[Dx-qsl] Yellow IRC

[VR2BrettGraham]

EA4ZK QSPed:

>I wrote an email to Universal Postal Union asking if the yellow IRC still
>beign used,  the answer was :
>
>"The IRCs issued from 1975 to 2001 (in yellow colour) are, at the moment,
>exchangeable indefinitely according to the current UPU rules.
>
>Since 2002, the validity date for exchange is printed on each international
>reply coupon.
>
>The new international reply coupon (Beijing model 2), on sale from 1 July
>2006, is valid for exchange until 31 December 2009.
>
>The international reply coupons (Beijing model 1), on sale from 1 January
>2002, were to be exchanged until 31 December 2006. They have no value after
>this date.
>
>Exchange is obligatory in every UPU member country, but the sale is
>optional. You can exchange IRCs at any post office.
>
>According to the UPU rules, one IRC can be exchanged for postage
>corresponding to that for a priority letter of the first weight step.
>
>"Reply coupons are exchangeable in any member country for postage stamps
>and, if not precluded by the internal legislation of the country of
>exchange, for postal stationery or postal prepayment marks or impressions
>representing the minimum postage prepayable on an unregistered priority
>letter-post item or an unregistered airmail letter sent abroad."
>
>Best regards,
>
>Claude Voirol
>IRC and Philately Programme Assistant "
>
>So if you have any old Yellow IRC , can be used as well

That is correct.  However, some administrations do not abide
by the agreements they sign & many people do not question
when their administrations do things contrary to the way they
should.

The result is the general acceptance of fallacies that:

1. IRCs not chopped by the issuing postal authority are not
valid; and

2. Older IRCs are no longer valid.

Both are complete rubbish.  Only pre-1975 IRCs are no
longer valid (as Claude says above) & I believe it was IRCs
of that vintage that did not say the issuing chop was optional
(and therefore they must have been chopped).

Anyone suggesting otherwise is completely wrong &
anyone who accepts these fallacies is foolish.  Both help
undermine the utility of the IRC, to the detriment of us all.

73 & HLNY, VR2BrettGraham