Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read








Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!

Perf Question About #901

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 6 / Views: 1,608Next Topic  
Rest in Peace
United States
7097 Posts
Posted 05/15/2012   10:51 am  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add I_Love_Stamps to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
I was doing some perf measuring today and came across something odd. It's probably nothing but this #901 measures 11¼ X 10½ and the Scott guide is saying it should be 11 X 10½? Is that a normal occurrence? It isn't my perf gauge because it's new I'm not saying it can't be wrong but it's worked faithfully for me since I've had it. Is it paper shrinkage? did they just round the count it off ? I just don't understand. I realize it's probably just something stupid or an error (of which I don't know how) on my part but I triple checked it and that's the numbers. Did they reprint these at a later date? with different perfs? Just covering the possibilities. Any insight would be helpful. Thank you for your time to read and respond. -Jeff

Here is a pic of the stamp in question.


Send note to Staff

Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 05/15/2012   1:01 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The stamp is supposed to be 11 x 10.5. No reprints were made that I am aware of. No varieties exist according to the Scott Specialized catalog. I checked a couple from my stockbook and all are right on the mark at 11 x 10.5.

Not that it necessarily relates to the stamp you scanned, but I do recall that some of the earlier perforation devices weren't all that precise and occasionally it did have some variance that could have resulted in a small discrepancy in what is shown on the perforation gauge. I'm not sure if your example may be explained by that phenomenon and if so, if it would have been considered within accepted tolerances.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Rest in Peace
United States
7097 Posts
Posted 05/15/2012   1:46 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add I_Love_Stamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
OK thank you. That's mainly why I asked to see if they ever re-ran these and different Scott numbers that I wasn't seeing or aware of. Thanks wt1.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2544 Posts
Posted 05/15/2012   6:01 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add chasa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
It would be more helpful to show scans where the stamp is placed directly on the 11 1/4 and 11 gauge charts.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Rest in Peace
United States
7097 Posts
Posted 05/15/2012   6:47 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add I_Love_Stamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
It would be more helpful to show scans where the stamp is placed directly on the 11 1/4 and 11 gauge charts.


Ask and ye shall...oh here!



Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
845 Posts
Posted 05/15/2012   10:13 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add HungaryForStamps to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I have noticed that the regular issues from 1926-1932, such as Scott #632-#642 measure 11+ x 10 1/2, whereas the earlier issues, which are 11x11 measure pretty much exactly at 11. I don't have a scale that measures 11 1/4, but they measure slightly larger than 11, so probably 11 1/4. I never had reason to measure the National Defense Issues, but measuring one now, I see it also measures slightly larger than 11. I've seen this in other areas around the same period (maybe airmails?), just never really worried about it. So you're not crazy. That's just they way it is.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Bedrock Of The Community
United States
12128 Posts
Posted 05/16/2012   12:30 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add wt1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Contrary to what I stated earlier, I just learned something completely new myself on the 3c Torch of Enlightenment Issue, thanks to this thread. The link is provided below, but it states, in part:


Quote:
The rapidity with which the BEP produced these billions of stamps contributed to many freaks and oddities and the largest number of genuine errors in US postage stamps (mostly imperforated varieties). Writing in the March, 1948, issue of the Bureau Specialist, Jesse L. Bogard noted, "The most important and beautiful part about the Defense errors was that no one party or group got or monopolized them as they were found from Maine to Texas, Washington to Florida. The average collector and stamp hunter had a crack at the errors as they were likely to be found in any post office, whether large or small."

In 1991, the late Henry W, Beecher, an expert on US postage stamp production, clarified the persistent myths that the perforation freaks and errors were caused by war-time shortages - for instance, shortage of the perforation machine's metal pins. He noted that controls of such materials did not begin until January 1942, when War Production was initiated. It was just the demand for unprecedented quantities and desire for rapid delivery to local post offices that, according to Beecher, caused the peculiarities in production.


Here's the link:

http://arago.si.edu/index.asp?con=1...&tid=2028701

Now, what other oddities have people found in flyspecking this issue?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by wt1 - 05/16/2012 12:31 am
  Previous TopicReplies: 6 / Views: 1,608Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Go to Top of Page

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2026 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.31 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05