|
|
Post by jedijackie on Dec 3, 2021 4:25:53 GMT
Would like your opinions if this stamp could be a winner Scott 596, and if it’s even worth the time and money getting it checked out by an expert. Scott 632 was printed on the rotary press, but it has gauge 11 perforations across the top and bottom, and gauge 10½ perforations along the left and right edges. Its printed design is the same size as Scott 596. Scott 596 was printed on the rotary press 1¢ green Benjamin Franklin stamps of 1924 with gauge 11 perforations both horizontally and vertically. Some believe that waste from the rotary printing of the 1¢ green Benjamin Franklin stamps was perforated 11 on two separate occasions, one of which coincided with the 1923 production of Scott 596 and 613.    |
|
khj
Member 
Posts: 1,467 
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 4:43:08 GMT
Welcome to TSF.
This may just be me, but sorry, I never trust any home-printed perforation gauge (due to calibration issues). Nor do I trust camera pics (everything needs to be absolutely flat). You can already see in your camera pics that your perforation gauge is "wavy" (look at all the wavy 11's in your gauge), not to mention the stamp isn't sufficiently flat either (see the shadows next to the teeth). This will cause your reading of the gauge to be off, and thus, the camera pic as well. The only reliable thing is a scan with a perforation gauge or ruler simultaneously scanned in same pic.
That being said, I can tell from your scanned pic (the last one), even without a gauge/ruler, that you have a perf 11x10½, so Scott US 632.
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 4:54:14 GMT
 From your scan (the last pic in your post), I have copied each of the perforated edges and lined them up from top to bottom in the following order: -- top edge -- bottom edge -- left edge -- right edge You can see the top/bottom edges line up well. The left/right edges also line up well. Both sets are off by ~ half hole as you near the 20mm. Therefore, by default your stamp is Scott US #632, perf 11x10½. |
|
|
|
Post by jedijackie on Dec 3, 2021 6:00:58 GMT
This may just be me, but sorry, I never trust any home-printed perforation gauge (due to calibration issues). Nor do I trust camera pics (everything needs to be absolutely flat). You can already see in your camera pics that your perforation gauge is "wavy" (look at the "11" in your gauge), not to mention the stamp isn't sufficiently flat either (see the shadows next to the teeth). This will cause your reading of the gauge to be off, and thus, the camera pic as well. The only reliable thing is a scan with a perforation gauge or ruler simultaneously scanned in same pic. That being said, I can tell from your scanned pic (the last one), even without a gauge/ruler, that you have a perf 11x10½, so Scott US 632. This is not a scanned pic, all subjects in the photo where shot simultaneous with my camera including the preformation gauge I printed out on paper. Believe me it isn’t an easy task so excuse me if my photos aren’t perfect. I would greatly appreciate your opinion if you can please clew me in on how you know it’s 632 based on the last photo. 🙏🏼 |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 6:06:19 GMT
Yeah, it's not easy making a good camera pic. You did a good job on the last pic -- certainly good enough to fool me into thinking it was a scan!  For face different stamp ID, it's not really a problem if the pic isn't perfect. But, bottom line, everything must be flat and nothing at an angle in order to get an accurate ID when it comes to perforations/dimensions. Which is why most of us end up using scanners. Please see my 2nd post with the rotate perfs cropped from your pic, for explanation of why it's a #632. |
|
|
|
Post by jedijackie on Dec 3, 2021 6:07:11 GMT
Yeah, it's not easy making a good camera pic. For face different stamp ID, it's not really a problem if the pic isn't perfect. But, bottom line, everything must be flat and nothing at an angle in order to get an accurate ID when it comes to perforations/dimensions. Which is why most of us end up using scanners. Please see my 2nd post with the rotate perfs cropped from your pic, for explanation of why it's a #632. I saw that thanks |
|
|
|
Post by jedijackie on Dec 3, 2021 7:59:06 GMT
From your scan (the last pic in your post), I have copied each of the perforated edges and lined them up from top to bottom in the following order: -- top edge -- bottom edge -- left edge -- right edge You can see the top/bottom edges line up well. The left/right edges also line up well. Both sets are off by ~ half hole as you near the 20mm. Therefore, by default your stamp is Scott US #632, perf 11x10½.  Both photos of Top edge examples Top example: my stamp Bottom example: genuine 596 (not my stamp) I see some differences except bottoms example is genuine 596 |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 8:12:40 GMT
The top/bottom perfs will always match, because both #596 and #632 are perf 11 at both top and bottom. What you need to check are the left/right sides. #632 is perf 10½ on left/right sides, while #596 is perf 11 on all 4 sides.
On your stamp, I compared the top/bottom pair to the left/right pair, and showed that adjacent sides are not the same perforation -- hence, it must be perf 11x10½. There is no need to find a genuine 596 to compare. If the perforations on all 4 sides of your stamp had lined up perfectly and were perf 11, then a comparison to the dimensions of a genuine 596 would be meaningful.
Impressed with your search/research. But bottom line is, your adjacent perforations are not the same, so your stamp cannot be a #596. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by jedijackie on Dec 3, 2021 8:44:59 GMT
The top/bottom perfs will always match, because both #596 and #632 are perf 11 at both top and bottom. What you need to check are the left/right sides. #632 is perf 10½ on left/right sides, while #596 is perf 11 on all 4 sides. On your stamp, I compared the top/bottom pair to the left/right pair, and showed that adjacent sides are not the same perforation -- hence, it must be perf 11x10½. There is no need to find a genuine 596 to compare. If the perforations on all 4 sides of your stamp had lined up perfectly and were perf 11, then a comparison to the dimensions of a genuine 596 would be meaningful. Impressed with your search/research. But bottom line is, your adjacent perforations are not the same, so your stamp cannot be a #596. Sorry. 👏 this is all very good information, thank you for that. 😊 |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 8:51:34 GMT
Every once in awhile, somebody makes a "find". But more often than not, it's just the common variety.
I hope you will consider getting back into stamp collecting. While it's nice to make the financial rare find, the enjoyment of stamp collecting is far more valuable!
|
|
|
|
Post by dgdecker on Dec 3, 2021 17:45:29 GMT
Could you provide an explanation of why one is more valuable than the other. Is it a question of rarity? I do not have a US catalogue to consult. I am impressed at the work and scans needed to make a determination.
May thanks,
David
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 18:29:00 GMT
It is a question of rarity -- difference between what is essentially a minimum catalog value stamp (#632) and US$100K+ stamp (#596).
Almost all the known #596 are from a precancel, just a handful of non-precancels (sorry, I don't remember the census numbers, but it's roughly a dozen, with less than half non-precancels). Compare to #632, which numbers probably in the hundreds of millions.
There are far more #596 forgeries than there are genuine #596, as it can be "manufactured" by altering another common stamp. I won't go into those details.
Just to be clear, I'm am NOT saying the example posted was altered in any way. It's just a plain old #632 which a member was asking an honest question -- no shenanigans.
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 18:38:20 GMT
Just for the record, to determine if you have a viable candidate for #596, I would suggest the following steps (my non-expert opinion): 1. Confirm perforation of 11x10½ 2. Get a #604 (another near minimum catalog value stamp) and make sure dimensions match -- #596 & #604 were perforated from the same rotary press sheets, so the dimensions will match (you cannot simply select any 1c Franklin rotary press printing) 3. Post a scan in the forum, let members look at identify any obvious perforation anomalies that might suggest alteration/reperforation Once you feel comfortable with the above, then consider whether to submit to expert for "quick confirmation" or directly for certification. JMHO k |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by khj on Dec 3, 2021 18:39:45 GMT
I went back and checked the census numbers for #596, as of 2017:
15, of which 10 are precancels and 5 are non-precancels
|
|
|
|
Post by dgdecker on Dec 3, 2021 18:57:32 GMT
It is a question of rarity -- difference between what is essentially a minimum catalog value stamp (#632) and US$100K+ stamp (#596). Almost all the known #596 are from a precancel, just a handful of non-precancels (sorry, I don't remember the census numbers, but it's roughly a dozen, with less than half non-precancels). Compare to #632, which numbers probably in the hundreds of millions. There are far more #596 forgeries than there are genuine #596, as it can be "manufactured" by altering another common stamp. I won't go into those details. Just to be clear, I'm am NOT saying the example posted was altered in any way. It's just a plain old #632 which a member was asking an honest question -- no shenanigans. Thank for the details. That would be nice to discover. Only 15 of them. Wow. David |
|
fkarl
**Member** 
Posts: 19
|
Post by fkarl on Dec 11, 2021 23:39:55 GMT
I suggest you invest in a plastic universal perforation gauge that allows you to go from 7 to 13-14. Then you just slide the stamp along the line st get the fractional gauge. To check size you can cut the corners off a #632 and lay it on top of the stamp to be measured. It’s fast and accurate.
|
|
