PNC3  - The Plate Number Crisis

This page has been set up to chronicle the events surrounding the announcement by the United States Postal Service that starting in January, 2007, all plate numbers would be 1s unless there was a significant reason for going to 2s.

The original message was a reply to a communication that Robert Rabinowitz sent to Mark Saunders, Media Contact for the United States Postal Service.

This is the message that was posted on the US Stamps Discussion Group which I moderate.

Ron Maifeld

Date:
[Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:45:29 -0500]
From: Saunders, Mark R - Washington, DC <mark.r.saunders@usps.gov>
To: RABINCOILS@aol.com

Subject: FW: Plate Numbers
Hi Bob,

As a follow up to your cc; to me recently, I contacted stamp services on your concerns….

With with the BEP no longer producing stamps, and the advent of the new rates our requirement with the private suppliers was changed to simplify and reflect the new technology in applying plate numbers on all stamp formats including coils. In addition we no longer utilize the plate activity report as a document for review in accountability audits as was done prior to the automation of accountability documentation and the necessity for changing plate numbers is no longer required with computer to plate technology. We therefore have instructed the suppliers that beginning in January 2007, plate number series would remain as plate number 1 unless a significant change in production such as using a new press, a recreation of the computer file used to make the plates, or a significant materials change occurs. In those cases a new series of plate number 2 will be used.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Thanks much and have a good holiday.

Mark

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Within hours, the original message was posted on the PNC3 web site and the Virtual Stamp Club discussion group.  Following are some of the replies. (Some people choose to use screen names)

Doesn't this sorta kill the the fun of the "hunt" for new plate numbers?

Kurt Lenz

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think it will have a very negative effect on the search for new plate numbers. Apparently this new policy will apply to everything, including booklets and regular panes.

Ron Maifeld

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think the many changes that have been made by the authorities to plate numbering led to a sharp decline in interest starting with the floating plate numbers when one had to collect large multiples in order to get a plate number. The next change from the old BEP-inspired roughly consecutive numbering was the next blow. Then the move to have four possible plate blocks per pane. Now this. Sad.

PCMSPSN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am sure the United States Stamp Society and the American Plate Number Society have similar interests.

Al Gore

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, I agree.  I will be contacting the other APNSS officers to make sure everyone is aware of this issue and will encourage our members to write as well.

--Rick Burdsall
Secretary, American Plate Number Single Society
Editor, Hebert's Catalog of Plate Number Singles

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The following is an article (letter to the editor), written by our Past President, Gene Trinks, which will be published in the January, 2007, issue of Coil Line.  Although it addresses plate number coils, I think it applies equally to all plate number collecting. (REM)

Letter to the Editor, Coil Line

Some of you may have seen the posting on the US Stamps website regarding the changes being made by the Postal Service regarding the numbering of printing plates for stamps. I believe it is being reprinted in this issue of Coil Line. If this plan to limit future plate numbers is not derailed, there will be little in the way of Plate Number Coils for us to collect going forward.

For those of us who avidly seek out the different numbers and spend many enjoyable hours in pursuit of the occasionally elusive rare numbers, it is in our best interests to get this incredibly harmful decision reversed.

For this reason, I am asking EVERY MEMBER to take pen in hand and write a personal letter (NOT an e-mail, as these can be overlooked easily) to USPS Stamp Services Executive Director David Failor. Request that the policy of the past, requiring a different plate number for each different printing plate, be reinstated. Please, no irate rantings, just an appeal to keep one of the most enjoyable parts of the hobby healthy into the future.

Do not hesitate to put a financial slant on your views, as the revenue gained by USPS for sales to collectors is most important to the decision process. Whereas the needs of the collector do not totally drive the decision process, the revenue stream from us collectors does have an impact. It’s not just us PNC collectors that are affected, but all number collectors, whether they are on sheet stamps, booklets, ATMs, or coils.

In order for our voices to have the greatest impact, I will suggest that we all try to have our letters arrive in Washington on Wednesday, January 10th. I imagine it would get his attention if he were to hear from all 900 PNC3 members at the same time. But, in the event you can’t make this target timetable, send the letter anyway. We need to have all our voices heard.

Also, as time passes, and if you think of something to add, don’t hesitate to send another letter. A continual stream of letters will also have an impact. This letter writing project may well be the most important thing we can do as a club to save our hobby from a woeful fate.

Letters should be sent to:
David Failor, Executive Director Stamp Services
United States Postal Service
1735 N. Lynn St., Suite 5018
Arlington VA 22209-6432

Many thanks to dealer Bob Rabinowitz for asking the question that brings this decision into the open. It gives us the opportunity to speak in defense of the hobby we all enjoy.

Gene Trinks
Past President

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Next is a draft of an article, written by Doug Iams, which will also be published in the January, 2007, issue of Coil Line.

"It is important that all of our members send a letter to David Failor to let him know how you feel about this debacle.  The letters should be kept fairly short as he is at a high level and won't be able to spend the time to read long letters.
 
While emotional appeals may help some, this was a bureaucratic streamlining type of decision and they aren't likely to rescind it unless they can be convinced they will lose money and that they can continue to use real numbers that change with each new plate with only minor effort on the parts of the printers (read minimal cost that will be exceeded by the revenue they generate from collectors).  I can't believe it would cost much time/money at all to change a plate number in a computer CAD file that is used to generate a new plate, so we need to let him know there are a lot of us out there who provide them with revenue and are very disappointed by the decision.  If you can quantify how much you spend on PNCs in a year (in face value of the strips, not in cost from a dealer since we are talking about USPS revenue) that should help.
 
Plate numbers weren't put on the coil stamps because of any accountability audits (they could have simply kept them in the margins of the web that get trimmed off like where they always were) - they were put there for collectors.  So the fact that they no longer are going to use plate activity reports for review in accountability audits is no reason to make every plate a #1.
 
After the oversized plate block debacle of the 70's, PNC's were the big success story from USPS in the last 25 years and it seems crazy to kill that off (along with plate number collecting on other stamp formats).  Unfortunately, the folks at USPS headquarters think only of commemoratives when they think about collectors and they don't realize how important PNC's have been to revitalizing modern US collecting.  You need to let them know.  And if you know PNC collectors who are not members of the club, get them to write a letter too.
 
David Failor
Executive Director, Stamp Services
United States Postal Service
1735 N. Lynn St., Suite 5018
Arlington VA 22209-6432

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Below is an item submitted by Robert Rabinowitz for inclusion on the US Stamps Discussion Group.

I'd like to point out that while the USPS admits to an official policy of staying with all 1s starting on Jan. 1, 2007, I believe that during the past 2 years this has been going on unofficially and probably initiated by Sennett. Here's what I have:
1. The Sennett S4444 on coils of 100 were sent out by me as new issues in Feb 2005. Since that time we've not seen a new number although, based on carton manufacturing dates, there have been a continuum of printings since then.
2. The Sennett S77777 on the Lions coils also was sent out on Feb. 2007. I should point out that if I sent them out then, they were printed at least several months before that. Since that time, additional batches of S77777 have been produced with the more recent ones having BLACK back numbers. But they've stayed with all 7s since that time.
3. And what about Avery-Dennison. After producing a continuum of number on the 10c Atlas, all we've seen out there from multiple sources, is V33333. It doesn't figure except to conclude that every set of cylinders is now V33333.
4. There have been no second series of numbers of anything including coils and convertible booklets since the denominated 39c'ers appeared except for one booklets of 10 and one coil of 100, both by Ashton-Potter and both having appeared almost one year ago. Since then Ashton Potter has been in step with the other producers.
      My Information about production runs, dates, etc., aren't guesses. In order to do my job correctly and I am in touch with bulk mailers, philatelics, and major post office counters (for example, Providence) that are able to provide this information.
      We are going to make a strong effort to reverse this ill-conceived USPS dictate and we'll need all your efforts in letter writing Mr. Failor.

Bob Rabinowitz

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Below is a copy of the email sent on 12/15 to David Failor by Robert Rabinowitz and David's reply on 12/18.  David's email address is: david.e.failor@usps.gov.

David: Please read the reply below from Stamp Services. (This is published above-rem) What it really will result in is thousands of collectors who have supported plate number coil philately for the past 25 years and looked forward to the appearance of new plate numbers will no longer see them. What a tremendous disappointment. I'm a dealer in plate number coils and, of course, I will suffer too. But at close to 73 years of age, I began last year to draw my activities to a close.
      Your new policy that may save a few dollars at the printing end (and therefore the bids) will cost a great deal more since collectors will no be buying any of the new stuff since there won't be any except for the first series of plate numbers.
      I urge you to reconsider this decision.

Bob Rabinowitz

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bob:
 
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.  The issue for us is that it's hard to support a process that really has no practical application for the production of stamps.  The record keeping is a burden for the stamp producers and is not something we need in order to maintain accountability (the original intent of the numbers).
 
As I continue to talk with the philatelic community, one common theme I keep hearing is that collectors don't want us producing stamps solely targeted at the collector. They don't want the Postal Service to dictate to them what stamps they should purchase.
 
In my mind, keeping this process in place would fit into that category.  For us there would be no business reason to do it other than to have more stamps for collectors to collect.
 
I'll continue to listen to the philatelic community on this issue and keep your concerns in mind as we move forward.
 
Dave

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Below are emails and messages from here and there.

Virtual Stamp Club message 24322.26, December 18, 2006

(Most) collectors and dealers will collect at least a strip of five of each plate number, so the USPS is reducing their potential sales by at least 60%, assuming that collectors continue to collect at all. Dealers will only stock quantities of something they can sell, so USPS sales will be impacted by this policy.

Conversely, on the production side, the USPS is only interested in the quantity the contractor delivers, not the mechanics in producing it. It simplifies the contract and allows the contractor to produce with out having to worry about mind-numbing paperwork.

John Cropper

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 Virtual Stamp Club message 24322.27, December 19, 2006

It won't be to much of a change for the pnc collector.

There will still be a # 1 plate number to collect  for the 4 or 5 printers, a # 1 for wa gum, and sa gum, and a possible peak-valley, valley peak # 1 and any odd ball perfs, EFOs, and at least 5, and possibly 7 back number positions to collect for each # 1 plate numbered strip, and for each printer that produces larger rolls of 3,000, 10,000.  Add to that the possible tagging varieties, and you are still going to spend a lot of time hunting down a lot of stamps.

So there is a great deal of varieties to collect, even without the multiple plate numbers.

Besides, you will be able to concentrate on the older coil pncs you missed, because you were trying to keep up with the new issues.

For me, it means a larger budget for buying the higher priced pncs, because I won't need half my budget to keep up with newer issues.

There is always a bright side to changes. Behind every dark cloud, the sun is still shinning.

This plate number change will not satisfy everyone. The collectors will get a break, not having to look for so many numbers, but on the other hand, dealers and sellers will lose that edge they have in the pnc business, as well as plate block and booklets.  I guess there are two sides to every coin (stamp story) (USPS changes).

Tom Harley, Sr. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Virtual Stamp Club posting message 24322.33, December 19, 2006

I have been a lifelong collector of plate number singles.  I didn't mind the change to representative plate numbers in 1981 because it simplified things immensely and solved in one step the oft-discussed problems that had been introduced with 4, 5 and 6 plate numbers and the resulting large cash outlays.  I didn't mind the prefixes used for private security printers, as that made sense and occasionally made for an interesting hunt when two printers printed the same stamp.  I didn't mind the switch to smaller panes, with plate numbers in each corner, as it made it cheaper and easier to collect complete matched sets of all plate numbers (yes, to answer a question someone asked earlier in this thread, there are some of us collectors committed to this impossible yet highly rewarding quest!).

But it was the same change to private printers, also about 1981, that foretold the proposed change we have today.  The purpose of the plate number has always been for accountability.  USPS doesn't need that any more, and the private printers never needed it.  It's arguable whether BEP ever needed it - sure, they needed to number their plates, but did they need to print the control information on the stamp output itself?  My real fear, as a plate number specialist, has been that they might decide that without the accountability requirement, they might not need any plate number on any issues at all! 

Today, a significant number of each year's new issues have no plate numbers as it is.  Will the USPS lose money if they print more or even all of their issues without plate numbers?  Yes and no.  I will only buy one example of each stamp for my general collection, rather than several panes for each plate number - but my revenue to them is negligible if the change saves them bigger bucks in the procurement and printing processes.

It's not that USPS doesn't care, as some have voiced - it's more that they shouldn't care.  A specific plate number assigned for each plate used in the printing process isn't necessary for them any longer.  As disappointed as I am, as a plate number specialist, that there will no longer - or very rarely - be multiple plate numbers for a given issue, we can look at several positives:  (1) they aren't discontinuing plate numbers altogether, which was a distinct possibility; (2) collecting plate numbers is simplified somewhat since you attain "completeness" for a given issue with your first purchase; (3) our overall collecting expenses are reduced if there is only one plate number for each issue; and (4) it promises to be real interesting when those rare cases come up when an additional plate number is in fact assigned.

I can't ascribe the ulterior motives to dealers that Tom and a few other posters seem to feel.  Dealers don't make the market, they serve it.  In another thread I recently read an excellent summary of how and why PN5 became the preferred standard for coils, and why PN11 or other sizes make sense for a few issues - can't recall who wrote it, but you really should read that to get a better understanding of how the PNC market developed and evolved.  It has much more to do with changing printing methods at BEP, and a sense of artistic symmetry and balance which arose from collector preferences, not dealers being greedy or dictating what should be collected.

I also don't see why the change to a single plate number should require or result in any change to the preferred collecting format for PNC's.  PN5 is the most preferred method for most issues, but there are still plenty of people collecting PN3 and plate number singles.  PN11 makes sense if there are 5 face-different issues, so you have the PNS in the middle balanced by one of each.  PN9 makes sense if you have 4 face-different issues, again with the PNS in the middle balanced by one of each.  Those should be the exception; for normal PNC's, a strip of 5 is fine.  Again, I refer you to the article that gives the evolution and history behind the PNC collecting formats.  [If someone finds it, please insert link here!]

So, where are we?  Seems to me, USPS has recognized a way to eliminate an unnecessary process step and save money in their business practice.  Their private printers are going to do it because it makes business sense.  There's nothing sinister about it, either against the plate number collector or stamp collectors in general, on the part of USPS, printers or dealers.

As a plate number specialist, am I disappointed?  Sure.  But I also see that I'll be buying fewer plate numbers of new issues, and can devote some of my savings to finding a few more positions towards complete matched sets of 2¢ Hardings, Prexies and some of those older commemoratives.

This thread started with a request to write letters to somebody in Washington protesting the change.  I've thought it over and I guess I can't bring myself to do that.  The change makes business sense; it appears to be a "done deal"; I'd rather save my protesting for a more serious issue, or one where there's more apparent chance of success; and I don't want to risk losing plate numbers altogether.

Rick Burdsall
Secretary, Webmaster and Life Member, American Plate Number Single Society (APNSS)
Member, USSS and Marginal Markings Committee
Contributing author, Encyclopedia of United States Stamps and Stamp Collecting ("Plate Numbers" chapter)
Editor, Hebert's Catalog of Plate Number Singles
Member, PNC3, APS, CZSG

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 
Virtual Stamp Club posting  24322.35, December 20  [comments by Doug Iams in brackets and in green]

I basically agree with Rick’s analysis with a couple of important differences. 

 

First, I see no measurable savings from printing or not printing the plate number changes.  The only real savings are the accountability functions performed by the private printers.  This could be stopped independently from the plate number changes.  They could still have the savings and provide plate number changes for collectors.  So, I think that the real savings in the minds of the Postal Service is that they think they will no longer have to deal with and answer the questions of dealers and collectors in search of those numbers, as well as the Freedom of Information requests for plate number information.  The Freedom of Information requests must have driven the private sector printers crazy and cost the Postal Service a fortune in attorney fees trying to figure out how to not answer the questions [not sure about any attorney fees but I believe the FIO requests did annoy USPS].

 

They found what they think is the answer.  No different plate numbers, no questions to answer, no collectors and dealers to drive them crazy looking for them.  Problem solved.

 

Second point, is in the form of a prediction.   After a lull of six to eight months, there will be more plate number varieties [should just say varieties, not plate number varieties].  Different paper, different die cuts, different perforations, different tagging on the same stamp from the same printer. The only problem is they will all be plate #1111 and therefore harder to find [under this new system, any major changes are supposed to get a new plate number, but the printers are often unaware they have produced a new variety as they are often unaware of changes made by their suppliers].  The fact is that the Postal Service and the private printers have no ideas what we collectors look for.  They are just printing stamps.

 

Jerry Peale

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Email to David Failor, December 19, 2006

David:

 
I accept that the plate activity reports are no longer required to maintain accountability and that they are thus an unnecessary record keeping burden for the printers, but changing the plate numbers when new plates are made does not mean the printers still have to produce plate activity reports to send to you.
 
While it is generally true that most collectors don't want you to produce stamps targeted solely at them or unnecessary varieties, there is a big difference between a change in printers that invariably results in a change in something like die cutting for example and a change in a plate number.  The album manufacturers end up putting a space in the albums for collectors for both the original version and new printer version and collectors generally will feel compelled to buy the both versions in order to be complete.  On the other hand, except for specialized albums, albums do not have spaces for different plate numbers, so the average general collector does not face any burden with different plate numbers. 
 
Using coils as an example, most general collectors collect either an un-numbered single or pair, or a single numbered strip without regard to which plate number it has, but there is another group of collectors who have embraced plate number collecting on coils and actively seek them out and will be very disappointed if all plates are numbered 1.
 
Plate number collecting has a very long history.  Plate block collecting was very popular until it was damaged by the advent of the oversized plate block associated with multicolored gravure printings in the 70's.  This problem was corrected with a new numbering system in 1981 and at the same time, plate numbers were moved onto coils and onto the tabs of booklets and modern plate number collecting was born.  Plate number coil collecting has been one of the big success stories for USPS in the last 25 years (ask John Hotchner or someone at Linn's and they will tell you so). 
 
Please don't kill off this field of collecting.
 
Doug Iams

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Email to PNC3 on December 20, 2006

I just have to put in my two cents in regards to David Failor's reply to Robert Rabinowitz. It is in the best interest for the USPS to produce as many variations as possible, why? Because collectors will need those variations for their collections, and since those stamps won't be used for postage, its helps to support their too highly paid personnel.
 
The quantity he speaks of determines directly what stamp collectors will purchase. When collectors sniff a potential shortage, as the recent snowflakes ATM booklet, they buy as many as they can for future investment. And, look at the number of the Statue of Liberty/Flag variation coils and booklets collectors have to buy. I spend at least $150 or more per month just to keep up with current issues.
 
I don't believe the leadership of the USPS has ever listened to the philatelic community as he indicates.

Dr. Kelly E. Hejtmancik

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Below is a copy of an email posted on the US STAMPS discussion group by Robert Rabinowitz  on 1/31, 2007.

Date:
[Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:17:08 EST]
From:
rabincoils@aol.com 
To:
USSTAMPS@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Plate Numbers 
     There is good reason to believe that the USPS will return to using new plate numbers each time a cylinder is replaced. This is the status.
     Soon after the problem arose, I contacted Wade Saadi, a life member of PNC3 and a major player in U.S philately. He is the president of the U.S. Classic Society as well as the Collectors Club of New York (CCNY) and a current candidate for the APS Board of Vice Presidents. In addition, he is heading up the International Philatelic Show (like the recent Washington, DC Show and Exhibition) that is scheduled for 2016, and Saadi and David Failor, the USPS's "stamp czar" are on a first name basis.
     A letter was assembled by Saadi explaining the effect that limiting the plate numbers to all 1s would have on collectors as well as an estimate of its impact on the USPS's bottom line. In addition the proposal was made that the printers would keep no records of impression data to thus eliminate the continuum of Freedom of information Requests that the USPS has been receiving causing them and the printers a great deal of time and frustration.
     Besides Saadi, signers of the letter were Janet Klug, the current American Philatelic Society president and Roger Brody, chairman of the United States Stamp Society (formerly the BIA). All three know David Failor personally. The letters asked for a four way telephone conversation so the matter could be discussed "man to man". Failor was very receptive and set a time, Tuesday, January 30, at 10:00 AM and arranged for the four-way hook up.
     The conversation went very well and Failor was very receptive to returning to the old format. The key here for the USPS is the eliminating of the record keeping of plate/cylinder impressions. Saadi, Klug, and Brody believed that Failor understood that the return to the old system was a win-win situation. And while he didn't commit to the return yet, he told them that it would get serious consideration. A key here was a meeting with the printers that was planned during the next several weeks at which they would have inputs regarding the proposal.
     Saadi came away from the meeting with high marks for David Failor and the feeling that hopefully that we again will see new numbers with new plates/cylinders.
Bob Rabinowitz

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 
Below is an e-mail that Janet Klug sent to the APS Board of Directors, Peter Mastrangelo and Ken Martin asking that the 
USPS reconsider its decision to eliminate new plate numbers on coils, booklets and sheets with the hope that a win-win result 
can be found. 
Note that the presidents of the APS, US Philatelic Classics Society and US Stamp Society all participated in the teleconference 
with David Failor.  The email was posted by George Fekete on the Virtual Stamp Club.
With Janet's consent and with extraneous information excised, I am posting her e-mail below.
Yesterday afternoon Wade Saadi, President of the US Philatelic Classics Society; Roger Brody, President of the US Stamp Society
    and I had a teleconference with David Failor  regarding the recent USPS decision to eliminate new plate numbers on coils, booklets 
   and sheets. 
Based on complaints from our various constituents, we asked Dave to reconsider that position. Dave told us he would be meeting with
    printers in three weeks and would see what could be done. He made no promises, but Wade, Roger and I firmly believe  that the USPS
    is trying to be responsive to collectors' wishes. I'll keep you informed when/if I hear more from Mr. Failor. 
  
Best regards, Janet

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Web site content copyright © 1997-2011, PNC3
Please send corrections and comments to our webmaster

Permission is granted to quote material in this web site provided that proper credit is given.