[Dx-qsl] IRC Info

Fri Jun 30 06:43:59 EDT 2006

PA7FM replied to M5AAV:
>>Might I suggest Dennis that you go back and shout loudly at your post
>>office, and tell them they are talking rubbish
>>>>Below is an e-mail received today from the UPU in answer to my quesry
>>>>Quote
>>>>Dear Sir:
>>>>I would like to inform you that the old IRCs (previous to 2002 version,
>>"yellow") are valid indefinitely for exchange only.
>>>>Regards
>>>>Claude Voirol
>>IRC and Philately Programme Assistant
>>Rubbish or not Graham.....they don't accept them anymore in PA...and
>understood it's the same in several other country's......whatever they say
>somewhere else. ( I know UPU should know...but it seems they don't )
>>If you want to take the risk....go ahead.... I won't accept them.....like my
>post office.

Not that we are picking on you, Dennis, but PA postal
authority not accepting these IRCs is indeed rubbish.
The UPU, if it meant for these IRCs to have an expiration
date applied to them retroactively, would have said so in
Prot Article RL XX.
Instead, "creative interpretations" are made.
Then "because my PO does not" we get "I will not accept".
The reality is that PA or any other UPU member must
accept IRCs for redemption. UPU only allows for a
member to not sell IRCs, what price to sell them for,
whether or not exchange of IRCs can be used for something
other than just stamps & also requiring the presentation of
item to be posted at time of redemption.
Changes to "back office" handling of IRCs are not our
concern & cheers to M5AAV for getting it straight from
UPU itself - I am not a solicitor or barrister, but I think "it says
what it says" is what they like to say at a time like this.
The ultimate point here is that amateurs, who make
extensive use of IRCs, help undermine their usefulness by
accepting rubbish like this. The "properly stamped" thing
is the same - for several decades now it even says on the
IRC that the chop is optional, yet something applicable to
earlier IRCs lives on & on & on...
73, VR2BrettGraham