Can't find a Franklin A155 1 cent green in Scott w/ 9.5 perf

Here is a better close up cropped picture

To try to illustrate what I was talking about, below is your enlarged pic, where I have copied the bottom row of perfs and shifted them so that the left-most perf is aligned to the perf gauge. The vertical red lines mark the left edge of the perf. You can see it is aligned at left, but off by nearly 1/2 perf at the right.

Scanner is best, but if you don't have a scanner and must use camera, here is probably a better method... Take a picture of the gauge on top of the postcard with the relevant perf 9½ and 10 section in view (don't need the entire gauge). Try to have the gauge aligned as parallel/perpendicular to the stamp as possible. Also try to take the pic as "straight on" as possible to minimize angle distortion (your current pic is clearly at an angle). If the pic is "straight on", we can easily copy paste the stamp perforation edges onto the perforation gauge and check.

To help get your camera aligned to minimize the angle (i.e., "straight on"), you can use the middle dividing line and right edge of the postcard as the left/right edges of your picture (make them as parallel as possible to your picture edge), and likewise the top/bottom postcard edge for the top/bottom alignment of your picture.

Remember, everything must be flat in order to get accurate measurements. That's why I can't use your pic in the above post -- the little paper cutouts for 9.5 & 9.6 that you showed are slightly curled. That's also why it is best to do the manipulations by copying/pasting from sections of the same picture.

Secondly, I would recommend you measure the side perfs first. There are more perfs available, so you are much more likely to get an accurate perforation measurement.

Found the gauges!

These 2 are using 10 perfs lined up flat & straight starting at the left perf as you advised.

I was exact as possible centering the far-left starting point.

Here are the results. The right side perfs do not align with the guage.

The next post will show results using 9.5 perfs.

My cell phone camera is high definition.

These 2 are not scans; I went directly over the stamp for the picture using my phone camera.


Alan

khj,

This last post contains 2 scans for you to do your magic of moving stuff around to come to your conclusion.

I cannot do this so thank you for your expertise in digging deep to get an answer.


Now this gets really confusing; I checked both sides using a 9.5; NOPE! a 10.0; NOPE! a 9,75: JACKPOT!


It's impossible for me to get an exact aligned gauged scan with the material facing down.

Thats where you come in to move that 9.75 scanned gauge over to the sides to see if you agree that both sides are 9.75.

Let's compare findings; I'm seeing 9.5 top & bottom, 9.75 left & right sides


Alan

There is a handy app that's $4.99 (when I got it) called Stamp Analyzer  at the app store and works on both MS and Mac platforms. You scan the stamp (800 dpi .jpg works best for me) drag the image into Stamp Analyzer and it works remarkably well, including giving the dimensions of the printed image/frame.  It does has some problems with heavily cancelled stamps.

much easier than lining up gauges which are hard on an old guys eyes! Especially if you have  a lot of stamps to go though!

Cheers!

Thanks for the scan. I didn't realize you had access to a scanner -- then I wouldn't have bothered you with the camera suggestions.

For scanner, I really need something at 400-600dpi minimim, with the scanner set to only scan the section in question. The currently resolution you provide (maybe because too high jpg compression?) is insufficient for me to do accurate manipulation, because once I enlarge anything it starts to blur/pixel out.

Based on what I could do, I would say your sides are roughly 9 3/4 and top/bottom are slightly more than 9 1/2. If I look carefully at your subsequent camera pics, I also see for the bottom for both gauges, that the 9 1/2 gauge is slightly too large, and the 10 gauge is too small. For the 1922 regular issue, this tells me you have perf 10.

Don't bother trying to get an exact measure. vikingeck's post above states the main reasons fairly succinctly. The only thing I would slightly differ with him on is that perhaps he's a little to hard on the "dotty" gauges. I do like the name vikingeck uses, "dotty" gauge. I still use them. I find them useful if you:
-- verify your gauge calibration (you'd be surprised how many perforation gauges in general are "off" by 1/10-1/4 perf!!!)
-- know their limitations, so you can use/interpret the reading correctly
-- understand that most perf measurements in the catalog are not exact
-- understand that on older stamps, production methods inherently resulted in very small variations in the perforations

As an engineer by training, I found myself frequently scratching my head as I delved into WW stamps, because the measurements I got didn't match the catalog listings, even after using accurately calibrated gauges. That's when I realized that not all catalogs interpret the basic specification (# of holes per 20mm) the same. Furthermore, stamp production doesn't care about perforation specifications -- it's whatever the machine produces and up to you define the measurement! Only on modern stamps do you start seeing a very consistent perforation/die-cut production and resulting consistency in decimal measurement.

Decimal perforation measurements are only meaningful on modern (say 1980+) stamps where production quality/material are very consistent, especially with the die-cut self-adhesive stamps. There are a very small handful of older stamps where decimal measurements are important, but those of us who enjoy pulling out our hair (what's left) will typically use the Kiusalas gauge instead.

I won't go into details unless someone specifically asks, but here is a summary of reasons why not to worry about your measurement being off by as much as 1/4 to almost 1/2 on older stamps (below is specifically for Scott catalog users and US stamps, but most still apply to other catalogs/countries as well)
-- most catalogs actually round off to the nearest 1/4 or 1/2 (Scott uses 1/2 increments in general)
-- many catalogs don't consistently apply round off rules, especially if they are simply copying announcements/reports
-- before the switch to low-moisture paper, there is inherent variation in paper/perf size & shrinkage in "wet printed" stamps
-- most perforation gauges aren't that accurate (avoid printing your own gauges on paper, those are the worst culprits)
-- different methods used to measure perfs (some align the holes, some align the teeth...)
-- most people disregard the size of the perforation holes
-- perf 12 often isn't really perf 12.0, perf 11 often isn't really perf 11.0 (remember you are measure the machine output, the machine is not producing to meet your perforation measurement specification)

As an example of the latter, if you use a digital perforation measurement on some of the Bureau issues, you in general won't get 12.0 (likewise on the "dotty" gauges, you may find it is slightly off from perf 12). That's because US perforation machines were based on the English measurement system, not the metric system. You should be getting closer to 11.9 in some cases. I think it's actually 11.93 or something like that, but it doesn't matter because variations in production makes that "hundredth" unreliable. You would need something like the Kiusalas to differentiate between the different "perf 12" perforations. What appears as a perf 12 on the "dotty" gauges, actually has 2 different "perf 12" representations on the Kiusalas gauge. For your example from the 1922 series, it's even worse -- there are 3 different measurements on the Kiusalas (10-79, 10-80, 10-81) that would correspond to what would be interpreted as perf 10 on the standard "dotty" gauge. Note that the Kiusalas is also a "dotty" gauge, but is based on the English measurement system (thousandths of an inch) instead of the metric system (centimeters).

OK, more than you needed to know. Bottom line -- on most older stamps, if your reading is within one increment of the catalog, then round toward that increment (e.g., 9.6 becomes 10). If you had an exact 9.5 or 9.4, I would say you might have something. Finally, on all "difficult" measurements, I always go to using a simple calibrated millimeter ruler or calibrated grid instead of relying on the "dotty" gauges.

Just my "non-expert" thoughts.

2 scans attached

I bumped up the clarity & brightness on the stamp.

Here is another smaller gauge, if it will help.

Alan

The stamp scan did not enlarge. here is another one.

Let me find my best mm ruler to scan soon

Finally! After 5 tries got a clear scan. Weight was needed to make it clear.

Let me do the first ruler you provided first. Below, I have cropped/copied/rotated the millimeter ruler to the left and bottom edges to measure the design dimensions. To distinguish between flat/rotary press, Scott provides approximate measurements as a reference aid, but you should never assume you will get that exact measurement -- it is strictly for comparative purposes.

However, it is fair to conclude that regardless of flat or rotary printing, for this series the width will never exceed 20mm and height never exceed 23mm (I have rounded up to the nearest whole mm).



In the above picture, using your scanned ruler which is graduated in ½mm increments, you can see that your stamp is nearly 21½mm wide and 25mm tall!

If both stamp/ruler were cropped from the same scan, then they are guaranteed to be same dpi with minimal artifacts/anomalies introduced. Since the stamp cannot be that wide/tall, then the gauge must be significantly off calibration. As a result, your perf measurements using that gauge will also be incorrect, regardless of how well you align the dots.

Since you have the stamp and gauge in hand, play around with it and see if your stamp is really measuring 21½mm x 25mm.

Sorry, something's amiss.

I will try the "blue" ruler you provided next post.

you beat me on straightening it out

that black & white scanned mm ruler has to be off