NIAGARA 25c Perf11 top left right & perf10 on bottom

It would be so easy to give us a Catalog # which saves precious time, next time you request an opinion - I do not have time to search tonight - Am busy in non stamp time LOL

René

I see 2 precancels of the .25 Niagara Falls Scott 568 sold on eBay in October. The highest realized price was 4.01 Canadian (2.99 US) for one precancelled from Cleveland, Ohio. The mailing cost was another 4.00. I think yours is the later one which is Scott 699 and only one sold recently for 1.32 Canadian (1.00 US) plus shipping. 

Ok I re measure on the K gauge and take pics .... I had already done it that many times my eyes are hurting and the results are different to what you had suggested ... I am not saying you are wrong but i need to double check

😂We have been down this road before. I’m done. 

As I interpret your images, the upper perfs appear closer to 10½ than 11 -- they also match when placed top to bottom.

I don't believe that your "much better" image provides an accurate reading as the stamp seems to skew upward to the right, rather than being parallel to the gauge.

That is my opinion -- clearly, you will draw your own conclusion.

There are 2 reasons:

1) You are not aligning your stamp on the gauge properly. This is also one reason why others are coming to the same reading, but not the reading you are "seeing". We are shifting the stamp either mentally, or digitally as Steve has done, to get the correct reading.

2) You see something that is not exactly perf 10½ and are trying to make it fit something other than perf 10½. In reality, it's still considered perf 10½ even if it isn't exactly perf 10½. The perf 10½ listing in the catalog is not 100% exact fit -- there will be slight deviations due to cumulative production variations and user measurement caused by literally dozens of factors (original paper moisture content in wet printings, directional perforation elongation, uneven pin wear, localized paper weakness, user measurement deviations, perforation gauge calibration deviations...).

Ask -- why do I have so many different stamps with perforation measurements different from what the catalog says? Do I really have that many EFO's in my batch of stamps that nobody has ever documented/found/certified for nearly 100 years? You are misinterpreting the catalog listing.

As I stated in a earlier post elsewhere, line up the stamp perfs next to each other instead of relying on your perf gauge. That will eliminate perforation measurement/calibration errors. As I showed elsewhere before, and as tomiseksj has shown here, the perfs side-by-side line up well. That's because you are eliminating the idea that I'm not measuring exactly what the catalog states (remember, for that era stamp, the perf listed in the Scott catalog is a nearest approximation, not exact no-deviation number). When you line them up, they don't even have to line up perfectly. If you see a clear half-perforation hole difference when you line them up, then you have a different perf. If you don't see a clear half-perforation hole difference, then you have the same perforation, even if they don't line up 100% perfectly. Please note, that last underlined statement refers to this specific stamp series. It does not necessarily apply to other stamp series.