Irked

[prpr]

I don't mind a postmark or a free stamp, but this always irks me:

 

[Ezra Pound]

Q : "What did you do at work Today dear"
A : "I dragged a Sharpie across 400000 stamps"

 

[Wallace]

This sort of behaviour needs to be stamped out.

 

[prpr]

Typical male behaviour.

 

[EEPhil]

At this time of the year they should show more franking sense.

 

[Black Hole]

Some stamps are now carrying 2D "barcodes" which identify the stamp uniquely. The batch I bought for my Christmas post have them. Presuming these get scanned and logged somewhere in the delivery system, using one twice will get caught out.



The "stamp" part of the stamp is larger than normal, so once the barcode is added there are something like only a quarter the number of stamps on a sheet (quadrupling the production cost). If this is intended to be a cost-saving exercise (reduction in fraud), I wonder whether the benefit will exceed the expense (DVLA eliminated paper tax discs to save money, and evasion went up... surprise surprise).

https://blog.norphil.co.uk/2021/03/barcode-added-to-2nd-class-business.html

 

[EEPhil]

(DVLA eliminated paper tax discs to save money, and evasion went up... surprise surprise

It wasn’t a surprise to me either. The tax disk is a signal that you’ve paid. Could it be, in some people’s minds, that no requirement for tax disk equals no need to pay? (No need for stamp = free postage - well, sort of)

 

[Ezra Pound]

It does make you wonder how far away we are from linking the credit / debit card number used to purchase the stamps with the unique codes on the stamps themselves*, this would make sending letter bombs a bit more tricky in the future

JGB S1125101703105078714--0006626072102--B4C4CCDD654775B701
JGB S1125101703105078715--0006626072102--1C7B9D331D01CD7401

JGB S1125101703105078719--0006626072102--9BF0FF840C4480CA01
JGB S1125101703105078720--0006626072102--FF3AFCC60078963B01

JGB S1125101703105078724--0006626072102--CD7ADCF789AC01EB01
JGB S1125101703105078725--0006626072102--BEA8944782CA9B8C01

Note the twin "dashes" were not in the original barcodes

5 alpha + 19 decimal + 13 decimal + 18 hexidecimal = 55 characters

In BH's 6 stamps the 13 decimal section contains 66 pence and 26 July 2021

EDIT
* This would require a unique barcode on the book of stamps or for every stamp to be scanned at point of sale (I think the first option is doable)

 

[Black Hole]

This would require a unique barcode on the book of stamps or for every stamp to be scanned at point of sale (I think the first option is doable)

In my post office, they use a scanner at point of sale for the pricing. I then pay by contactless...

 

[Ezra Pound]

Yes but your scanner at point of sale is only giving you something like this 5014721112299 = a 12 x 2nd book of stamps, if it had more digits it could precisely reference your block of 6 stamps and then link the stamp's unique numbers to the contactless card holder's address

 

[trog]

"It wasn’t a surprise to me either. The tax disk is a signal that you’ve paid." Or that you have access to a cheap printer and photoshop, when something becomes too easy to forge it no longer serves its purpose. A better system would be a bar code that needs to be scanned in order to pay for parking, tolls etc and automatically takes a photo of the user and number plate and notifies the police if not legitimate.

 

[MikeSh]

A better system would be a bar code that needs to be scanned in order to pay for parking, tolls etc and automatically takes a photo of the user and number plate and notifies the police if not legitimate.

But people who avoid tax are just going to avoid paying for parking (probably do already). Ditto tolls.

Perhaps they could have cameras scattered around the country that image every numberplate that passes on the public roads, and reports the ones with no road fund licence. It should be possible ...

 

[Black Hole]

Apparently the Royal Mail are now misidentifying genuine stamps as counterfeit and applying £5 penalty charges for delivery.

 

[EEPhil]

Why am I not surprised?
Wasn't the change to bar coded stamps supposed to stop this? Last time I used a stamp it was an old (no bar code) Christmas stamp from at least two years ago. That was last month to send my old passport in to be cancelled. Neither Royal Mail or the Passport Office complained. Makes me wonder whether the stamp change was an expensive waste of time.

 

[Black Hole]

Yes, I've received post recently with old-style stamps... which they told us some time ago would not be accepted! If you make a rule, you have to enforce it.

 

[prpr]

Last time I used a stamp it was an old (no bar code) Christmas stamp from at least two years ago. That was last month to send my old passport in to be cancelled. Neither Royal Mail or the Passport Office complained.

Christmas stamps are exempt from the bar-code requirement, so that's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

I've received a bar-coded one this week with no postmark at all, an increasingly common thing. OK, that was frequent before, and probably one reason for introducing the new stamps because people were re-using them (and why not?), but how does this happen so often in what's supposed to be an almost completely automated operation?

 

[EEPhil]

Christmas stamps are exempt from the bar-code requirement, so that's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

I knew that, which was why I used it. RM wouldn't allow people to swap them. Given that RM can't tell the real and fake new stamps (or their a... from their elbow) there was always the possibility they couldn't remember Christmas stamps were still valid.

one reason for introducing the new stamps because people were re-using them

Didn't the pre-barcode stamps have something built-in that showed if the stamp had been peeled off a letter? (Or is that vague recollection just my imagination?)

 

[MikeSh]

I've received a bar-coded one this week with no postmark at all, an increasingly common thing. OK, that was frequent before, and probably one reason for introducing the new stamps because people were re-using them (and why not?), but how does this happen so often in what's supposed to be an almost completely automated operation?

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.

 

[MikeSh]

Didn't the pre-barcode stamps have something built-in that showed if the stamp had been peeled off a letter? (Or is that vague recollection just my imagination?)

IIRC the stamps had an oval partial cut out in the middle making it difficult to peel off intact. Not fully proof but needing a lot more time and effort to do in a way that wasn't obviously tampered with.
I did try and reuse some unmarked stamps over the years (a long time ago) but it depended a lot on the surface it was stuck to as to whether I succeeded.

 

[Black Hole]

Didn't the pre-barcode stamps have something built-in that showed if the stamp had been peeled off a letter?

Yes: internal ovals which get left behind (although I see no difficulty peeling those off too and re-inserting them).

Christmas stamps are exempt from the bar-code requirement

Which makes the whole exercise pointless.

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.

Postmarking also provides a timestamp and limited tracking, so dropping it would be to save embarrassment rather than to reduce cost! Regardless of the barcode, I think there should be a visible cancellation / evidence of posting.