I'll apologize in advance for the fact this month’s column may not be as visually interesting as most have been in the past, but I felt it important to call attention to a fairly short-lived and almost unknown form of postal history that is all but ignored by modern specialists, yet represents an important stepping stone in the modernization of the mail system. I’m speaking of the all-but-forgotten barcode blocker.
Almost without exception, technological advances bring new challenges and obstacles that must be overcome. This is certainly no different in the world of mail processing. By the late 1980s, the United States Postal Service’s stated goal was to have all mail barcoded by 1995. Barcodes, which appear at the bottoms of envelopes, are a series of tall and short lines that contain encoded binary information that spells out the delivery address of a mail piece in ZIP Code form (both five-digit and the more specific ZIP+4). Although ZIP+4 was introduced in 1983, it was not popular with most customers, so was never required (unlike the five-digit ZIP), but it did allow for much more specific targeting of a delivery address, as does the later ZIP+4+2, which takes a piece to the delivery point.
When an envelope travels through a multiline optical character reader (MLOCR), the ZIP Code is read, encrypted and applied to the envelope in the form of the barcode (usually by ink jet). This level of automation allows an item to travel through the mail with minimal manual handling to its (hopefully) correct destination. But things happen. As the USPS moved closer to universal barcoding in its march towards postal progress, businesses began printing their delivery-point barcodes on envelopes that were to be returned to them. This greatly sped up delivery. But when these envelopes were recycled for other purposes it caused mail delivery issues.
❮
❯
1 / 3
Figure 1. This 1993 envelope with a printed barcode was used for a different purpose. Because the user didn’t obliterate the barcode, it was delivered in error to the company that created the envelope.
❮
❯
2 / 3
Figure 2. DAV envelopes bearing stamps have frequently been used by recipients to send other mail. Unless the barcode is obliterated, those envelopes end up in the DAV mailroom, where they are opened, resealed and marked.
❮
❯
3 / 3
Figure 3. The simplest form of barcode obliteration is to simply mark through an improper barcode.
The 1993 cover shown in Figure 1 was created as a window envelope for billed payments sent to the Rochester (N.Y.) Gas and Electric Corporation. Intended as a convenience for consumers, the barcode was preprinted. The individual who used this envelope to send mail to a different address thought to cover the address window, but left the barcode untouched. As a result, it didn’t matter what the handwritten address said: the envelope was delivered to Rochester Gas & Electric. Once there, it was opened at top and right to ex-tract the non-existent payment. Once it was determined the mail was destined elsewhere, the cover was taped shut and the “Missent” handstamp added. The printed barcode was marked out and the cover went on its way where (this time) the handwritten delivery ZIP Code was encoded on a label applied over the scribbled-out marking.
Similarly, the 1995 cover shown in Figure 2 took a detour to the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), an organization that was known to send out stamped return envelopes for many years as a means of soliciting donations. In this case, the sender placed labels over the printed address, but did not obscure the barcode. So, like the Figure 1 cover, this item took a detour. It was sent to Cincinnati (DAV headquarters), opened, resealed, printed ZIP Code blacked out, marked with a handstamped DAV “Opened by Mistake” marking and re-mailed. In this case the cover was delivered without an additional ZIP label being applied. As a side note, the cover also picked up a fantastic alphabetical (A-Z) sprayed-on inkjet postmark in Cincinnati.
It is somewhat that both organizations had enough problems with non-intended use of their preprinted envelopes (with barcodes) that they created their own private auxiliary markings to explain the problem. They definitely were not alone, as I’ve seen a number of similar examples over the years.
But what about other mail processing problems, such as improper ZIP Codes applied by mailers or other mail material that was undeliverable for various reasons? As greater numbers of sectional centers and large offices began using more automated equipment, a problem began to develop: Without something to block out bad barcoded ZIPs, mail pieces could cycle endlessly through automated equipment. After all, automated equipment is incapable of reading “pointing finger” handstamps, and most offices found it too labor-intensive to hand markout the offending barcode on each piece, as was done on the 1989 postal card shown in Figure 3, where the bar code is crossed out and the auxiliary marking added.
❮
❯
1 / 5
Figure 4. Examples of manual barcode blocking accomplished with grease pencil and an auxiliary marking.
❮
❯
2 / 5
Figure 5. Many of the simplest barcode blockers are opaque handstamped markings.
❮
❯
3 / 5
Figure 6. This barcode blocker integrates a message with a plain obliteration.
❮
❯
4 / 5
Figure 7. A number of barcode blockers included a series of vertical lines.
❮
❯
5 / 5
Figure 7. A number of barcode blockers included a series of vertical lines.
From roughly 1989–96 or so, many different types of barcode blockers were employed so that mail could be properly handled and delivered or returned. The majority of barcode blockers I’ve seen were applied to undeliverable mail, allowing items to be kicked out of automated equipment and handled manually. These markings are of specific interest to us this month (rather than entire covers, although there are other interesting markings as well), and therefore only the markings themselves will be shown in most of the following illustrations.
Obviously, the most direct form of barcode blocker is simple obliteration, such as has been done by a grease pen marking and returned to sender handstamp, both shown in Figure 4.
Figure 5 shows a group of blockers that are nothing more than what appears to be pieces of inked rubber, some salvaged from other handstamp devices, and others look-ing more like bits of repurposed inner tubing. The marking shown in Figure 6 integrates the plain obliteration with an auxiliary marking as well.
Another style, represented by the group of markings shown in Figure 7, includes series of bars tall enough to negate the barcode. The widths of the devices vary, but they were apparently effective. The right two items in Figure 7 show a slight variation, a boxed series of bars and a fence design. Neither of these have appeared as frequently.
❮
❯
1 / 6
Figure 8. One of the more commonly used forms of barcode blockers is a device made up of varying numbers of rows of a simple repeating “X” or “XI” pattern, such as these.
❮
❯
2 / 6
Figure 9. A slightly more sophisticated version of the Figure 8 marking included wording as well as the repeating “XIXIXI” pattern.
❮
❯
3 / 6
Figure 10. A repeating squiggle design, typified by these markings, proved to be an effective barcode blocker.
❮
❯
4 / 6
Figure 11. Variations of a specific form of marking containing (usually) an “OCR” inside a universal ban symbol. These were also commercially marketed.
❮
❯
5 / 6
Figure 11. Variations of a specific form of marking containing (usually) an “OCR” inside a universal ban symbol. These were also commercially marketed.
❮
❯
6 / 6
Figure 12. An advertisement from a 1992 catalog that marketed postmarking devices to post offices features a “Barcode Canceller.”
Similarly, the markings shown in Figure 8 feature fields of several rows of continuous “XXXX” or “XIXIXI” markings to block the barcode. A variation of this type — again, less frequently seen — is shown in Figure 9. The pattern here incorporates the words “INCORRECT ZIP / BARCODE PROCESS MANUALLY.”
Arguably, one of the most interesting types of barcode blocker is seen in the examples in Figure 10 — a simple continuous squiggly line handstamp, of which several types are known.
But the most specific type used on undeliverable mail includes the various examples shown in Figure 11 — an “OCR” contained in a universal ban symbol, with lines between to obliterate the improper barcode. As you can see, a large variety of these markings exist as well, including two variants, shown at bottom. One simply includes an “X” in the ban symbol, rather than the “OCR;” the other features an “OCS,” which apparently stands for “optical character sorter.”
These markings were even advertised in various catalogs that catered to post offices in the early 1990s. One could order self-inking “barcode cancelers,” such as is shown in Figure 12.
❮
❯
1 / 2
Figure 13. Although they existed simultaneously for several years, the need for barcode blockers was partially eliminated by automated MUM (Miszipped Unzipped Mail) labels.
❮
❯
2 / 2
Figure 14 (right). Modern misdirected and nondeliverable mail is handled by the USPS’ remote barcode system that reads the address, corrects the destination ZIP (or applies the return address) and sends the mail piece on its way
But all good things must come to an end. As early as thelate 1980s some sectional centers began using labels with “MUM” designators. MUM stands for “Miszipped Unzipped Mail,” to include everything with an improper barcode. These labels, such as the one shown on the Figure 13 cover, were applied by automated equipment and contained the correct destination address and ZIP (when available) and correct barcode, making the item machinable. The adhesive on these labels is similar to that on Post-it notes so they could be cleanly removed from the envelope.
In the short term, these labels began replacing barcode blockers, but they, too, were ultimately replaced by the remote barcode system that now applies a corrected (again, peel-able) label over the improper barcode and a fluorescent pink barcode on the reverse of the cover showing the destination ZIP Code, whether it is corrected or returned to sender. A recent example of one of these is shown in Figure 14, where the piece was returned as non-deliverable, with the label containing the full 11-digit encoded address of the sender (me).
If you have an interest in modern postal history, you may wish to begin a search for examples of barcode blockers. While most will be very inexpensive, they are now more challenging to find than you might think.
Editor's Note: The article "Blockers You Say?" was published in the April 2020 issue of The American Philatelist, available exclusively to members of the American Philatelic Society. Click here to view the full issue.