Subject:
|
Re: paper jambalaya?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.jambalaya
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 03:18:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
567 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello all...
I would be interested as well.... and I agree.. keep the box under 2 lbs or
the page weight thing that was laid out by Kevin and you either split it or
hold back the remainder that are either duplicates or of little
interest...??? This will cost 320 priority and less for bookrate....(for USA
only)
Sure there are some things that may need ironing out but this could be an
opportunity to obtain your missing catalogs and/or instructions...
Dave
Susan Hoover <hoover@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:8E8174126rumplestx@209.68.63.236...
> Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote:
>
> > I agree, it will get very expensive VERY fast.
> >
> > Kevin Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd be interested but I think it might rapidly get expensive
> > > postage-wise. Paper is darned heavy!
>
> What if we artificially limit it by keeping the box small? I think I
> will experiment and see how many of various sizes of catalogs (single
> sheet, in-box, S@H) I can get into a 3-pound package.
>
> [later] I haven't experimented yet, but usps.gov says that a 3-pound
> package costs $2.08 to send domestically via "Special Standard Mail
> (Book Rate)", and that there are about 6 sheets of paper to the ounce.
> That means we should be able to send 288 sheets, or 48 in-box catalogs,
> for $2.08. Subtract a few catalogs to make up for the packaging.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: paper jambalaya?
|
| (...) What if we artificially limit it by keeping the box small? I think I will experiment and see how many of various sizes of catalogs (single sheet, in-box, S@H) I can get into a 3-pound package. [later] I haven't experimented yet, but usps.gov (...) (25 years ago, 17-Nov-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
