Talk:History of United States postage rates

message: The "Consumer Price Index data" source is 404.
It should also be noted that the table represents 1982-4 dollars, whereas the graph represents 2007 cents.  Comparing the source for the graph with the parenthesized values in the table confirms that these values are in fact different, and therefore likely correspond to the stated years for the table and graph, respectively (and separately).
As such it would seem that the missing source was used to derive the table (and later references in the article thereto), whereas the source listed on the graph's image page was used to generate the plot.
Given that two different CPI sources are used (and in two different contexts), it may be prudent to retitle the link in the sources section from "Consumer Price Index data" to indicate that it was used to create the table (and a different CPI source was used for the graph).
--Eibwen 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: With regard to the graph's vertical axis, the first paragraph in the section states
:the light plot is the price adjusted for inflation and is shown in 1984 US dollars.
Whereas the legend shown the right of the graph itself states "2007 cents".  Additionally the image summary states:
:History of US postage, 1885 - 2007 (Apr 07 inflation adjustment)
Either the light plot represents "2007 cents" or "1984 US dollars" (possibly "1984 cents" considering the scale on the graph itself), but it is not conceivable that it actually represents both.  As such, this is an unresolved apparent contradiction between the article and the image (and the image summary on the image's page).
--Eibwen 01:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart is clearly in 2007 cents since that is where the two plots intersect.  I've changed the text to reflect this.  I think the old text was in reference to this image. -SCEhardT 01:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent Contradiction

message: I seem to remember the USPS announcing that each spring (beginning in 2007) the postal rates would change. Any word yet on 2009? 207.210.134.83 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 rate hike?

message: Didn't realize there was a project to work on philately sites.  Hope this is okay: I removed the confusing '84 CPI data.  Also dug up a very obscure reference on the 1863-85 rates that indicates these were by half ounce, thereby calling into question every historical rate table I've ever seen.  Maybe in those days people kept their letters shorter.  Richard Weil (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the CPI data

message: "a Salt Lake City Company ascertained that the cheapest way to send 40 tons of bricks to the building was by parcel post. Each brick was individually wrapped and mailed. Postal rules were promptly rewritten"
This seems exaggerated.
http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibits/2b2f_parcel.html says:
Instead of paying four times the cost of the bricks for them to be shipped by wagon freight, Coltharp arranged for the bricks to be shipped in 50-pound packages, through the Parcel Post Service, a ton at a time. 
http://www.natemaas.com/2012/05/banking-by-mail.html agrees:
so he had the Salt Lake Pressed Brick Company bundle the bricks into packages of about 50 pounds (to stay within parcel post weight limits).  The company would mail about 40 crates (or one ton) of the packages a day.
Even Wikipedia has a more sensible story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcel_post cites
http://www.stampsofdistinction.com/2008/07/bank-that-was-sent-through-post-office.html, which says:
In order to meet the postal regulations of the day, Coltharp had the bricks carefully packaged in crates weighing less than 50 pounds, the upper limit of what the post office would permit. News accounts indicate that 40 or so crates were shipped each time, meaning that each attempted shipment was equivalent to one ton.
The trek from Salt Lake City had to take a very circuitous route in order to get to Vernal. First, the bricks were sent to Mack, Colorado, using the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. From there, they went to Watson, Colorado by way of a narrow gauge railroad. Finally the bricks were hauled the final 65 miles to Vernal by freight wagon. The total length of this route was over 400 miles.
It might be interesting to track down the "news accounts", but at a minimum, the 'individually wrapped and mailed' statement should be modified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rectapedia (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out, and for the very helpful references. I removed the mention of "individual" and replaced the dead link with your link to the National Postal Museum. — Sebastian 20:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bricks not individually wrapped? 

message: The chart shows a drop in 2016 from $0.49 to $0.47 for a First Class letter, and from $0.35 to $0.34 for a postcard.
Is this right? Did we pay 49c in 2015, then 47c in 2016, then back to 49c in 2017? 66.65.37.14 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did postage rates really drop in 2016? 

message: I believe the rate is going up 5 cents on January 27, 2019 to $0.55 for a one-ounce first class letter:  https://blog.stamps.com/2018/10/19/usps-announces-postage-rate-increase-starts-january-27-2019/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.88 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 Increase 

message: This article should have a link to a similar article about US global rates, which I'm unable to find (does it even exist?). Bhami (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the global rates? 

message: The text tells a story to 1847. Then the table starts in 1863, with presumably one rate across the nation for a 1st class letter. What is the story that changed rates from zoned distance rates to the same rate across the nation? I changed section titles so the article can have a lead paragraph. - - Prairieplant (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were the changes from 1847 to 1863?