***OFFICIAL*** Brewster's Millions Plot Holes Thread (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

I think you are looking at the stamp wrong. It wasn't incorrect for him to use it to mail a postcard, but it shouldn't have worked anyway. It was a rare OLD card, the postage wouldn't have been correct.

I don't know that it was old. It was rare because the plane was upside down.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Hard to believe both pitcher and catcher are gone....

Manager too.

Uncle Rupert down?

Sure is.

 

[bigbottom]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

No he couldn't have. And he didn't give it away, he used it. Giving it away would not entail licking it, sticking it on a postcard and dropping it in a mailbox.

Why couldn't he have? Envelopes are for sending letters. He would have "used" the envelopes.

Why not just eat the money? C'mon, you're reaching here.

Hey, it's your logic.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

No he couldn't have. And he didn't give it away, he used it. Giving it away would not entail licking it, sticking it on a postcard and dropping it in a mailbox.

Why couldn't he have? Envelopes are for sending letters. He would have "used" the envelopes.

Why not just eat the money? C'mon, you're reaching here.

Hey, it's your logic.

The hells it is. You're just mad because Monty got his money. IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE ROOTING FOR MONTY TO FAIL.

 

[Darth Cheney]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

I think you are looking at the stamp wrong. It wasn't incorrect for him to use it to mail a postcard, but it shouldn't have worked anyway. It was a rare OLD card, the postage wouldn't have been correct.

The "Inverted Jenny" was printed in 1918 with a allowance of twenty four cents on it. A postcard rate in 1984-1985 was between .14 and .15 cents.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Mailing the stamp was the equivalent of destroying it. Sending a valuable rare stamp through the mail to be cancelled is the same thing as buying a Picasso and using it as a surfboard.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

From Gene Wilder's bio:

Although they collaborated many times on-screen, he and Richard Pryor were not friends. For his part, Wilder claimed that Richard Pryor's cocaine addiction made him unpleasant to be around.

WHY NOT JUST BLOW THE MONEY ON COKE

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Mailing the stamp was the equivalent of destroying it. Sending a valuable rare stamp through the mail to be cancelled is the same thing as buying a Picasso and using it as a surfboard.

Wrong.

 

[Darth Cheney]

Mailing the stamp was the equivalent of destroying it. Sending a valuable rare stamp through the mail to be cancelled is the same thing as buying a Picasso and using it as a surfboard.

No.....it's not.

 

[The Football Freak]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

I think you are looking at the stamp wrong. It wasn't incorrect for him to use it to mail a postcard, but it shouldn't have worked anyway. It was a rare OLD card, the postage wouldn't have been correct.

The "Inverted Jenny" was printed in 1918 with a allowance of twenty four cents on it. A postcard rate in 1984-1985 was between .14 and .15 cents.

Wow, they were thinking ahead for Brewster's Millions in 1918?!?!? I'm floored.

 

[The Football Freak]

From Gene Wilder's bio:

Although they collaborated many times on-screen, he and Richard Pryor were not friends. For his part, Wilder claimed that Richard Pryor's cocaine addiction made him unpleasant to be around.

WHY NOT JUST BLOW THE MONEY ON COKE

2 hours of doing coke off strippers and trashing hotel rooms would have made trillions.

 

[Otis]

Mailing the stamp was the equivalent of destroying it.

XOMG you actually DROVE that new Ferrari you bought?? CAR DESTROYER!

 

[Darth Cheney]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

I think you are looking at the stamp wrong. It wasn't incorrect for him to use it to mail a postcard, but it shouldn't have worked anyway. It was a rare OLD card, the postage wouldn't have been correct.

The "Inverted Jenny" was printed in 1918 with a allowance of twenty four cents on it. A postcard rate in 1984-1985 was between .14 and .15 cents.

Wow, they were thinking ahead for Brewster's Millions in 1918?!?!? I'm floored.

It was a book that was written in 1902 and has been made as a movie at least seven times . I'm really surprised they haven't remade it again.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Mailing the stamp was the equivalent of destroying it.

XOMG you actually DROVE that new Ferrari you bought?? CAR DESTROYER!

Many many people buy expensive cars and drive them. Because driving a Ferrari is different from driving a Yugo. They are different experiences.Nobody in the history of the world has ever bought a million dollar stamp and used it to mail a letter. Because a 41 cent stamp would work just as well. The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

I think you are looking at the stamp wrong. It wasn't incorrect for him to use it to mail a postcard, but it shouldn't have worked anyway. It was a rare OLD card, the postage wouldn't have been correct.

The "Inverted Jenny" was printed in 1918 with a allowance of twenty four cents on it. A postcard rate in 1984-1985 was between .14 and .15 cents.

Wow, they were thinking ahead for Brewster's Millions in 1918?!?!? I'm floored.

It was a book that was written in 1902 and has been made as a movie at least seven times . I'm really surprised they haven't remade it again.

They have a prequel coming out where a young Monty is forced to spend all of his paper route money in order to get his allowance. Ends up buying gum for all of his little league pals. The last 20 minutes of the movie is just constant and furious chewing.

 

[flufhed]

I don't see the stamp in and of itself as a plot hole at all. Stamps are meant to be mailed. Some nerds collect them and think they are worth money, but stamps are made to be mailed. He could have bought $30M worth of regular stamps and mailed a letter to a ####-ton of people. In fact, he would have had to have paid people to stuff the envelopes and everything, so actually would not have needed $30M in regular stamps.

Now you're back to Otis' plot hole.

But I don't think this is a plot hole either because, like was said above, the point was this is a guy who didn't really know what he was doing in trying to spend this money.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Mailing the stamp was the equivalent of destroying it.

XOMG you actually DROVE that new Ferrari you bought?? CAR DESTROYER!

Many many people buy expensive cars and drive them. Because driving a Ferrari is different from driving a Yugo. They are different experiences.Nobody in the history of the world has ever bought a million dollar stamp and used it to mail a letter. Because a 41 cent stamp would work just as well. The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You're wrong. MONTGOMERY BREWSTER HAS. (actually it was around 900K I think)

 

[Otis]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

 

[trader jake]

How should the restrictions be amended then?

I'd say cap the amount that can be spent by any one method. Example: Couldn't spend more than $500 K on any one thing like expensive wine, political billboards, television ads, etc.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

just got done watchin this too!

 

[Sebowski]

He should have just opened a restaurant. Money would be gone in no time.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

 

[flufhed]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

At what point does using a stamp FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE cross over into "destruction."

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

At what point does using a stamp FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE cross over into "destruction."

Stop saying it was for its intended purpose. When you purchase a stamp for $900K, the intended purpose is not to mail a letter.

 

[The Noid]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

At what point does using a stamp FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE cross over into "destruction."

Stop saying it was for its intended purpose. When you purchase a stamp for $900K, the intended purpose is not to mail a letter.

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

 

[The Noid]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

 

[bigbottom]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

What about the gold envelopes?

 

[Hoart Petterson]

The only reason to do what Monty did was to destroy the stamp.

You clearly have no appreciation for style or shtick -- two other excellent reasons to mail a million dollar stamp.

I'm not saying it was bad shtick. I'm just saying he destroyed the stamp, which was against the rules.

At what point does using a stamp FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE cross over into "destruction."

Stop saying it was for its intended purpose. When you purchase a stamp for $900K, the intended purpose is not to mail a letter.

We know you're wrong because if Monty had broken the terms of the will HE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN THE FULL INHERITENCE.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

What about the gold envelopes?

Wouldn't the envelopes still retain their value if they were mailed? If so, it seems like he would be breaking the rule about giving stuff away.

 

[The Noid]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

I'm pretty sure he's not allowed to pay more than stuff is worth on the open market. So I don't think he could buy a water balloon for a million dollars. But if he bought a $20 giant water balloon from you and dropped it off a building, that seems OK.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

What about the gold envelopes?

If he bought envelopes made from gold, he is ok. if he buys gold and then spins them into leaf, as in your example, and then makes them into envelopes, he loses, maybe. The gold isnt destroyed I guess, rather, it is converted.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

Uh, destroy?

 

[The Noid]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

I'm pretty sure he's not allowed to pay more than stuff is worth on the open market. So I don't think he could buy a water balloon for a million dollars. But if he bought a $20 giant water balloon from you and dropped it off a building, that seems OK.

Ok, so if the stamp is worth $500k on the open market, then this is settled. If throwing a water balloon isn't destroying it, neither is mailing a letter with a stamp.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Politics and Religion have gotten so stale that we are now arguing about Brewster's Millions.

Football can't start soon enough.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

I'm pretty sure he's not allowed to pay more than stuff is worth on the open market. So I don't think he could buy a water balloon for a million dollars. But if he bought a $20 giant water balloon from you and dropped it off a building, that seems OK.

Ok, so if the stamp is worth $500k on the open market, then this is settled.

A stamp to mail a letter is worth like 42 cents on the open market.

 

[The Noid]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

Uh, destroy?

You mean the same way you "destroy" a can of $500 caviar when you eat it? He used the stamp, legitimately. He didn't buy it and rip it up the same as he couldn't buy a Picasso and burn it. Brewster was sly like a fox, he worked the rules to his advantage by pulling off that stunt.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

Uh, destroy?

You mean the same way you "destroy" a can of $500 caviar when you eat it? He used the stamp, legitimately. He didn't buy it and rip it up the same as he couldn't buy a Picasso and burn it. Brewster was sly like a fox, he worked the rules to his advantage by pulling off that stunt.

No.

 

[The Noid]

I'm pretty sure he's not allowed to pay more than stuff is worth on the open market. So I don't think he could buy a water balloon for a million dollars. But if he bought a $20 giant water balloon from you and dropped it off a building, that seems OK.

Ok, so if the stamp is worth $500k on the open market, then this is settled.

A stamp to mail a letter is worth like 42 cents on the open market.

Not that stamp. Just like a rare penny isn't worth just 1 cent on the open market.In the sequel, he should buy 3 billion wheat pennies and run them through one of those flat penny cranks at an amusement park.

 

[The Noid]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

Uh, destroy?

You mean the same way you "destroy" a can of $500 caviar when you eat it? He used the stamp, legitimately. He didn't buy it and rip it up the same as he couldn't buy a Picasso and burn it. Brewster was sly like a fox, he worked the rules to his advantage by pulling off that stunt.

No.

Yes.Caviar is for eating. Water balloons are for popping.

 

[MikeMan]

I agree that there is no violation here in regards to use of the stamp. However, even if not in mint condition, I'm guessing it's still worth something. If the value declined 95%, he may still be in violation.

Hiring a paralegal at the end certainly breaks the rules as he owns prepaid paralegal services he did not have before.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

I'm pretty sure he's not allowed to pay more than stuff is worth on the open market. So I don't think he could buy a water balloon for a million dollars. But if he bought a $20 giant water balloon from you and dropped it off a building, that seems OK.

Ok, so if the stamp is worth $500k on the open market, then this is settled.

A stamp to mail a letter is worth like 42 cents on the open market.

Not that stamp. Just like a rare penny isn't worth just 1 cent on the open market.

Do you think this would have been acceptable?:
Store sells rare penny for $100,000.01 to Monty Brewster
Brewster then buys a second penny by paying with $100,000 plus the rare penny he just bought.
Repeat process until he only has one rare penny left.
Use rare penny to buy a piece of gum.
The end.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

Uh, destroy?

You mean the same way you "destroy" a can of $500 caviar when you eat it? He used the stamp, legitimately. He didn't buy it and rip it up the same as he couldn't buy a Picasso and burn it. Brewster was sly like a fox, he worked the rules to his advantage by pulling off that stunt.

No.

Yes.Caviar is for eating. Water balloons are for popping.

But he still has the remnants of his popped million dollar water balloon. The stamp is gone.

 

[The Noid]

I'm pretty sure he's not allowed to pay more than stuff is worth on the open market. So I don't think he could buy a water balloon for a million dollars. But if he bought a $20 giant water balloon from you and dropped it off a building, that seems OK.

Ok, so if the stamp is worth $500k on the open market, then this is settled.

A stamp to mail a letter is worth like 42 cents on the open market.

Not that stamp. Just like a rare penny isn't worth just 1 cent on the open market.

Do you think this would have been acceptable?:
Store sells rare penny for $100,000.01 to Monty Brewster
Brewster then buys a second penny by paying with $100,000 plus the rare penny he just bought.
Repeat process until he only has one rare penny left.
Use rare penny to buy a piece of gum.
The end.

Perfectly acceptable. I'm not saying there aren't plot holes that could have ended the movie in 5 minutes. But using the stamp the way he did was within the rules. Plus, he was sporting enough to only use it once. Brewster = class act.

 

[The Noid]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

Car, stamp, tiffany lamp or Persian Rug. It doesn't matter what it is. Having something be a valuable collectible doesn't make it any less of a car, stamp, light or rug.

Right, if Brewster bought any of that stuff and then destroyed it, he would be breaking the rules.

If I made the world's largest water balloon and charged him a million dollars for it, and he drops it off a building, did he "destroy" it or use it for its intended purpose?

Uh, destroy?

You mean the same way you "destroy" a can of $500 caviar when you eat it? He used the stamp, legitimately. He didn't buy it and rip it up the same as he couldn't buy a Picasso and burn it. Brewster was sly like a fox, he worked the rules to his advantage by pulling off that stunt.

No.

Yes.Caviar is for eating. Water balloons are for popping.

But he still has the remnants of his popped million dollar water balloon. The stamp is gone.

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

 

[bigbottom]

Cost doesn't change its purpose. A rare, old car can go for $500,000 because of its scarcity, but its intended purpose for existing is still to be driven as a car.

I've already distinguished the expensive car example earlier.

What about the gold envelopes?

Wouldn't the envelopes still retain their value if they were mailed? If so, it seems like he would be breaking the rule about giving stuff away.

That's my point. The rare stamp still retained significant value, even though it was mailed. A $900,000 stamp doesn't suddenly become worthless because it has a postmark on it. Maybe now it's only worth $750,000. But it's still a valuable asset.

 

[bigbottom]

Politics and Religion have gotten so stale that we are now arguing about Brewster's Millions.Football can't start soon enough.

We'll argue about anything in the FFA. I'm reminded of an extremely spirited debate about vacuum cleaners.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

The stamp didn't disappear. It was still there, just rendered worthless, effectively, like the popped water balloon. And, technically, there's going to be remnants of the caviar, too

But the stamp wasn't his anymore. It was mailed. Do you retain ownership of the stamps you use after you mail them?Also, he mails the stamp to the people who are looking for any reason for this guy to fail. If they didn't have a problem with it, why would anyone else?