|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 9, 2022 7:34:26 GMT
I initially had this posted in the wrong section of this Forum ... but since then I had learnt a lot ... now I thought I will create a thread in the right section of this Forum and hopefully the responds will be there instead of getting the silent treatment by our beloved members...    Please let me know your point of views or your insight on those particular pair of stamps... if some disagree with my opinion it's a scott#596... will be happy to know why the reason/s for disagreeing... I will look forward to hearing from who wants to speak out to express their point of views ... Best Regards As Always Roni   Taken two pics ... it sat most perfectly at 10.9 Also took another pic its only to demonstrate it aint a 10.5   |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 9, 2022 7:41:25 GMT
Scott#604 & Scott#597 templates being placed on top just to compare .... Scott#604 has the same dimensions as Scott #596 & Scott#597 has the same dimensions as Scott #594    |
|
vikingeck
Member 
Posts: 3,551
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
|
Post by vikingeck on Nov 9, 2022 17:08:00 GMT
Dream the dream my friend……………once in every many thousands we land a good one, (or believe we have a good one.)
Looking at your templates the first template , if your base line was correctly lined up , it shows your stamp to be shorter vertically by about 0.25mm than the template . Not the best match for height.
In another post you show an opinion from Mystic Stamps and they have it as the common Scott 552 perf 11. Could that not be correct ?
I have bought from them in the past but have never heard of them quoted as expertisers before, but I’m sure they have handled thousands of hopeful 1c green.
I am no expert on US but there are reputable organisations that will confirm . APS , etc
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524 
|
Post by khj on Nov 9, 2022 19:42:29 GMT
Your stamp appears to be a Scott US #632, as it is clearly perf 11x10½. If you don't see it, then simply take that nice backside pic you have, then copy/paste/rotate90º one of the perf edges and line it up with the perpendicular perf edge to compare. I'll bet that when you compare, you will count 10½ perfs on the vertical for every 11 perfs on the horizontal -- hence perf 11x10½.
I really can't tell what you did incorrectly in the pic with the perf gauge, but the stamp is definitely perf 11x10½. I can't simply copy/paste/slide the perf gauge to show you, because that pic was taken with a camera at a slight angle.
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524
|
Post by khj on Nov 9, 2022 19:53:42 GMT
OK, I decided to finish getting my stamp fix for the day by doing the copy/paste/rotate. In the pic below, I took your scan, copy/cut the upper right vertical perforation edge, pasted, rotated the paste 90º, and slide it next to the horizontal perfs between the 2 stamps.  You can see that when you count the 11 perforation holes of the horizontal perfs, there are only 10½ perforation holes from the pasted/rotated vertical perf edge. Therefore you stamp cannot be perf 11, it must be perf 11x10½. You just have to disregard the pencil scribble on the back of the stamp. |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 9, 2022 23:05:16 GMT
Dream the dream my friend……………once in every many thousands we land a good one, (or believe we have a good one.) Looking at your templates the first template , if your base line was correctly lined up , it shows your stamp to be shorter vertically by about 0.25mm than the template . Not the best match for height. In another post you show an opinion from Mystic Stamps and they have it as the common Scott 552 perf 11. Could that not be correct ? I have bought from them in the past but have never heard of them quoted as expertisers before, but I’m sure they have handled thousands of hopeful 1c green. I am no expert on US but there are reputable organisations that will confirm . APS , etc Easy Tiger!  I know all about the one in many thousands because I looked through many hundred Thousand myself!! In real life it does line up perfectly one 100%! it is only showing a tiny shorter (Not Half a mill shorter) cause of the air underneath it...No sure about mystic anymore!! In their opinion its a Scott#552 (perf 11 flat print stamp) ... maybe they did get it half right! which is the perforation part cause it surely it is Not Flat Printed ....I just took few shots for ya to show ya the difference in sizes keeping in mind the images have been largely enlarged for argument sakes... it's important not to forget about that ....
this image below shows a flat print stamp also in comparison to
there is an image of a #552 flat plate printed stamp with the comparison to a coil stamp #604 which is also the same in dimensions as the #596
  |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 9, 2022 23:28:02 GMT
OK, I decided to finish getting my stamp fix for the day by doing the copy/paste/rotate. In the pic below, I took your scan, copy/cut the upper right vertical perforation edge, pasted, rotated the paste 90º, and slide it next to the horizontal perfs between the 2 stamps. You can see that when you count the 11 perforation holes of the horizontal perfs, there are only 10½ perforation holes from the pasted/rotated vertical perf edge. Therefore you stamp cannot be perf 11, it must be perf 11x10½. You just have to disregard the pencil scribble on the back of the stamp. Mr Khj Very nice of you and thanks for your effort!! ... Ok now lets be serious! .... Why do the holes need to line up ?? for instance what if the horizontal perforation being 11.24 and the vertical being a 10.85 that is still classified as (perforation 11*11) which will also put the holes out of alignment as you had kindly demonstrated in that exact way ... Not sure where or which part you are looking at when looking at the Instanta Gauge ...Look again! the first pic look at perf 10.9 and the Second pic look at 10.5 it clealy demonstrates it is NOT a 10.5 rather it is a perforation 10.9 *Also 11.24-10.85= 0.39 (very close to 0.05) ... 0.39 which is also so close to the discrepancy you tried to point out If you happen to disagree once again please let me know why and for what reason/s |
|
zipper
Member
Posts: 2,649
What I collect: Classic GB, QV, France Ceres/Napoleon, Classic U.S., Cinderella & Poster Stamps
|
Post by zipper on Nov 9, 2022 23:51:30 GMT
If it were my stamp, and I were as sure as you, I'd send it to an expert and get a certificate.
|
|
JeffS
Member
Posts: 2,844
What I collect: Oranges Philately, US Slogan Cancels, Cape of Good Hope Triangulars, and Texas poster stamps and cinderellas
Member is Online
|
Post by JeffS on Nov 9, 2022 23:57:57 GMT
This talk about the number of holes on each side of the stamp is confusing. A stamp perforated 11 on one side means that one will find 11 perforations (or holes) in a 2 centimeters length. Nothing to do with size or height of stamp.
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524
|
Post by khj on Nov 10, 2022 0:16:41 GMT
Why do the holes need to line up ?? for instant what if the horizontal perforation being 11.24 and the vertical being a 10.85 that is still classified as (perforation 11*11) which will also put the holes out of alignment as you had kindly demonstrated in that exact way You may be confusing perf 11-70, 11-72, and 11-73? On a given flat plate press stamp from that era that is perf 11, the stamp will be perf 11 identical in both directions (there is no different perf wheel gauge used) -- so the horizontal/vertical perfs will line up. Comparing perf 11 between completely different issues, you might see differences in the perf 11 (but not if it is the same stamp). For example, the rotary perf 11x10½ used the perf 11-70 wheel, and you may see a slight difference when you line up to compare to perf 11 on the flat plate printings (which were typically perforated using perf 11-72 or 11-73 wheels). But the difference is very minor (the difference between 11-70 and 11-73 will not produce a 0.5 perf gauge reading difference). On a genuine 596, I can absolutely guarantee you the perfs will line up when you do a rotate comparison. Feel free to download the many genuine 596 scans that are available and perform the manipulation to see. Not sure where or which part you are looking at when looking at the Instanta Gauge ...Look again! the first pic look at perf 10.9 and the Second pic look at 10.5 it clealy demonstrates it is NOT a 10.5 rather it is a perforation 10.9 I'm not sure what to say. I took a quick look at your 2nd pic (I admit I had only looked at your first gauge pic originally, but didn't use it since it was not a scan). When I look at your 2nd pic, the vertical perfs read perf 10.5 to me. We must be reading it differently. |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524
|
Post by khj on Nov 10, 2022 0:18:44 GMT
This talk about the number of holes on each side of the stamp is confusing. A stamp perforated 11 on one side means that one will find 11 perforations (or holes) in a 2 centimeters length. Nothing to do with size or height of stamp. Your definition for perforation measurements is correct. The heigth/width measurements he refers to, is for distinguishing between the flat plate and rotary plate printings, not the perforation measurement. They are 2 separate factors in properly IDing a #596. But if the stamp is not perf 11, it cannot be a #596, so the length measurements in this case are merely an exercise. I've ignored the length measurements in my post, focusing on the perforation measurement which is sufficient to rule out a #596. |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524
|
Post by khj on Nov 10, 2022 0:36:57 GMT
Here is a genuine Scott US #596 (not mine, obviously and unfortunately):  I have copied/pasted the horizontal/vertical perf edges next to each other. You can see they line up well, certainly no 0.5 difference in perforation after 11 holes. |
|
JeffS
Member
Posts: 2,844
What I collect: Oranges Philately, US Slogan Cancels, Cape of Good Hope Triangulars, and Texas poster stamps and cinderellas
Member is Online
|
Post by JeffS on Nov 10, 2022 0:46:42 GMT
This talk about the number of holes on each side of the stamp is confusing. A stamp perforated 11 on one side means that one will find 11 perforations (or holes) in a 2 centimeters length. Nothing to do with size or height of stamp. Your definition for perforation measurements is correct. The heigth/width measurements he refers to, is for distinguishing between the flat plate and rotary plate printings, not the perforation measurement. They are 2 separate factors in properly IDing a #596. But if the stamp is not perf 11, it cannot be a #596, so the length measurements in this case are merely an exercise. I've ignored the length measurements in my post, focusing on the perforation measurement which is sufficient to rule out a #596. This is the text I was referring to which I found confusing or misleading: "You can see that when you count the 11 perforation holes of the horizontal perfs, there are only 10½ perforation holes from the pasted/rotated vertical perf edge. Therefore you stamp cannot be perf 11, it must be perf 11x10½. You just have to disregard the pencil scribble on the back of the stamp." Apparently I am easily confused and misled |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524
|
Post by khj on Nov 10, 2022 0:52:25 GMT
I have also taken a snipped from your 2 gauge measurement camera pics, not to directly compare since they are not same scale, but to verify the readings. The left-most is when you tried to align to 10.9, and the right-most is when you tried to align to 10.5.  On the right pic (perf 10.5), I have circled in red the ".5" and circled in blue the part to look at (always start from the 2nd complete semi-circle of the perforations). As you move down the side, you see the gauge line match comfortably with the up-slope of the tooth, fairly consistently, all the way down. This indicates it is perf 10.5. If you lined up the lines with the tips of each teeth (my preference, but to each his own), it might be more clear. On the left pic that attempts to measure 10.9, as you move down the side, you see that the gauge line starts at the downslope of the tooth, but then with each successive tooth, starts to cross over to the upslope of the tooth. This indicates that your stamp perforation is less than 10.9. Hence, the 10.5 reading I see in the right pic is correct. Hopefully these pics have been helpful. A final comment, I normally don't use a line/decimal gauge on older stamps. Those gauges were really designed for modern stamps/perforators (e.g., E, L,... combination perforators) where the measurement sometimes needs to be measured in decimals because "perf 11" on different perforating machines might be 11.3, 11.2 or 10.9. For US, in general, on the older issues that used the straight line perforators, I prefer using the simple dot gauges (sometimes simple is better) or the Kiusalas gauge if I must distinguish between things like perf 11-70, 11-72, 11-73... |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524
|
Post by khj on Nov 10, 2022 0:58:09 GMT
This is the text I was referring to which I found confusing or misleading: "You can see that when you count the 11 perforation holes of the horizontal perfs, there are only 10½ perforation holes from the pasted/rotated vertical perf edge. Therefore you stamp cannot be perf 11, it must be perf 11x10½. You just have to disregard the pencil scribble on the back of the stamp." Ah, got it. Since we both know the definition, and I know one side must be perf 11, then when I count 11 holes I know that must be 2cm. I can ignore the perforation gauge itself, and just use the known perf 11 as reference. If the side only has 10½ perforation holes in the same distance as the known perf 11, then I know that makes it perf 10½. This way, I don't even have to know the scale or how long 2cm is in the pic. This only works if I know for sure one side must be a certain perforation. Did I succeed in confusing everyone more? Keep in mind, this method doesn't work with all perforating machines. But you can use it on the straight line perforators used on the older US stamps. |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 1:20:18 GMT
This talk about the number of holes on each side of the stamp is confusing. A stamp perforated 11 on one side means that one will find 11 perforations (or holes) in a 2 centimeters length. Nothing to do with size or height of stamp. Well said mate! I totally agree with ya...  If some still disagree Please speak now or forever hold your peace... Cheers and Best Regards To All Roni |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 1:31:26 GMT
Mr Khj how do you count 10.5 out of that pic I just uploaded?? Stare at it for few seconds pls!  .... Not sure why some on here are so serious ?... Chillax! |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,524
|
Post by khj on Nov 10, 2022 1:43:10 GMT
I still say your stamp is perf 11x10½. We will simply have to agree to disagree. Don't use a caliper, use a 2cm ruler edge and convince yourself you can count 11 full perfs (use same hole/tooth edge convention, e.g., left side of left-most hole measured to left side of right-most hole, not left side of left-most hole measured to right side of right-most hole. In your caliper pic, it looks like you are using inconsistent convention.
|
|
JeffS
Member
Posts: 2,844
What I collect: Oranges Philately, US Slogan Cancels, Cape of Good Hope Triangulars, and Texas poster stamps and cinderellas
Member is Online
|
Post by JeffS on Nov 10, 2022 2:04:52 GMT
Not sure why some on here are so serious ?... Chillax! I suggest it is because you are asking about a truly rare stamp that deserves a serious response, and you seem to be in denial when it comes to explaining why it is not. Therefore, in the morning, go to your local car dealer, or whatever floats your boat and put a down payment on the top of the line model. I'm sure you will have no trouble getting a healthy advance on sale from many leading auctioneers who will be proud to reproduce this pair on their front cover as well as including a philatelic biography about you on the inside cover. I congratulate you on your good fortune. Jeff |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 2:19:58 GMT
I have also taken a snipped from your 2 gauge measurement camera pics, not to directly compare since they are not same scale, but to verify the readings. The left-most is when you tried to align to 10.9, and the right-most is when you tried to align to 10.5. On the right pic (perf 10.5), I have circled in red the ".5" and circled in blue the part to look at (always start from the 2nd complete semi-circle of the perforations). As you move down the side, you see the gauge line match comfortably with the up-slope of the tooth, fairly consistently, all the way down. This indicates it is perf 10.5. If you lined up the lines with the tips of each teeth (my preference, but to each his own), it might be more clear. On the left pic that attempts to measure 10.9, as you move down the side, you see that the gauge line starts at the downslope of the tooth, but then with each successive tooth, starts to cross over to the upslope of the tooth. This indicates that your stamp perforation is less than 10.9. Hence, the 10.5 reading I see in the right pic is correct. Hopefully these pics have been helpful. A final comment, I normally don't use a line/decimal gauge on older stamps. Those gauges were really designed for modern stamps/perforators (e.g., E, L,... combination perforators) where the measurement sometimes needs to be measured in decimals because "perf 11" on different perforating machines might be 11.3, 11.2 or 10.9. For US, in general, on the older issues that used the straight line perforators, I prefer using the simple dot gauges (sometimes simple is better) or the Kiusalas gauge if I must distinguish between things like perf 11-70, 11-72, 11-73... The simple dots gauge as you called it, I mainly use for stamps that are not to any significant ahh I also use it when I am feeling a lil Lazy, but I admit I was into the dotted perforation gauge when I was a very young boy from the school days and that was a long time ago ... and when I got more mature like I said I don't like using it much as I found it most times to be inaccurate (made in China).. but each to their own I guess |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 2:24:09 GMT
I still say your stamp is perf 11x10½. We will simply have to agree to disagree. Don't use a caliper, use a 2cm ruler edge and convince yourself you can count 11 full perfs (use same hole/tooth edge convention, e.g., left side of left-most hole measured to left side of right-most hole, not left side of left-most hole measured to right side of right-most hole. In your caliper pic, it looks like you are using inconsistent convention. There we go again!! you can use rulers made in China and I will use a caliper made in the USA ... which one would you rather ?? caliper is again way more accurate but each to their own I guess  |
|
tomiseksj
Moderator 
Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
Posts: 6,385
What I collect: Worldwide stamps/covers, Cinderellas, Ohio Prepaid Sales Tax Receipts, U.S. WWII Ration ephemera
|
Post by tomiseksj on Nov 10, 2022 2:40:48 GMT
decentguy, It appears that your mind is made up so I suggest that you stop trying to rebut the opinions of members that you sought and just send the stamp off to APEX or the Philatelic Foundation for certification.
|
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 4:01:52 GMT
I still say your stamp is perf 11x10½. We will simply have to agree to disagree. Don't use a caliper, use a 2cm ruler edge and convince yourself you can count 11 full perfs (use same hole/tooth edge convention, e.g., left side of left-most hole measured to left side of right-most hole, not left side of left-most hole measured to right side of right-most hole. In your caliper pic, it looks like you are using inconsistent convention. There we go again!! you can use rulers made in China and I will use a caliper made in the USA ... which one would you rather ?? caliper is again way more accurate but each to their own I guess |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 4:13:06 GMT
ok steven done! but just pls one more pic only for Khj nothing wrong with getting educated ...I love to get educated on daily bases that's why I am here ...Also it has nothing to do with me making my mind up ... every message I receive I only hope that it could convince me otherwise ... after all that's why I am on here ... to listen to others to all what they got to say ... due all respect to all members I only mean well! at the same time like to make it all fun in the process...
|
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 4:25:23 GMT
I still say your stamp is perf 11x10½. We will simply have to agree to disagree. Don't use a caliper, use a 2cm ruler edge and convince yourself you can count 11 full perfs (use same hole/tooth edge convention, e.g., left side of left-most hole measured to left side of right-most hole, not left side of left-most hole measured to right side of right-most hole. In your caliper pic, it looks like you are using inconsistent convention. There we go again!! you can use rulers made in China and I will use a caliper made in the USA ... which one would you rather ?? caliper is again way more accurate but each to their own I guess  as per your request Khj  |
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 4:36:13 GMT
Sorry I never claimed its an 11 perforation ... from the beginning till now I am still calling it a perforation of 10.9 ...
|
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 4:40:56 GMT
decentguy , It appears that your mind is made up so I suggest that you stop trying to rebut the opinions of members that you sought and just send the stamp off to APEX or the Philatelic Foundation for certification. I am not from The United States .. I live in Australia... How would I send it to APEX? |
|
zipper
Member
Posts: 2,649
What I collect: Classic GB, QV, France Ceres/Napoleon, Classic U.S., Cinderella & Poster Stamps
|
Post by zipper on Nov 10, 2022 5:36:03 GMT
By mail.
|
|
|
|
Post by decentguy on Nov 10, 2022 7:34:23 GMT
Here is a genuine Scott US #596 (not mine, obviously and unfortunately): I have copied/pasted the horizontal/vertical perf edges next to each other. You can see they line up well, certainly no 0.5 difference in perforation after 11 holes. The way you had lined up the holes is totally wrong and out of Wack... manipulating that same image showing the proper way of lining up the holes.. which also confirms my theory about my stamps is correct... Also, another thing I think earlier you had misunderstood why I had uploaded the flat plat stamp while comparing it with the #604... But it's all good No need to worry ... Many Thanks  |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 10, 2022 7:48:18 GMT
Moving back to the height as per the post from vikingeck, here is an image with the "22.5mm" high stamp correctly aligned on the bottom stamp. This reveals that your stamp is about the width of the border shorter than the "22.5mm" stamp. From the image a rough estimate of the width of the border is around 0.25mm. So if the "22.5mm" stamp is accurate then your stamp would be "22.25".
Also, the ratio of your "22.5mm" stamp to your "22.25mm" stamp should be 22.5 to 22.25, but it is not. Assuming the "22.5mm" stamp is correct and comparing the heigh of this with the other stamp reveals a ratio that makes the "22.25mm" stamp 22.15mm high, thats a difference of 1mm. This clearly indicates that using a stamp as a ruler is wrong unless you know their heights are correct.
From one of the links I gave you on the previous thread:
Just my opinion as requested, hope this helps and good luck in your quest.
|
|
I know all about the one in many thousands because I looked through many hundred Thousand myself!! In real life it does line up 
....
