USPS Semi-Postal Stamps
What are semipostals?
Semi-postal stamps
are a relatively new concept in the US, though common in many other
countries - the first semipostal stamp world-
wide was issued in New South Wales (now part
of Australia) in 1897 to fund a home for consumptives (victims of TB), though
there was a semi-postal envelope
issued in Great Britain in 1890. The idea is to provide support to a charity
through the sale of postage stamps, so most semi-postals have two numbers
separated by a "+" on them, the first number indicating the denomination as postage, the
second the contribution to the charity, their sum being the price of the stamp.
(CLICK HERE
to see a selection of semi-postal stamps from other countries.)
How about the USPS Semipostals?
The USPS has broken with tradition in its semi-postals, putting no
denomination on them
at all. This has had the advantage that they can be kept on sale through rate
changes
without a need to change the stamps (see below), but has the disadvantage that
their current postal value can be a source of confusion.
The USPS Domestic Mail Manual states:
The postage value of each semipostal stamp is the First-Class Mail
nonautomation
single-piece first-ounce letter rate ... that is in effect at the time of
purchase.
So they have the value in effect when sold, and in theory ones still on sale
but purchased
before a rate increase have their old value, but since there is nothing to
distinguish
old ones from new ones, in practice they are worth the rate in effect when
they were
taken OFF sale. Below are details about the five issued so far by the United
States
Postal Service.
DETAILS ABOUT THE USPS SEMIPOSTALS
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
This one requires special comment: when first issued, in 1998, it
was very controversial, as our first semi-postal. Critics predicted it would
be a flop, people would not pay extra to fund a charity.
They were wrong, thanks in no small part to the support of
Senator Diane
Feinstein, who introduced the initial legislation authorizing the stamp,
and has campaigned tirelessly since for public support, and to have it kept on
sale. Initially it sold for 40¢, and paid the then-current First Class rate of 32¢. When the rate went to
33¢ in January, 1999, it still sold for 40¢, but had a value as postage of
33¢. When the first-class rate changed to 34¢, it still sold for 40¢ per
stamp. When the rate went to 37¢, the price of this stamp was raised to 45¢,
while its value as postage was 37¢. When the rate went to 39¢ on 1/8/2006,
the price stayed at 45¢. On May 14, 2007, the First Class rate was increased to
41¢, and the price of the Breast Cancer stamp was upped to 55¢. As of this
update (6/20/2019), it has a postal value of 557¢ and a purchase price of 65¢.
In 2019, Congress extended the sale of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp to
December 31, 2027.
As of March, 2016: Total Stamps Sold: 1 Billion (!), and the Total funds
Raised = $83.5M
Image
|
Issue date
|
Current
Denomination
(6/20/2019)
|
Sc. B1 & B5
|
7/29/98
|
55¢
|
SOME HISTORY:
Legislative action on this stamp was signed into law on 11/11/2005,
extending its life
until the end of 2007. The initial authorization in 1997 stipulated that the
selling price of the
stamp should be no more than 25% greater than its postal value, but 55¢
is 34% greater
than 41¢, so they must have waived that restriction.
LATER (5/4/2007):
According to
this article, in 2001 Congress made special rules about the pricing of
semi-postals, but as
stated in the article, the rule makes no sense to me.
LATER STILL (5/5/2007):
A little Googling led me to
this document, which spells out the details of the
relevant legislation. And
here's a USPS page that confirms it -
"The new formula sets a minimum differential of 15-percent, with no cap on the
price. The new legislation
also provides
that the total price must be divisible by 5."
OK, that's clear enough.
I was still curious why they decided to raise the price ten cents,
rather than just five, which would
have
satisfied
the formula just as well. I decided to e-mail Teresa Rudkin, the USPS
spokesperson quoted in that first
article,
to see if she could shed further light on the question. She very kindly put
in a call to
Postal HQ, who replied in perfect bureaucratese as follows:
The law creating the stamp states that the price of the Breast Cancer
Research semipostal stamp must meet
certain
requirements. The Governors of the Postal Service determined to raise the
price in order to meet the
requirements of the
law creating the stamp and in connection with the increase in the First-Class
Mail nonautomation single-
piece first-
ounce letter rate increase.
She sent me the following link to another USPS web page, and told me to look at
the April 12 Postal Bulletin -
http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/pb2007.htm
(See the section titled "Breast Cancer Research Semipostal Publicity Kit.")
Note that they discuss the issue of stamps bought at the old rate -
Customers are welcome to use any Breast Cancer Research
semi-postal stamps they purchased when lower
rates were in effect, but if stamps were purchased
before the rate change, they should affix additional
postage to reach the appropriate rate based on the
size and weight of their mailpiece. There is, however,
no easy way to determine when these stamps were
purchased, so we assume the stamps are being used
properly for the First-Class Mail nonautomation single-
piece first-ounce letter rate in effect at the time
the stamp is used for postage. Consequently, pieces
bearing the Breast Cancer Research semipostal
stamp should not be treated as shortpaid.
So that means that Breast Cancer stamps purchased under the 39¢ rate
should be used with
TWO CENTS additional postage, not TEN CENTS (as suggested in that first
article).
Adding more than two cents benefits only the USPS,
the additional money will not get factored into their calculations of money
due to the research
facilities.
I asked Teresa Rudkin about this, as follows:
By the way, Teresa, it occurs to me that if people add ten cents to letters
using pre-increase stamps, only
the USPS
will benefit. How would the additional money get into the USPS accounting of
payments due to the research
groups? They
should add just two cents, to pay the additional postage cost. Or am I
missing something?
and she replied as follows:
I had to check with Postal Headquarters to make sure I had my ducks in a row
on this one.
No, you're not missing anything, and I can see how our messaging on this issue
could be more clear.
We record the income for the BCR stamp at the time of sale. Individuals who
bought these stamps when the
First-Class
rate was 39 cents, and then use them after rates go to 41, only have to add 2
cents to cover the increase in
postage.
All of which still begs the question "Why 55¢ rather than 50¢?"
HEROES of 2001
Issued at the same time as the rate-change stamps for the increase to the
37¢ basic
First-class rate of 6/30/02,
this stamp
sold for 45¢, and had a value as postage of 37¢.
It is no longer on sale through the USA Philatelic catalogue, or the USPS web
site.
The last time it was listed in the USA Philatelic catalogue was the Fall, 2004
edition, when the First Class rate was 37¢, so that is its value today.
(Officially withdrawn from sale 12/31/2004)
Image
|
Issue date
|
Denomination
|
Sc. B2
|
6/7/02 |
37¢
|
STOP FAMILY VIOLENCE
This stamp was withdrawn from sale on December 31, 2006,
so its value is frozen at the first-class rate in effect on that date,
or 39¢
Image
|
Issue date
|
Denomination
|
Sc. B3 |
10/08/03 |
39¢
|
SAVE VANISHING SPECIES
This stamp was withdraen from sale on 9/20/2017,
so its value is frozen at the first-class rate in effect on that date,
or 49¢
As of 3/2016:
Total Stamps Sold: 31.2M
Total Raised, Net: $3.2M
Image
|
Issue date
|
Denomination
|
Sc. B4 |
09/20/11 |
49¢
|
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AWARENESS STAMP
Issued 11/30/17
(Original postal value - 49¢)
Reauthorized 2019
On sale thru 2025
Postal value as of 6/7/2019: 55¢
Image
|
Issue date
|
Denomination
|
Sc. B6 |
11/30/17 |
55¢
|
All text Copyright © 2006, William M. Senkus
Send feedback to the author:
CLICK HERE
Created -- 02/13/2006
Revised -- 06/20/2019