depending on one's income, there may be a compelling reason to delay announcing a "find" until a sale occurs, depending on their income, tax bracket, etc.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Rest in Peace
United States
4052 Posts
Posted 12/31/2014   9:31 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ikeyPikey to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The recipient did not order this item, which makes it a gift.

Gift tax is due from the giver, not the receiver.

All subject to the usual proviso that I form opinions about the law without the benefit of an education in the law.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Rest in Peace
Learn More...
United States
763 Posts
Posted 01/01/2015   12:28 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Bill Weiss to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
ikey/Pikey - You have a truly vivid imagination and creative talent! Thank you for your contributions!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Rest in Peace
United States
4052 Posts
Posted 01/01/2015   01:15 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ikeyPikey to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Bill: Thank you for the kind words, but my little screen play deserves the ultimate insult: it is 'derivative'.

Sure, I wrote & chuckled & tweaked & chuckled, but there ain't nothing in there that the classic French Farce Flicks did not do first.

Specifically, I was trying to remember elements of the hilarious:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068655/ The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe (1972)

Sadly ... well, probably sadly ... Netflix has only the American remake:

http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Ma...hoe/70003679

Yes, I am an awful snob, but I prefer my French Farce Flicks unlocalized (albeit with subtitles).

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by ikeyPikey - 01/01/2015 01:16 am
Pillar Of The Community
United States
680 Posts
Posted 01/01/2015   07:37 am  Show Profile Check paperhistory's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add paperhistory to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'm not a tax lawyer either, but I am an attorney and part of my legal practice is contests and sweepstakes. My understanding is that there is still a tax liability here in the eyes of the IRS. This is the classic "Oprah" problem - remember about 10 years ago when she gave away cars to an entire studio audience? Everyone got hit with a tax liability, even though the entrants didn't knowingly enter into a promotion, because the cars were considered prizes rather than gifts.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
44 Posts
Posted 01/03/2015   1:47 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Unhinged to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Wow this really stinks. Note that the linked Linn's piece said "Hussain also verified for Linn's that the undisclosed number of upright Jenny Invert panes to be given away for free are part of the 100 that were intentionally printed." -- panes, plural. So it's not necessarily 99 randomly inserted in the wild, it's less than that.

Perhaps anticipating a slowing of sales some months after initial release, USPS intentionally held back an unknown number so that at the appropriate time, they could "goose" sales with a give-away. That's pathetic. There was also this murky statement:

"USPS spokesman David Partenheimer told Linn's that those who purchased a Jenny Invert pane directly from a post office are ineligible to receive a free upright Jenny Invert pane via the random selection process described in Hussain's letter."

Huh?? How does USPS know who has purchased a pane from a PO? And why would that matter? Are they simply saying that the giveaway program does not apply to POs and just mail order?

I wish Linn's would really get to the bottom of this whole thing. A couple of FOIA requests ought to expose it.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous TopicReplies: 54 / Views: 8,748Next Topic  
Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2021 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2021 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.27 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05