Another Wf Test For Curiosity

OK I have 100's of WF's but just received this little lot . All the others I havn't even looked at but I also bought a mis ID'd lot of canada from this guy that had a few really nice varieties. Now I'm wondering if possibly there is something here I should maybe focus a little harder on. Knowing all the insane details and varieties I figure its easier posting a pic and see what those with WF glasse have to say. I have perfed these with the following results left to right top to bottom.
12x12, 11x11, 8 vertical, 10 vertical, 10x10, 11.5x10.5, 11.5x10.5, 11.5x10.5, 11x10.5, 12x12, imperf, imperf, 10x10,12x12
Anything I should look closer at?

I don't see much. I would check the watermarks on the 2 coil stamps and post an individual scan of the 2 cent. We need to determine if it is type II or III. The rest are common. By the way there isn't a perf 11.5 X 10.5. It should be a 11 X 10.5. The middle left perf 10 stamp is a rotary print (not worth anything) but would be good to use for a reference to use on the size difference between rotary and flat plate printings.

Good gauging!
Techincally, the 8-vertical, should be 8.5 vertical.
I suspect the two "imperf"s were once perforated but subsequently scissored, expecially the 1-cent.

here is the wash coil close up. Ran out of ronsonal so can't do wmk's just yet. My e perf gauge is really accurate but I read that alot of these perfs vary quite a bit so I just stated closest to what I was reading and wasn't sure wether to round up or down or leave well enough alone.

Type III rotary coil, probably a Sc 492. If you run out of Ronsonal you've run out of luck.

So before I start snortin fumes again and dive deep into these puppies- (Just to many high values not to start checking) Definatly sort by design first and then do wmk's then worry about perfs or design, perfs then wmk then types? I know there is a ton of info in the search but always seems everyone has a different view point. Personally I'd like to narrow down as quickly as possible then focus on potentially higher values or is there just no shortcuts.