(Reprinted from Linn's Stamp News, September 3, 2007, p. 46)
Despite all of the pleas from various segments of United States
philately, the U.S. Postal Service announced Aug. 9 that it is going
to stick to its decision made in 2006 about U.S. plate numbers.
The decision is that new plates employed in printing new stamps will
continue to use only plate numbers consisting of only the digit
"1," despite more than 100 years providing consecutively
numbered higher plate numbers.
The Postal Service announcement came during a meeting of stamp
journalists at the American Philatelic Society's Stampshow in
Portland, Ore.
When the 2006 decision to eliminate consecutive numbering of plate
numbers was announced, the plate number collecting community became
out raged and sought answers.
The announcement was withheld from collectors for quite a number of
months, and it only came to light after inquiries when collectors
began to notice the absence of new plate numbers.
Letters were written to David Failor, the Postal Service's director
of stamp services, including one signed by Janet Klug (then
president of the APS), Roger Brody (chairman of the United States
Stamp Society) and Wade Saadi, (president of the U.S. Philatelic
Classics Society).
The letters urged a return to the traditional numbering system.
A four-way telephone conversation was arranged between Failor and
the three society leaders during early February, and they appeared
to have persuaded the Postal Service to reverse its decision.
At the time, Failor claimed he would need to discuss this with the
private printing contractors. The printers would need notification
of some months before they could resume using different plate
numbers on new plates.
Then the stalling began. Frankly, what needed to be discussed? Contracts
called for new plate numbers, and the contractors were
still operating under the old contracts. Many contacts were made by
this writer and by others since February; and in each case the reply
was "no decision has been made yet."
Now the decision is known.
Why did the Postal Service change the system? Failor's original
reply to me indicated that plate numbers were no longer needed for
accountability purposes and that their elimination would simplify
the production operation.
If simplify meant "less costly," that, was not said.
Nowhere along the line did Failor indicate what savings, if any,
would result from the elimination of consecutive numbering.
The printing people I have spoken to say that changing, the plate
number is very simple and hardly costs them anything.
Failor never indicated that the Postal Service's printing costs were
re negotiated following the decision and what, if any, savings the
Postal Service would enjoy.
I do not think any savings were involved.
Was the real reason for eliminating consecutive numbering the fact
that the numbers were no longer needed for accounting purposes? I
do not think so.
What came out during the discussions that society leaders had with
Failor is that a handful (fewer than five and maybe fewer than
three) Freedom of Information Act requests had been made to the
Postal Service for data on plate-number impressions, dates to press
and other data for a whole series of coil stamps.
All of his requests were viewed as extra work by the various
printers and by Postal Service officials, even though providing the
Postal Service the reports was probably included in the contracts
with the various printers. I believe that Failor became so annoyed
(perhaps even enraged) by these requests that he moved to eliminate
them.
And he did so by turning off the plate numbers.
The society leaders pointed out to Failor that some societies exist
solely or largely in part based on plate numbers.
These include the USSS, the American Plate Number Singles Society,
and the Plate Number Coil Collectors Club, with collectively more
than 3,500 members. Also many of the members of the APS and the US
Classics society also collect plate numbers. The total membership
in these organizations is close to 50,000.
It was pointed out to Failor that publications such as the Durland
Standard Plate Number Catalog and Hebert's Standard Plate Number
Single Catalogue exist solely for the plate-number-collecting
community.
Failor was presented with a rough estimate that at least several
million dollars in face value of plate number coil strips of three
and five were set aside by collectors and dealers during the 37¢
rate period.
Add to that the plate numbers set aside by those collecting plate
blocks of sheet stamps, vending and over-the-counter booklet panes,
and the amount could be substantially more.
This money, which the Postal Service accounts for as "retention
income," is dearly valued because the great majority of the
stamps see no service.
With the decision on plate numbers, this retention will be lost.
I wonder how the additional out-of-pocket cost for dealing with the
Freedom of Information Act requests and the changing plate numbers
and keeping records on them compares to the retention income lost by
eliminating the new plate numbers.
Failor never provided this information.
Those dealing with the persons who were submitting the Freedom of
Information Act requests knew they would not agree to never submit
another one if the Postal Service re turned to the old plate
numbering system. It was clear, however, that they knew what the
stakes were and would be judicious.
So why not reconsider and avoid overturning a system that has
existed for more than 100 years, has thousands of followers and
whose costs to maintain are dwarfed by the millions of dollars of
retention income generated?
What reason might exist for not reversing this obviously lose-lose
new plate number policy?
Is it related to how the reversing of the decision might be
explained?
Could the Postal Service state that it would be clearly in the
financial best interest of the organization to reverse it?
That might seem logical, but it evokes the question why the
financial numbers were not considered before the decision was made
in the first place.
Thus it appears that collectors are stuck with being without
consecutive numbering until at least the current postal management
moves on.
There is one touch of irony in this whole thing. Recently a new
stamp appeared with plate number P222 in the selvage, which followed
the P111 of the same stamp. What happened?
At first the thought was that the Postal Service had returned to the
consecutive numbering system.
When Failor was questioned on this, he replied that second plate
numbers would be used when certain significant changes are made in
the printing operation, including a change in ink or paper type.
So now we do not have new plate numbers when the plates change, but
we do have new plate numbers when the ink type or paper is changed.
Isn't that ridiculous? Maybe a Freedom of Information Act request
for the various paper types and ink types could now be submitted to
see what changed.
| 
