Scott 594 Or 596 ?

This stamps Scott 594 or 596 ???

martinboyanov83,,,Welcome to the forum..These could be Scott #552...?
Robert

again....
please learn how to use a perf guage.
Most of your questions will be answered.

632 632

632 632

No perforation gauge needed. The lighter green color is associated with later rotary press printings after 1930. Another tell is that the top and bottom perforations are aligned between rows. Draw a vertical line and the perforations will be in the same relative position top and bottom because a stroke perforator was used to perforate the horizontal rows of rotary press sheet stamps. Perforations produced by flat plate line perforators (and the vertical perforations of rotary press sheet stamps) seldom align between rows.

Rotary press coils also have perforations aligned between stamps. Another tell for fake flat plate coil perforations is to see aligned perforations, especially when all of the perforations in a pair align. This is one of the ways to identify a Kiusalas fake. He was reported to use a jig to align imperf coil strips and punch the perforations one stamp at a time. The jig kept the perforation rows parallel but also resulted in aligned perforations.

Clark

cfrphoto...Just for argument sake..And you, me and most people agree that colour over his scanner and your monitor and my monitor can easily change the actual colour..

So what I did was take one of his stamps, straighten it out and apply logic to the perforations.

I used and accurate ruler on both vertical and horiz. perforations.."300" on both rulers..I get exactly 8 hollows on both and one third of a peak on both horiz. and vertical perfs..That would make it 11x11 to me and not 11x10.5

Or better still "0" to "380" which both have exactly 11 peaks.

does that make any sense..?
Robert

The aspect ratio of the image is compromised because a camera was used instead of a scanner. It would be simpler to find a 632 or other perf 11 x 10 1/2 stamp from the same series and count the perforations on the side for comparison with the image. Originally, I wasn't going to post because the likelihood of someone showing up with a loose 596 off cover is remote. The odds on Powerball may be better. Mentioning 594 and 596 in the same sentence in the original post was an indication of a random instead of systematic approach to identification. Almost all of the 1 cent Fourth Bureau issue stamps are 632 and most can be eliminated from consideration by color.

Finding ways to triage stamps by visual inspection will produce better results because more time can be spent looking at stamps likely to have value.

Clark

Welcome aboard! You have made 3 similar posts today regarding US stamp identification. The first two replies to this thread (and Orstampman's advice on one of your other threads) get to the heart of the matter: obtaining a perforation gauge and learning to use it. This will enable you to quickly ID most US stamps of this era. Also 99.99+% of the time you will have the common variety rather than the rare type.

Clark: Really? Your second paragraph of your first post is over the head of 90% of US collectors, let alone a collector just dipping a toe into US material.

I vote for SC 596 - the catalog value is much higher!

chasa, can you provide an analysis that supports your theory, or are you just mocking an inexperienced collector? If you're just joking, then I can understand and appreciate that. However, it isn't clear what your intentions are.

It appears to me that martinboyanov83 is simply an uneducated collector that is seeking help to become educated. Maybe I am wrong in that assessment. Maybe we shouldn't judge others regardless of any situation.

John Becker, I understand your concerns. Clark often takes a viewpoint in his responses that is only understandable to more experienced collectors or people who at least can understand the advanced level of jargon. I don't find that any of his responses in this thread as malicious. I do agree in that the information that he presents is above the level of understanding of many and specifically the original poster. Perhaps we could acknowledge that and offer our interpretation of the information in a manner that we believe that would be understandable to the Original Poster.

I have learned a great deal from Clarks posts. In fact I have copied and pasted more than a few of his comments to documents I've created on various topics. His answers may or may not be too detailed for the original poster, but many others with varied experience also read these threads, sometimes years later.

HDNAC; Funny, but when I read that exact same paragraph, I said to myself "excellent information"! I guess you are right and it depends on the level of each reader. But if collectors would grasp that paragraph and just remember that basic point, they wouldn't buy nearly as many fake flat plate coils as they do.

I'll rephrase it a little; stamps printed by rotary press will have the perf rows aiign exactly on opposite sides whereas stamps printed by flat plate will not. So when you see a flat plate coil and the perf holes line up on opposite sides exactly, it is 98% likely to be fake.

raymodj, I absolutely agree with you. Clark's posts are wonderful sources of information.

I have no qualms related to his posts here. I only have concern that we are not doing our best to present information to the Original Poster in the manner that is best suited and the most understandable to them.

Not just the original poster reads the post and responses. I and I'm sure others appreciate the sophistication of Clark's responses, which are usually 100% correct, and have no problem understanding them. In fact there is nothing wrong with challenging newer collectors or forum members to think about what was written and what it means. I don't think Clark needs to change a thing.

Bill, I was trying to encourage John Becker to understand the disparity between Clark's level of information and what the Original Poster would be most likely be able to grasp. I probably came across as more harsh than I intended and I apologize for that. I also should have detailed the points that I intended to convey more clearly.

He seemed upset at Clark's reply and I intended to point out the disparity of Clark's expert reply filled with advanced topics and jargon, contrasted with the seemingly beginner level of W/F understanding of the Original Poster. I wanted to point out that we non-experts can provide a role in "translation" of such replies. Instead of complaining about the level of disparity, we can bridge the gap with further explanation in our replies.

You did such a thing in your second paragraph with your rephrasing of Clark's words. It doesn't provide a "translation" of everything that Clark intended to convey, but it does help to bridge the gap.

While I agree that we should help new collectors and I admire your desire to do so, I would not want to see Clark change anything about his posts. Some of his information is useful to the original poster while the rest benefits the community. Edit: as you pointed out while I was composing this, others can help bridge the gap when necessary. I wasn't offended by your comments and did not find them harsh.

The following isn't about the OP, just an overall observation. I've noticed that some new collectors jump into the deep end without first learning to swim, often because they have inherited big collections. Many are treasure hunters, which is certainly fun but requires experience. Others are just trying to figure out where to start. Maybe after we answer their question, the more helpful answer is to have fun, learn the basics, slowly gain experience, then start treasure hunting. When a new collector only posts questions such as is this a 613, is this rare, etc., without even buying a perf guage, are they really interested in collecting or just looking for someone to do the legwork for their big payday? At that point I understand where some of the more curt answers are coming from, although I think it's best to not comment at all.

I understand the disparity - that is exactly what I was attempting to point out. The best answers are those that are tailored to the level of the asker, then build upwards with additional detail.

So in this case, start with what he HAS, show how to identify it with basic tools. Then the nuances of what it isn't can be explained. I have no dispute of the accuracy of Clark's reply and it's usefulness to those far-along in collecting like myself, but as I said in another thread recently, such posts attempt to teach calculus before basic algebra is mastered.