Mm Size For Coil Waste Issues

Sorry, but still there is the problem with the MultiGauge mm sizes. I made a picture for you. Which of the measurement tools is correct, the ruler or the "test boxes", like rotary vs. flat?

There is a quite "big" difference with about 0.25mm between the ruler and the boxes (all boxes I think).

Did someone check this?

For U.S. Scott 595, use the coil stamp Scott 599 that it comes from for its design size measurements. The difference being that 595 is perf 11 x 11 and 599 is perf 10 vertically.

Joker, no bad feelings please, but you ought to get off of that measurement thing.


Peter

Hello again,

ok ok - I will be quiet now. I just thought this could be interesting for others. Because, if you use the Rotary Vs. Flat box (without big measuring by the way! - I wanted to get away from it :)...) you very often get the result: yeah it's rotary, but in fact it's not (if you know better as I do now). So for a "precise" Specialty MultiGauge I would expect better and exact things. But well.

Beautiful, exactly what I need today! Thank you all for your comments and links posted here. I am measuring Franklins and Washingtons PERF 11x11 in these days. I did find an amazing chart on this forum in regard to the measurements of Washington stamps (it's shown below); any chance that someone can share the same about Franklin 1c stamps?

I am measuring with an "Electronic Digital Caliper". Some of the collector suggest that while working on perf 11x11 stamps, an easiest way is to compare measurements of the desings as Scott 597 = 594 and Scott 632 is exactly the same size as 596 (found some comments online). According to my observations, it is wrong. Scott 597 and 632 are almost 23mm high (at least the stamps that I have).

Another suggestion that I found online - use Scott 610 (Harding 2c, perf 11) for comparison. It helped to find a little bit wider and higher Franklins, but I am still confused - can we be totally sure that Scott 610 is always exactly 19.25 x 22.25? I do know that 19.25 x 22.50 immediately points to Scott 613, but how about the wideness 19.25? Is it always constant in Harding 2c Scott 610 & 613? (for those that are interested in Harding 2c measurements, this link may be useful: http://www.shaulisstamps.com/tips/B...Hardings.htm )

I found Franklin 1c, perf 11x11, 19.5 x 22.00mm (will post scans and pics a little bit later). And those that are wider and higher than Scott 610 (19.25 x 22.25), looks like ~ 19.40 x 22.30 mm So, it is perf 11x11, but not Scott 552 (18.50 - 19.00 x 22.00mm), and definitely - not the Scott 594 (19.75 x 22.25mm) or Scott 596 (19.25 x 22.50mm).

The chart as below would be really helpful. Does any one have anything like that about Franklin 1c? In addition, one more question - is the "Flat Plate Setoff" constant and decisive clue of the "Flat Plate"? Asking, because according to the measurements, the stamps are not flat plate, but they have the setoff marks on the back.
Thank you in advance for all your suggestions and guidances.

The chart above was taken from the 1922 page on 1847usa/Stamp Smarter.

http://www.stampsmarter.com/1847usa...ntifier.html

I have consider taking the dimensions off since many hobbyists latch on to them when they should not be.

Clark summed up the issue perfectly when he said


Don

Thank you! I tried to check on your website, but I got lost )))
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

This link supplies instructions for making templates.
http://www.stampsmarter.com/learnin...methods.html
Don

Thank you, I use that already! I did cut Harding ))) That's why I asked - is the wideness of 19.25mm constant?
And one more time - how about the Flat Plate setoff? Are the marks on the back the final-decisive clue? Is it no way that Rotary Press may have some color marks too? ))

....Just have to write something though :), as Aurora's question is exactly what I am searching all day today.

Exactly because I learned that measuring is not everything, I am happy to know other things now like color or printing details / quality, exact perforations and their alignment and so on. But the ink setoff (little spots on the back) is the thing I still didn't get.

I read that the ink on the back is a sign for flat. OK. but I also read that in some cases it also can happen to rotary stamps. Is this correct, and: is this correct only for a few smaller spots, or is it also correct for a hole "stamp copy" or "stamp shadow" on the back?

The following coil and sheet waste stamps have the same
design sizes as the coil and sheet stamps that they come from:

544...543
545...490
546...492
594...597
595...599
596...581
613...612

Thus, a comparison of the stamp in question
against the stamp it comes from would help.

I will appreciate any help (getting tired of playing with PAINT and comparing the stamps below). The Scott 597, which I have, is 19.50mm x 23.00mm, and the Scott 604 is 19.80mm x 22.39mm

Hi Aurora and other people interested in rotary vs. flat,

just found this thread where the ink setoff thing is described very well by the community members:
http://goscf.com/t/45258

Thank you very much!!
As Essayk explained,
"The presence of flecks of ink on the reverse of the PAPER cannot happen with stamps printed by rotary press.
The reason is because the gum was applied to the paper web and dried before the front of one stamp could come into contact with the back of another. So, flecks on the paper tend to rule out rotary press printing. Gum setoffs might occur, but they disappear when the gum is washed off.
Knowing this saves time in sorting out the stamps, because anything with set-offs on the paper must be flat plate. Measuring it should bear that out."


...but the stamps that I measure have different design measurements than "flat plate"; they do not have gum because they are used, washed and had been kept in small match boxes for the last 30-45 years (almost all the stamps that I have were not touched for many years; I love that, less chances that some forged stamps can be involved). So, as for example, the stamp in the middle: perf. 11, measurements 19.50mm x 21.98mm It has setoff on the back. Can I name this Scott 552 while all the books say that Scott 552 should be 18.50-19.00mm x 22.00mm? Thank you.

One more stamp, perf. 11 x 11, measurements 19.50mm x 22.40mm