Real #544? Photos Added

So I can post some pictures and such of the stamp I have question. However, to save time, I measured my stamp. It is mint, NH with original gum.

So here's the question. I measured it (of course)with a digital caliper and it appears to be 22.35 mm high. It confused me. Should I even post pictures if it's not exactly 22.5 mm?

pictures please ! front and back... back is important too

Alright. Do I need to scan it at a certain DPI or have it next to another stamp or something?

I scan the majority of mine at 1200 ppi. As long as it doesn't exceed 5MB you should be able to use the image optimizer provided on this site to reduce to 100k for uploading.

Not sure how you guys are able to scan them so straight, but does that help? I've been comparing it to a 498 I have and I keep getting about the same result. 22.25-22.40

So it was hard to see exactly where the caliper was measuring, so I found a way to measure it more precisely, based on the assumption that the top should be 19mm. I applied the same measuring to the height, and without even looking at the number, measured the height. I got a heaight this time of 22.52mm.....

No one has a quick rebuke so I can save myself a headache? Almost seems strange not having someone instantly shatter my hopes. Wrong color, doesn't look right, anything? I can admit I am a noob and just started collecting...

A (somewhat) quick rebuke is it looks like it has set-off (offset) on the back, which would make it a flat plate printing. Since it's measuring 22 1/2, I'd wait for an answer from someone with more experience than me.

EDIT: 1847usa has great information about the Washington/Franklins. Here's a link that might be helpful if you haven't seen it already.

http://1847usa.com/washfrank/design3/d31p11.htm

Lol, I was just on that site right now. I did do the tin foil method and ruled out offset, so I'm down to rotary and flat plate

I don't want to shatter your hopes, but this link (6 A and B) has good info on flat plate vs Rotary printing.

http://www.stampexpertizing.com/articles/1908.html

EDIT: I think it's an unusually large 498, but I'm pretty new at this myself.

I believe that's a #498 flat plate perf. 11

Figured, thought it was worth a try I guess. I tried to take a good picture but the stamp that's prob not a #544 had kind of a curve to it. This is what got me going I guess, but the differance in size I guess might not be substantial enough.

Allow for paper shrinkage. I could be mistaken but the ink on the back is not indicative of rotary press but IS a common occurrence on flatplate press printings. It comes from stacking the sheets on-top of one another straight off the press. Plus the color is just too dark. I'm glad you brought this to the attention of the board for discussion, because no one would ever find these if no one ever looked right? -Jeff

Stamp is flat plate #498.....
A very inexpensive stamp and this is a very excellent example.
Sorry...

Don't be sorry! I know more now what too look for thanks to you guys, so like everyone else, the hunt continues!