New GB Machins have to be collected on paper if used

Post by **GlenStephens** » 30 Nov 2008 20:18

OK .. thanks to Ian for raising this new development, and I made it a feature of my Xmas stamp column - and a link to this thread is included:

https://www.glenstephens.com/snjanuary09.html

The story of the un-issued Churchill issue was interesting to research!

.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 30 Nov 2008 21:57

Blackpepper wrote:
norvic wrote:
Blackpepper wrote:It is a crock that worldwide governments are happy to have stamp collectors buying and never using stamps for postage - many multi millions of dollars I would assume - yet they go out of their way to stop a very small number of stamps being re-used.
The two situations are not mutually exclusive, as Royal Mail is demonstrating. If the stamps aren't used they don't need security slits.
I don't understand "not mutually exclusive" used in this context as the PO is getting something for nothing in effect when a collector buys the stamps and they are not used for carriage yet when a very small number is re-used the regs come out.

What I mean by "not mutually exclusive" is that your two statements are unconnected to each other. On the one hand you are saying that POs issue stamps (primarily for collectors) that they know are not going to be used - nobody would argue with that.

Then you say that the same PO makes special efforts to stop stamps being reused, as if that is somehow relevant to the previous statement. It isn't.

Whether you like it or not - and of course you don't have to buy them - selling stamps to collectors is legal. Likewise reusing previously used stamps for postal purposes is illegal - it's fraud. You can't use one argument to offset the other.

Blackpepper wrote: Using the figures you have just quoted and assuming all 1st class stamps are being sold the total "loss" (excluding those stamps sold to collectors of course) would be around 4 hundred thousand pounds PA at best.
This is hardly a major thump to the Royal UK PO income.

I didn't quote any figures, I assume you went to eBay and looked at the sales there. As well as the 1st and 2nd class stamps, some in lots of several hundred and many being sold from Holland, there are individual lots of various values with face values quoted over £200 each.

I presume from your stance that you condone the reuse of postage stamps to defraud the postal authorities? As you will appreciate which has a knock-on effect to all postal users as a certain amount of loss is factored in to postal rates.

It's like shoplifting, which affects retail profits and has to be factored in to retail prices that everybody else pays, or avoidance of any other tax.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 01 Dec 2008 00:56

Re Post and go

The majority of the world view stamps as a method for moving mail. The collectors are a bonus for Royal Mail. When I was at Maidstone to get mine certainly at least one business was using it for mail rather than joining the queue.

I would suspect accountants will make the call on them--does one pay and go equal one/two less staff and pensions etc.? If so they will turn up in every PO at least. And will supermarkets get them?

People's reaction will be--even allowing for the English delight in queuing--that Post and go is quicker and so will be used by many.

Collectors? Okay, the stamp people will not like them (Machin lovers will have to work out their own attitude) but the postal history people will quite happily accept them.

But this is not the point--as said, Royal Mail is a business and these machine will live or die depending on whether they are a cheaper alternative than a staff member (or two).

PennyBlack1840 · Post by **PennyBlack1840** » 01 Dec 2008 02:11

Ian

My attitude to post and go labels is entirley my own and nothing to do with what Royal Mail think.

Good luck to postal Historians, but these would not find shelf space in my collection nor in my dealing stock, they have no relevance to me nor many other collectors. Time of course will tell but I do not get any good feeling about these at all. Their only purpose is to detract from stamp collecting and act as another step in the slow demise of the postal system in the form for which stamps were created.

Peter

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 01 Dec 2008 02:45

PennyBlack1840 wrote: My attitude to post and go labels is entirley my own and nothing to do with what Royal Mail think.

I'm sorry if anything I wrote in reply could be taken as implying otherwise; that was not the intention.

PennyBlack1840 wrote:Their only purpose is to detract from stamp collecting and act as another step in the slow demise of the postal system in the form for which stamps were created.

Interesting observation. You can't seriously believe that "Their only purpose is to detract from stamp collecting".
Their primary purpose would seem to be to reduce queues in post offices by providing not only a means of prepaying postage, but also of weighing the item to be posted to ensure that the correct postage is applied. The machines also provide airmail labels and CN22 labels.

Their widespread use will have an impact on postage stamp usage, but not that much - many of the items which can be posted at the Post and Go machines (using the 'use it now' label, rather than the Faststamp) would otherwise have been posted with payment indicated by the Horizon label produced at the counter. Extra impact on collecting will, in my view, be minimal and their availability and use will spark interest.

But let's do a comparison: in many POs there are machines which dispense 1st & 2nd class stamps from coils. The new machines dispense self-adhesive labels.

Both stamps and labels have perforations*, both have phosphor bands, both have the Queen's Machin head, both have no value but a service indicator. One is printed by a security printing company in advance, the other is printed locally on-demand.

(*Accepted that the coil stamps are conventionally gummed and have 'proper' perforations while the labels have die-cuts and are self-adhesive.) [/code]

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 01 Dec 2008 02:48

This thread on security devices on Machin definitives seems to have wandered into a discussion of the Faststamps which are an entirely different thing, and the subject of a quite different thread.

If this is my fault, I apologise.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 01 Dec 2008 03:01

I must add that the vast majority of stamps are bought in booklets from the local shop and are all the same boring 1st and 2nd class machins. I like the idea of Pay and go even if just as a variety from this dominant position. To receive, in my normal commercial (as in not philatelic mail) daily mail, an envelope without a 1 or 2 machin would be a very rare event; anything which increases the chance of this happening has my approval (but I am interested most in postal history).

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 12 Feb 2009 23:22

I'm now able to show scans of the actual stamps to be issued on 17 February:

The security features do not show up particularly well on a straight scan, so this photoshop-enhanced image should serve instead:

The reversed out pattern overprinting the denomination is continued over the dark background, with a different (not reversed-out) pattern over the head. Although one collector I know has said that they are hideous, for the most part the difference is not noticeable.

For more enhanced images see the Norvic blog at

https://norphil.blogspot.com/2009/02/hidden-security-features-on-new-machin.html

quicksilver · Post by **quicksilver** » 13 Feb 2009 00:00

Jack wrote:Another reason to hate machins...

I'm about to go back to collecting everything on cover again! First the USPS is having issues with a bunch of their stamps being printed on non-soakable paper, now Machins are becoming non-soakable. Seems the various postal entities have declared war on us used stamp collectors. At least my topical WW stamps are still okay....Am sensing my used US and Machin collections are about to come to a screeching halt since I can't soak em anymore.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 13 Feb 2009 00:44

quicksilver wrote:Seems the various postal entities have declared war on us used stamp collectors. At least my topical WW stamps are still okay....Am sensing my used US and Machin collections are about to come to a screeching halt since I can't soak em anymore.

Postal authorities have declared war on the people who reuse uncancelled stamps by soaking them. The people who do this are fraudulently using the postal service, in the same way that those who don't have a TV License or Road User license (called by different names in different countries) are commiting fraud. The action of these poeple - like shoplifters - increases prices for all other users.
The US and the UK are not the first by any means - Spain's ATM labels have always had security cuts and as far as I know nobody has successfully removed one of these from the cover.

Anybody contemplating curtailing their collecting needs a reason - I don't regard this as an excuse. Some stop on a change of currency (to decimal), some on a change of monarch, some at the millennium. Not collecting any self-adhesive Machins, or not collecting these with no water-soluble layer, seems like an excellent reason and time to stop. I've yet to establish from Royal Mail why the high values (£1.50+) have been issued as they have not been sold at PO counters for some years - although we are told that these new ones will be available at counters. We'll see whether this is so next week.

quicksilver · Post by **quicksilver** » 13 Feb 2009 01:26

I can understand why they would do it to prevent re-use of uncancelled stamps, I guess it's still a problem. I suspect that money is a factor as well, apparently it's more economical to print the stamps on non-soluble paper than the soluble type. At least that's what US postal authorities are claiming. I may change my mind down the line and go ahead and put them in my collection regardless of soakability(?). I always threaten to quit collecting because they change things and I end of going along with the flow. Guess we collectors don't like change sometimes!

tonyevans1 · Post by **tonyevans1** » 13 Feb 2009 09:08

norvic wrote:Although one collector I know has said that they are hideous, for the most part the difference is not noticeable.

For someone who has such strict opinions on the quality of the things that collectors should aspire to I find it VERY strange that you say that a virtual hole punched right through a MUH stamp is "not noticeable"

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 13 Feb 2009 09:15

tonyevans1 wrote:For someone who has such strict opinions on the quality of the things that collectors should aspire to I find it VERY strange that you say that a virtual hole punched right through a MUH stamp is "not noticeable"

I guess you have to have them in your hand to know what I mean Tony. Send me your address and I'll send you a letter

The point is, as I sit here and glance sideways at the FDCs I've prepared I couldn't tell that the stamps barely a foot away from me are any different to the non-security versions, and at certain angles I can't tell even closer. The scans of the actual stamps above show how little difference there is.

tonyevans1 · Post by **tonyevans1** » 13 Feb 2009 09:22

norvic wrote:
tonyevans1 wrote:For someone who has such strict opinions on the quality of the things that collectors should aspire to I find it VERY strange that you say that a virtual hole punched right through a MUH stamp is "not noticeable"
I guess you have to have them in your hand to know what I mean Tony. Send me your address and I'll send you a letter
The point is, as I sit here and glance sideways at the FDCs I've prepared I couldn't tell that the stamps barely a foot away from me are any different to the non-security versions, and at certain angles I can't tell even closer. The scans of the actual stamps above show how little difference there is.

Thank you for your kind offer Ian but I do not collect covers

and if I try to soak the stamp off what then? I think the difference would be a little more noticeable

.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 13 Feb 2009 10:29

As regards re-use , is it not the case that you would just re-use the whole envelope as well (save even more money--canny Scot -- were I that way inclined) and hence no need to soak off the stamp so in that respect will have little impact on fraud prevention?

Are we not all being encouraged to re-use and recycle?

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 13 Feb 2009 19:53

Highlander wrote:As regards re-use , is it not the case that you would just re-use the whole envelope as well

It has been known to happen

asvcat · Post by **asvcat** » 22 Feb 2009 07:46

What an interesting post!

What a huge expense for Royal Mail to make a new type of "non-reusable" stamp rather than fix the cause of the problem.

Cause = The postmarking machines do not cancel every stamp.

Effect = Some people may reuse the stamp.

I wonder if they did their research and found out how many envelopes pass through the machines without a cancellation? Why don't they fix the postmarking machines rather than issue a new product? Perhaps they are planning to eliminate postmarks.

David
(Retired Production Engineer)

PS Why soak the stamp off the paper to reuse it? Just cut it out close to the edge and glue it on to a new envelope. I occasionally receive letters "stamped" in this way. Never from philatelists, though!

Post by **admin** » 11 Mar 2009 13:07

More discussion and actual photos of these "slit" stamps here:

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11313&p=458030#p458030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 11 Mar 2009 19:29

At our club meeting last night one member said he had no problem (a) soaking these off by the usual method, or (b) peeling them off. No damage, and no envelope attached. I didn't think to ask him if these had actually been through the post or if he put them on an envelope and then peeled them straight off again. Obviously time, and pressure of the sorting machinery rollers might have an effect.

Incidentally the two self-adhesive special stamps in the Design Classics retail booklet (http://www.norphil.co.uk/2009/images/090310_dcl_book_phonebus.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) are likely to suffer from the same problems as the definitives in the booklet.

Post by **admin** » 12 Mar 2009 07:17

Ian so the UK ones are NOT "permanent" adhesive as far as you know?

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 12 Mar 2009 07:24

They SEEM to be, but I honestly haven't had time to play about with them, what with all the other stamp issues of late - and I've only had one in the mail. Still, more invoices going out tomorrow so hopefully more cheques coming in.

Post by **admin** » 12 Mar 2009 07:32

They seem to be Permanent do you mean?

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 12 Mar 2009 08:19

Royal Mail say the stamps will be 'impossible' to remove, and we have already proved that not to be the case. (Which will disappoint them no end!) How easy they are to remove, will depend on trials which I haven't undertaken - and not many people will have yet because few have been used.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 25 Mar 2009 03:17

I was using alcohol-based after-shave to clean something and thought that it might also dissolve the gum on these new stamps. The result was spectacular:

This wasn't just any after-shave, it was Marks & Spencer's After-Shave! (UK readers will understand - and now I remember why I don't use it on my face!)

Post by **ozstamps** » 25 Mar 2009 10:43

Royal Majesty .. Queen PINOCCHIO!

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 17 Apr 2009 20:18

As reported in the Machin Mania blog, Douglas Myall published the news yesterday that the non-denominated security Machins have a hidden code that identifies the format in which the stamp was issued.

I don't usually replicate entire threads, but this one is important for completeness.

The code is a change of one letter in the curvy ROYAL MAIL pattern, located at the top right, above the diadem.

The codes are as follows

B replacing A in Royal - ROYBL MAIL - in business sheets (standard 1st and 2nd Machins)

B replacing A in Mail - ROYAL MBIL - in business sheets (large 1st and 2nd Machins)

C replaing A in Mail - ROYAL MCIL - in mixed booklets with four 1st Machins and two commemoratives ("C" is for custom)

F replacing R in Royal - FOYAL MAIL - in booklets of four stamps (large 1st and 2nd Machins)

S replacing A in Mail - ROYAL MSIL - in booklets of six (standard 1st Machins)

T replacing A in Mail - ROYAL MTIL - in booklets of twelve (standard 1st and 2nd Machins)

There are no hidden codes in counter sheets, which means that no denominated Machin has a code.

Royal Mail says that these codes let them know the source of a stamp when a problem is discovered, for example, a sub-standard application of the phosphor bands.

So now we have different slits, different perforations, and ID letters. Who said Machins were boring!

Post by **admin** » 18 Apr 2009 12:12

norvic wrote:As reported in the Machin Mania blog, Douglas Myall published the news yesterday that the non-denominated security Machins have a hidden code that identifies the format in which the stamp was issued.

I don't usually replicate entire threads, but this one is important for completeness.

The code is a change of one letter in the curvy ROYAL MAIL pattern, located at the top right, above the diadem.

The codes are as follows

B replacing A in Royal - ROYBL MAIL - in business sheets (standard 1st and 2nd Machins)

etc

How interesting .. does anyone in the group have an enhanced photo of one of these deliberate spelling mistakes?

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 23 Apr 2009 07:26

norvic wrote:As now corrected

The code is a change of one letter in the curvy ROYAL MAIL pattern, located at the top right, above the diadem.

The codes are as follows

B replacing A in Royal - ROYBL MAIL - in business sheets (large 1st and 2nd Machins) [correction]

B replacing A in Mail - ROYAL MBIL - in business sheets (standard 1st and 2nd Machins) [correction]

C replaing A in Mail - ROYAL MCIL - in mixed booklets with four 1st Machins and two commemoratives ("C" is for custom)

F replacing R in Royal - FOYAL MAIL - in booklets of four stamps (large 1st and 2nd Machins)

S replacing A in Mail - ROYAL MSIL - in booklets of six (standard 1st Machins)

T replacing A in Mail - ROYAL MTIL - in booklets of twelve (standard 1st and 2nd Machins)

There are no hidden codes in counter sheets, which means that no denominated Machin has a code.

There are some images in the aforementioned Machin Mania blog, but they aren't very good. Having just been away since Saturday I'm in no position to do anything until sometime next week (perhaps).

michaelatcddstamps · Post by **michaelatcddstamps** » 23 Apr 2009 13:30

on the re-use envelope topic.. where the stamp and envelope has not been franked.. don't we all do this..

just cross out previous address.. or stick a label printed address over the original and back in the mail it goes..

hee hee

Post by **ozstamps** » 23 Apr 2009 15:00

Ian .. if you see a decent image please let me know .. I'll run that in 'Stamp News'.

Post by **ozstamps** » 23 Apr 2009 15:04

michaelatcddstamps wrote:on the re-use envelope topic.. where the stamp and envelope has not been franked.. don't we all do this.. just cross out previous address.. or stick a label printed address over the original and back in the mail it goes.. hee hee

'Hee Hee' indeed, if the pink tracking coding strips/bars already along one edge route your re-used letter to Melbourne actually to Cairns or somewhere that the computer coding reads it as, from the first journey.

OR spits it out of the machine for a human to take a good look at, as to why it was rejected by the reader sensors.

Either case, not 55c wisely 'saved' I'd guess.

Dorian · Post by **Dorian** » 05 Jul 2009 23:39

I've had a go at removing a couple of these from paper and can confirm that it was pretty straightforward using alcohol (isopropyl alcohol to be exact) As with last years' GB Christmas stamps, the adhesive is left on afterwards. I just cover it with a bit of talc - not sure if this will have any effect in the longer term though. If I was unscrupulous enough to want to re-use an uncancelled one this would in fact make it easier then before, with no need to use glue!

And it's also pretty easy to see the differences in the background pattern - one was ROYAL MBIL and the other ROYAL MTIL.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 30 Sep 2009 01:03

Spotted on eBay by one of my contacts is a 1st class gold with missing security overprint. We haven't established the source for sure, but suggestions are that they are from coil trials. This pair sold for £21 - not bad for kiloware. Look closely at any you get.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 30 Sep 2009 01:23

Thanks; sure will

postagelabelsuk · Post by **postagelabelsuk** » 04 Oct 2009 06:58

I stand by what I said regarding the pay and go labels - little or no interest from collectors, they will not be sought after in my view, mainly because they will be unlikely to get a catalogue listing, even if they do cannot see this changing - look at the level of interest in the FRAMA labels of years ago. Sure you may have some interest from a few other countries but Stamp Collectors prefer stamps not labels in my experience.

Have you looked at my (PostageLabelsUK) Blog at the number of hits it has received? There is massive interest in GB Postage Labels and those who chose to ignore them, will most likely, have to play 'catch up' later.

You only have to look at the prices realised for labels and Fdcs- In what other field can you buy an item at a PO for £5 and sell it on Ebay a week later for £100?- to proe interest.

Once the rollout of the Post & Go Machines is complete and the estate is stable, then RM are sure to embark on a program of commemorative labels- which will be linked into Philatelic events such as London 2010 and other events such as London Olympics.

Much of this was hinted at during one specific answer at the September briefing (and I was there too!) but no specific detail yet given.. watch this space.

Brian

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 04 Oct 2009 19:03

Brian,

You might also have said that the Post and Go Stamps (or Faststamps) are already listed by Stanley Gibbons in the Concise Catalogue as FS1-5, page 254. Gibbons refer to them as Faststamps - hooray!

Given that the initial production is in the book, then any produced with London 2010 designs must be, as must any which are produced at subsequent events - the London 2012 Olympics, for example.

Ian

malcolm197 · Post by **malcolm197** » 27 Nov 2009 07:29

Ian

To go back to the security "cuts".

Do you think that at some time in the future philatelic convention will find offpaper used stamps with the "bits" missing acceptable - possibly a long time in the future ?

In other words , when presented with RMs irreversible decision,the "rules"on condition may have to be adapted (but only on this specific).

Malcolm

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 27 Nov 2009 07:39

malcolm197 wrote:Ian

To go back to the security "cuts".

Do you think that at some time in the future philatelic convention will find offpaper used stamps with the "bits" missing acceptable - possibly a long time in the future ?

In other words , when presented with RMs irreversible decision,the "rules"on condition may have to be adapted (but only on this specific).

Malcolm

No,, I doubt it. The stamps will either be collected on paper, or removed in their entirety in a way that we find acceptable (and in a way that removes the gum as well as the envelope). As the cuts are not complete ovals, ie they are 2/4 separate slits, removing the stamp in its entirety is not impossible.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 16 Dec 2009 03:52

Somebody who left a comment on my blog pointed out the significant difference in the denomination on these, which I had not previously noticed. The thick stroke in the 'S' is much thicker on the right.

De La Rue sheet on the left, Walsall Security Print booklet on the right.

The latest development is that booklets are being issued with no printers imprint on the reverse. This is deliberate and follows Royal Mail no longer having the DLR logo on the lower left corner of sheet stamps (below the cylinder number), nor the printer's name on the back of the first day covers. Not quite sure why RM are doing this: on the sheet stamps we can identify the printer by the cylinder number (D1 = De La Rue). Booklets have cylinder numbers as well, W1 xn for Walsall Security Print. However, a colleague has examined 400 of the latest 12 x 1st booklet without finding any cylinder numbers.

If the cylinders are lost as well, then it suggests that the security code should be varied. Royal Mail's stated purpose of the security code was to identify the source of the stamps in case of any problems. T in books of 12, S in books of 6, C in books of 6 combined with commemoratives, B in Business Sheets etc. Well, if Walsall are not the only printers of books, one would expect a different code to be used for the new printer, otherwise the stated purpose is negated.

postagelabelsuk · Post by **postagelabelsuk** » 16 Dec 2009 04:33

Ian

And then there is the element of when the stamps were printed (date code etc..) that has to be added to the mix doesnt it?

Brian

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 19 Jan 2010 01:22

Have I missed something?

and another different one

Both of the first two are of the same stamp on cover.

I've looked at quite a few of these new security machins. The change is meant to be above the diadem I think. Normally the change is in the word Mail (by altering the letter after M) Foyal is used for one alteration instead of Royal and Roybl for another; but Roybl is for large Machins. I think these scans clearly show MAIL, a clear R for Royal and a clear bottom bit for A. Am I right? These clearly are not misspelling Mail, the R in Royal is clear and the bottom of the A is very clear.

I think the key is in the bottom one; there is something more of a blob where the letter R could be to the left of the forehead / crown I suspect these could be Foyal (booklets of four) Mail which are one level lower with the spelling alterations?

Anyway just thought I'd raise it, obviously feel free to suggest alternatives. I could just be totally misreading it...

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 19 Jan 2010 01:42

Jack wrote:Have I missed something?

I've looked at quite a few of these new security machins. The change is meant to be above the diadem I think.

Anyway just thought I'd raise it, obviously feel free to suggest alternatives. I could just be totally misreading it...

The stamps sold in ordinary counter sheets have no change to the spelling - simply ROYAL MAIL - and that applied to both the small and large stamps. Only the ones in Business Sheets, booklets and coils are changed to indicate the source. The source of the unchanged ones is identified simply by them being unchanged.

Or am I missing something? Have you doctored the first image to show only part of the overprint, or is that how it appears?

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 19 Jan 2010 02:28

No Iain; that's what I wanted to know. Thanks. I kneww I had missed something blatantly obvious!

clemo · Post by **clemo** » 28 Jul 2010 16:46

Have just received a large envelope from the UK with this humungus stamp/frama/whatever stuck to it (subsequently stuffed by the AP Mail Centre in Brisbane).

It has lots of fancy whirlygig cuts on it, and ROYALMAIL printed on it umpteen times. Is this a counter-printed stamp, or what?
Any assistance appreciated before I commit its body to the shredder!

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 28 Jul 2010 18:26

clemo wrote:Have just received a large envelope from the UK with this humungus stamp/frama/whatever stuck to it (subsequently stuffed by the AP Mail Centre in Brisbane).

It has lots of fancy whirlygig cuts on it, and ROYALMAIL printed on it umpteen times. Is this a counter-printed stamp, or what?
Any assistance appreciated before I commit its body to the shredder!

No need to shred: yes it is a counter printed label and people collect them. And don't worry about the Brisbane mark, at least it is a postal mark of some sort; these don't need to be postmarked in the UK.

You can read more in these threads:

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12657&hilit=+gold
https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19609&hilit=+gold and here
https://norphil.blogspot.com/search/label/horizon%20label

clemo · Post by **clemo** » 28 Jul 2010 18:31

Thanks for the input, Ian. Did a search and decided on this thread, so will now have a glim at the others.

Regards

Sisophon · Post by **Sisophon** » 19 Aug 2010 06:28

GlenStephens wrote:Apart from the USA .. and soon the UK .. any other country using the NON soluble adhesive?Glen

Russia does, just now I soaked and made a mess, so pissed off that I throw them down the bin.

And these stick-forever Machins is such a philatelic hazard. Last week I requested my eBay UK seller to make dispatch with postage stamps, I always keep used stamps as give away to children at community centres. It ended up he used these Machins (so literally he fulfills my request, he does use *stamps*), and now I have something ugly, and something which cannot get off the paper, basically junk. God do not save the Queen, she is down the bin right the way now.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 19 Aug 2010 07:13

Sisophon wrote:Russia does, just now I soaked and made a mess, so pissed off that I throw them down the bin.

And these stick-forever Machins is such a philatelic hazard. Last week I requested my eBay UK seller to make dispatch with postage stamps, I always keep used stamps as give away to children at community centres. It ended up he used these Machins (so literally he fulfills my request, he does use *stamps*), and now I have something ugly, and something which cannot get off the paper, basically junk. God do not save the Queen, she is down the bin right the way now.

Well everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but most people well aware of the problem as highlighted here nearly two years know that the best way to keep them is on paper, or removed from paper with an alcohol. If you choose to ignore advice that is also in this thread about removal, then you will get mush and ruin perfectly good stamps.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 19 Aug 2010 07:40

I should add that with retail booklets being produced with special stamps as well as Machins, the self-adhesive versions of the specials will also be unsoakable in water. They can be distinguished by the perforation of course, just as Australian and other countries' stamps can be.

Not yet issued - due October:

due September

Already issued

Also already issued are three Olympics booklets - see https://www.stampboards.com/images/norphil/2010/01z-retail_booklets_2010.htm (images too big to show here).

Dorian · Post by **Dorian** » 19 Aug 2010 08:04

Ian
Where these retail booklets sold? The usual shops that sell ordinary booklets, or just selected places?