Irked

MikeSh said:
the stamps had an oval partial cut out in the middle making it difficult to peel off intact.
Click to expand...
I perfected my method of not ripping them pretty quickly!
MikeSh said:
Postmarking was used to cancel the stamps (prevent reuse). The bar-code ones don't need this, so I'd expect postmarking of normal mail to disappear entirely as it's an unnecessary cost.
Click to expand...
It's also useful to know where/when it was posted (when it's legible, which it often isn't). Sometimes stuff got double post-marked, which was always "interesting".
Black Hole said:
Regardless of the barcode, I think there should be a visible cancellation / evidence of posting.
Click to expand...
Quite. How does one know these new stamps have been through a reader and "cancelled" without a postmark? (rhet.)
 
Black Hole said:
there should be a visible cancellation / evidence of posting.
Click to expand...

prpr said:
It's also useful to know where/when it was posted
Click to expand...

prpr said:
How does one know these new stamps have been through a reader and "cancelled"
Click to expand...

Supposedly we will eventually have access to the tracking data which will answer those questions.
(Though why would you need to know if a stamp has been cancelled unless you are contemplating reusing it?)
 
MikeSh said:
Though why would you need to know if a stamp has been cancelled
Click to expand...
A sealed envelope with a postmarked stamp on it is evidence of date of origination, whereas an envelope with an unfranked stamp could have been simply dropped through a letterbox at any time, by anyone. Legal claims of priority rely on this, and I'm not sure what happens if an envelope turns up unfranked!
 
Black Hole said:
A sealed envelope with a postmarked stamp on it is evidence of date of origination, whereas an envelope with an unfranked stamp could have been simply dropped through a letterbox at any time, by anyone. Legal claims of priority rely on this, and I'm not sure what happens if an envelope turns up unfranked!
Click to expand...
Fair enough ... but. Barcode tracking should give the same or better evidence, bearing in mind that letters aren't/weren't stamped at the postbox but when they get to a sorting office.
And if you are sending anything of legal import, or possibly so, then dropping it in a box rather than getting at least a PoP would be foolish.
 
MikeSh said:
Fair enough ... but. Barcode tracking should give the same or better evidence, bearing in mind that letters aren't/weren't stamped at the postbox but when they get to a sorting office.
And if you are sending anything of legal import, or possibly so, then dropping it in a box rather than getting at least a PoP would be foolish.
Click to expand...
Perhaps procedures can be adapted, but traditionally the postmark sees to all that without having to refer elsewhere. If you might want (in the future) to prove authorship of, say, a song lyric, having written it you send yourself a copy with the stamp over the envelope flap, and the postmark is the proof of the date of your authorship.
 
Black Hole said:
Perhaps procedures can be adapted, but traditionally the postmark sees to all that without having to refer elsewhere. If you might want (in the future) to prove authorship of, say, a song lyric, having written it you send yourself a copy with the stamp over the envelope flap, and the postmark is the proof of the date of your authorship.
Click to expand...
Far easier to email it to yourself.
 
Black Hole said:
Perhaps procedures can be adapted, but traditionally the postmark sees to all that without having to refer elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Black Hole said:
the postmark is the proof of the date of your authorship.
Click to expand...
But these days, using a computer and printer, it would be insanely easy to forge that postmark. Traditional doesn't cut it anymore I'm afraid, however conservative you are - heck, even videos can be forged with AI now. You need independent third party evidence, like a date-stamped creation and modification record in a cloud service to really prove it was yours before it was whoever's.
 
MikeSh said:
China is corrupt or the Express is fielding clickbait.
Or more likely - both ...
Click to expand...
Both.
I'm suspicious, and my initial thought was this is a crafty Royal Mail scam to charge £5 (+ whatever commission they get on the stamps) for a letter. I've absolutely no evidence for this, but that was definitely my first thought. I mean, who trusts Royal Mail or the Post Office these days. (I'm not sure I know which does what!)
 
This has been mentioned on Breakfast, and I have yet to read today's Mail. My immediate reaction is that Royal Mail is trying to deflect criticism of the fake detection. Even if there is an influx of fakes, how are fakes getting into the legitimate supply chain?
 
According to the Mail front page, "smaller retailers... are not obliged to buy directly from the Royal Mail and can instead buy them from wholesalers or online". "One large factory is only taking orders for 300,000, cutting the cost to 4p a fake."

Anyone colluding with this clearly must know they are participating in fraud, but this does nothing to explain how stamps bought direct from a Post Office are (reportedly) getting rejected, when these are supposedly delivered securely from the Royal Mail's presses in Wolverhampton.
 
Black Hole said:
but this does nothing to explain how stamps bought direct from a Post Office are (reportedly) getting rejected,
Click to expand...
How long before someone suggests that sub-postmasters are on the fiddle? (Is that even possible? I suppose a combined PO and general store could sell fake stamps at the general counter. People would say they bought the stamp at the PO but, in reality, they didn't.)
 
It does make me wonder how many fakes of the old type stamps there were. On the BBC news website they say the codes have cut fraud by 90% and the current rate is about 0.1%. About 1% previously sounds low to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top