I too recently purchased a microscope for my efforts in plating Canada's Map Stamp (Scott Nos. 85/86 & TSF thread link - Plate Varieties) and found this review of the "5 Best Microscopes" useful in my decision to purchase the Plugable USB 2.0 Digital Microscope - opticsandlab.com/best-microscope-for-coins/
Overall, I am pleased with the selection and enjoy the hands-free capability of projecting an image onto my computer screen when looking at a stamp for the first time. The magnification available is sufficient to note any differences from the expected and the built-in light source provided by the LEDs provides is welcomed. As a Linux user. the microscope needed to be supported by existed drivers or software and this one did; in fact, the Plugable microscope worked out of the box with software I had already installed i.e. Cheese.
One of the drawbacks I have noted is the spin-wheel focusing is more of an acquired knack than science, but I am learning. I think the purchase or building of an better stand that can be used to manipulate the focal point similar to that of a tradition microscope would helpful and I am investigating the possibilities further...
When all is said and done though, I still come back to the tried and true of my jewelers' loupe and think of the microscope as just another tool in my philately toolbox...
...Do you have any insight into the origin of term “ flyspecking” as it relates to stamps?
It has been around since the early 1900s. My understanding it is a rather unkind pejorative term used by some collectors (who consider themselves a bit superior) being dismissive of the often tiny flaws that only show up with minute scrutiny. Often hardly noticeable to the unaided naked eye, unless significant and consistent enough to gain catalogue status, they are either ignored by the general collector or fervently searched for by the enthusiast.
I look at my Australian friends with admiration, and I have to confess some amusement, earnestly "flyspecking" all the George V heads and building up the picture of plating and printings, then I reflect on the hours I spent poring over the first issues of Denmark just doing the same "flyspecking" and what about the millions of hours of such scrutiny which has gone in over 160 years to allow plating of GB Penny reds.
The modern flyspecker like Robert WERT often ploughs a lonely furrow without the support of an army of like minded collectors pursuing the same stamp in detail, which is why he seeks support and confirmation here and on the internet...………..someone somewhere out there may be able to confirm a find.
Post by firstfrog2013 on Oct 26, 2019 13:13:48 GMT
dgdecker My scope is a cheap Chinese(actually most are) model without a brand name in sight.Cost to me w/shipping was right around $25.I'm still learning to use it as my hands shake a bit making focus for pictures a little rough.Just now looking for a brand name I noticed there are other little "tuning" controls,so still a learning curve.
he modern flyspecker like Robert WERT often ploughs a lonely furrow without the support of an army of like minded collectors pursuing the same stamp in detail, which is why he seeks support and confirmation here and on the internet...………..someone somewhere out there may be able to confirm a find.
You are so correct....I worked a couple of months on 3 Newfoundland stamps, Scott 56...57...and 58 and with the conformation of a friend found a constant variety that is entered into the 2020 Unitrade Catalouge and the N.S.S.C. (Newfoundland Specialized Stamp Catalouge) also,
It was unknown for approx. 132 years.,,Was happy to make that find.
As a Linux user. the microscope needed to be supported by existed drivers or software and this one did; in fact, the Plugable microscope worked out of the box with software I had already installed i.e. Cheese.
I also use Linux...You tried CHEESE, you may want to try what i use GUVCVIEW...The you can use GIMP to sharpen your pictures...See example below.
Could turn out to be a possible constant variety..?
Robert WERT.....do not like to quote with image as this takes a lot of space on our site - did this time to 1) looked at ten of these Unitrade 610 and did not find anything over the chimney 2) It would be easier for us if you could put a number (# Scott or Unitrade Canada Spec) on each stamp and we could respond withtout having to quote the images again - Thanks and nice work....did check some others but would prefer to speak in terms of stamp # ! René
.do not like to quote with image as this takes a lot of space on our site
OK..I will not post no more.
Robert - you know how much respect I have for your "posts" - please continue and even if you do not put numbers I will find them - This comment (on repeating images and some texts) comes directly from what I have received in the past from ADMIN ! - We love your work
Rene...If i post again latter..I will apply a Scott number.
I examined the following, Robert: CE1 - do not have ....ordered CE1-CE4 ! 442 - agree with the design mistake 490 - This designer does not know the Canadian sport of Curling - agree 593 - QEII 8 cents - no black found in 10 specimens (hair) 648 - UPU 8 cents - mine has different variation in color distribution as compared to yours
To be clear, quoting is allowed when it is necessary for understanding.
Below is taken from the Forum's Newsletter, Volume 3, Issue 3:
[ADMIN’s Comments: Excessive use of the Forum’s quote function imposes on the membership by requiring them to have to scroll through significant quantities of material, much of which they likely have already viewed. Please use the quote function judiciously and only when necessary to make your point. If your post immediately follows the one that you wish to refer to, there is no need to quote the preceding post as it is obvious that you are responding to it. As Jerry notes in his informative article, if you must use the quote function to make your point clear to the reader, please do so judiciously and edit out all unneccesary text and images. When quoting, please also make every effort to place your response outside of the quoted material, rather than within the shaded quote box. If you’re unsure as to where the cursor is placed, toggle between the Preview and BBCode tabs to make sure that it is to the right of or below the closing command [/ quote ].
If members haven't yet read the article in that newsletter, I suggest they do so.
Indeed Robert (WERT), GUVCVIEW is the better application and I like the ability to control the microscope from the software, it is just to bad we cannot adjust the focus from there as well ;-) I am a GIMP user also and between the two applications, I think that with some finessing, I should be able to master this...