Scott #544 ?

I have just uncovered a block of four Washington what looks like Scott#544. They have no water marks, measure 19X22.5mm. When measured with a perforation tool I get different perforation counts. Can somebody send an SOS help?

Onetusk

Please expand on the different perf counts. Also, see here for more help.

http://www.1847usa.com/washfrankmain.htm

Thank you for your help stallzer! I'll be checking on this later today

It looks like the consolation prize, a block of the perf 10 x 11 rotary press sheet stamp Scott 542. A simple test is to count the number of perforations between the edges of the design at the bottom or top. I see ten perforation holes and 9 complete perforations between the holes. Because the width of the stamp is nominally 3/4 of an inch, stamp will be a little under 2 centimeters wide taking shrinkage (less on rotary press issues) into account. A count of 10 perforation holes or perforation means that it will match perf 10. Note that a perforation gauge is not a measuring device. In this case the gauge would be 10-80 (hole spacing 0.080 inches), slightly different from the flat plate perforation 10-79. The side perforations look to be closer together. Check the side with a 543 or a perf 10 Fourth Bureau rotary press sheet stamp or a rotary press coil stamp. If the perforations match, then the stamp would be the perf 10 x 10 rotary press Scott 543, a fairly common stamp.

Using another stamp is almost always faster and more accurate than attempting to use a gauge, especially a metric gauge not designed specifically for United States or Canadian stamps. Second best to using another stamp would be the old metal Kiusalas gauge or a Multi-Gauge available from multiple sources.

Also, known examples of 544 are a distinctive dull green color. The most likely place to find undiscovered 544 examples would be at a postcard show.

Clark

Very nice block, indeed... and, alas... it's definitely
10x11, which makes it the 542...

The closest that I have come to something like this was buying a block of # 499 which turned out to be # 546 after examining it closer. I did not buy it knowing that it was misidentified, but this was more of a surprise find.