Canada 3-cent Small Queen perf. 12.3

Perfs look a little too nice my guess is a re=perf.But just a guess.

firstfrog2013, the re-perf idea crossed my mind, but why re-perf to 12.3? If you were trying to fake a 37d, which catalogues $900-3000 used, why not go for the 12.5 the catalogue lists? It just didn't seem to add up to me.

BC, thanks for the suggestion! I will try to remeasure and do the math. Even 12.2 all around isn't list in Unitrade though, are these reasonably common? I would love to get a copy of Canada's Postage Stamps of the Small Queen Era put out by the Greene Foundation but I just haven't resolved to cough up the $150.  I've borrowed a copy from a guy in my old club and it's an amazing resource.  It lists many many more of the nuances than the Unitrade.

Edit: Just now realized that this was post eleventy-one for me!

Westy, I have seen on another board that the Montreal Gazette printings (Unitrade 41a) can be up to 12.25 on the top despite listed in Unitrade as 12 x 12.25. Unitrade would round 12.2 up to 12 1/4 and round 12.3 down, also to 12 1/4. That makes it a bit confusing. They seem to be trying to keep the Scott perforation "rules" of 1/4 rounding, rather than being independently specialist.

The Unitrade is great as a quick reference, but I've learned that if you really want to specialize in a certain era you will need to expand your resources. I've already got a copy of Marler's The Admiral Issue of Canada.  I think I will be on the hunt for some of the other notable texts when it comes to other areas of Canada's philately.  The Greene Foundation has a number of great books listed on its site, I will just have to bite the bullet and make the investment!

Hello Westy:
I have been trying to find a perf 12.2 in my SQ's but to no avail. Judging from the colour, it looks well within the range of #37. Is there a position dot in the lower left? That would guarantee a #37. I cannot decipher the date of the cancellation, but it appears to be too early for a "Gazette" printing which, by the way, is 12.25 vertically only. There is no reason to suspect that this stamp has been reperforated - one just would not expect the required effort for a stamp valued less than $100.
Bill Coates doesn't make many errors in classifying his Small Queens and I suspect that he was correct with this one as well.
GJP

Thanks for posting that Ryan.

I have gone through about 50 of a batch of over 100 3c small queens I found at a thrift store last year. I have so far found 4 perf 12 x 12.25. The actual Kiusalas measurement for all 4 is K65 x K64. I did my measurements with a highly accurate steel machinists ruler which measures to 64th of an inch. I then did the math, so my measurements are very accurate. As a matter of fact, my Kiusalas measurements are closer to K65.5 a K64, but definitely not K66 on the top.

Here are three of the four stamps. The oddity is that the left stamp has a clear 1886 date, too early for a Montreal Gazette printing.



Any thoughts GJP?

Shoemaker's chart has some errors, as most references state the earliest printings are perfed just under 12, close to 11.9 all around. That would be Kiusalas 66, not 65 as listed.

I have found so far 6 in my batch of 3c small queens that are definitely 66 all around, and have guide dots and that paper with perf holes still attached. I also have 2 different covers K66 with 1872 and 1873 dates. I will upload them tomorrow.

Westy, did you do a measurement of the first 10 perforations horizontally and vertically yet?

I assume you were starting from the center of one hole to another, counting 10. If so, the first hole is half, and so is the last, so you are actually measuring 9 holes. The math is 9/14.75*20=12.2 which is close to your 12.25.

Since we are pretty sure Westy's stamp with the leaf cancel is 37b, it is perf 12 (though probably 11.9 or K66). I played with the images and since they were scanned together the proportion of the perfs are the accurate, and it is quite obvious that they do not line up and therefore different on both sides.


If it is an early 1870 printing, it must be late use as the cancel appears 1880 something, maybe even 86. The type of cancel is not of the 1870's (though I may be wrong there).

BC, your exercise did make me second guess my measurement, and when I use the perf gauge I can make myself believe 12.25 or 12.3 depending on the light, angles, or basically the way I am holding me mouth at the time of measurement. So I decided to replicate your experiment using the same scanner to reduce any possibility for variance. So here's the image, the mystery stamp vs. one I am pretty sure is 12x12.25.  The test stamp is one I am pretty certain is #41 and it is the same stamp copied for comparison along the top and side.  The line up is close, but it's not perfect.  The side by side comparison is pretty close through the bottom and into the middle of the stamps, but starts to drift apart a little at the top.  The top-to-side comparison is a little closer aligned towards the top right of the mystery stamp, but top left is less convincing to me.  Even your example is almost a perfect match, so I haven't ruled the 12.3 measurement out completely.


I have created another image where I sort of thought of what the fragments of the date cancel could be.  I agree the first digit is most likely an 8 as it is the only numeral that would fit the fragments.  The second number could be an eight, six, or 5; in my illustration I show that an 85 would fit the fragments.  So I am thinking it is either an 1885, 1886 or 1888 cancel.  The image shows the original stamp (left) with the image of the stamp copied and my extrapolations added in blue.



vggvp, when the stamp is steamed the sides tend to curl down, so this indicates a vertical weave.  Therefor we are looking at something closer to Ribler's 12.25 all around on vertical woven paper.  This would put the stamp in the second Ottawa printing and likely mean the cancel is dated 1888, which would fit the fragments.  This would also put the stamp in the #41 group, contrary to my feelings on the colour.  Interesting indeed.  Any other insight on the new findings is welcome!

Thanks for all your help so far gang!  One more question, assuming it is a #41 perf. 12.25 all around; does anyone have any idea what the catalogue value might be?  Is this a rare find, or something more common?

I think this thread should be called Crime Small Queen Scene Investigation.

To think I still have half this batch to investigate (my 2012 Thrift Store acquisition):

Hi again everyone. This has been an interesting SQ adventure. I am thrilled to see the amount of homework done by the participants and the spirit in which it has been done. This is the key to solid philatelic research and personal learning. I know that it has been a long time since I measured so many perforations on my Small Queens.

Westy, I will go with the 12 x 12.25 on your stamp. I don't think for a moment that it is a #41 although there is a printing from 1896-97 that measures 12 x 12.15 but you are nowhere near the colour! Stick with your original opinion on that.

BC, thanks for the math and the scans. Good work. I have a perf 12 x 12.25 dated January 1888 so we apparently do not need to wait for the Gazette printings to get that odd perforation.

It has been fun people. I hope someone can develop another similar project. BTW, my offer of using the spectrometer at the Greene Foundation still holds for any research projects such as this. This is one of the reasons we spent the money to get this analytic tool.

GJP