Perfs On These George W. 2's..please Help Identify Scott #

blazenstar,
You really need to learn to be comfortable when using a perforation gauge. GeoffHa linked you to one that is printable, here is another: http://dd-designs.co/dnloads/perfgauge.pdf

Save that file to your computer, then open it and print it. Both are free if you have a printer.

Regardless of you owning a gauge, it seems that you are not entirely confident in using one. Here is a page that describes how to do so and also has a video demonstrating how to do so: http://www.kenmorestamp.com/perforation-gauge-cms

You at one point do indicate that you used your gauge and found your strip of three to be perf 12. I agree. They appear to be perf 12 on all sides but have huge hole sizes and don't match a know perforation that this stamp design was issued in.

The situation that would make the most sense would be that someone faked perforations on the only recognized imperforate issue of this design: Scott #577. That is a flat plate print and is easily identified as so if you provide us with a clear image of one of your stamps from your strip.

Regardless, your scan of your stamps doesn't make sense. The perforation holes seem too large to be genuine. Even if they were normal, no known issue of this design is perf 12. At the time that this design was printed, no perf 12 perforating equipment was in use at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing who printed your stamps.




Your statement about "11 cylinder" doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain it so I can understand what you mean? Also, you seem to be hopeful that your stamps are the perf 11 coil waste variety known as #595. That particular issue is a "wide" printing which your scan shows is most definitely not the case.

Please elaborate and explain what you think is the case with your stamps. I am more than willing to help you learn, but I cannot do so until I understand your point of view.

I think she is seeing the damage on the back of the stamps as the number 11 :)

The damage on the back of the stamps may be were the faker has removed any traces of flat plate ink.

If anyone thinks they have a rare stamp it is straight forward to send it in for certification. Posting images on this forum is never going to substitute for getting a cert; an image is never better than an 'in-hand' examination. And of course posters really need to be able to definitively state key identifiers such as perf metrics and any possible watermarks.


Lastly, the question is not really 'do I have a rarity' but rather 'should I spend money on a cert'. No one should be taking the free opinions supplied on a forum to the marketplace (i.e. an ebay listing that states 'The folks on SFC say its real but there is no cert'.)

In this case, my free opinion is that I would not spend money on a cert. If OP feels differently there is no real value in debating, simply send it in and let us know how it turns out.
Don

My guess: SC 554. It has flat plate gum (thanks for showing the back), and appears perf 11x11.

these are strange stamps..the perfs are expressing 12 not 11. I was reading about gum breakers ect due to the back of the stamp. this is not flat plate..does not see the ink dots on back of it, unless someone changed things about this stamp like expressed in the comment.
I truly was more interested in the back of the stamp. I wanted to learn about the different types of gum breakers that are small ridges that appear on rotary presses. I was seeing if I could see a difference to rule out the stamp with this manner. But still doesn't make sense that it is a perf.12. Could they possibly be experimental, fake or errors or whatever? So far, in my own opinion, they are not original perforation stamps which all of us know that that is not in cat.issues.
I read somewhere and seen a photo placed on forum in past about the same photos of those vertical lines..I remember seeing a photo something about a perf. 11, but I cannot find the information again... So I began to look at the back of the stamps if could give any clues to rule out for a scott number. I know that there are 4 types of gum breakers as per Armstrong expressed according to writings I have read in past. The type 1 allowing 4 to 5 bars per stamp. they were used on Scott 581- 591 and they were known with perf. 10. or Scott 632-642 with 11 x 10 1/2. The type has 1 per stamp like the Kansas -Nebraska series (Scott 658-679)the Type 3 have two bars- found mostly on the 632- 642 and all issues 692- 701. The type 4 was not identified by Armstrong which is like Type 1. There are 4 to 5 bars but not slight angle to the stamp I believe those vertical impressions behind the stamps were showing the places of the gum ..5 markings of breaks.
It is difficult to exam have unused stamps that are not with the natural perforations known for the stamps. I am going to have these examine by another erson face to face as recommended by Studabaker. At this moment, PSE does not evaluate coils, or fakes ect either..Maybe these stamp needs to sit out on the bench in the dug out for the ball game..smiles..
Thank you all again!
Blazenstar
I definitely agree with studabaker and Ryan. I just was having a very difficult time to determine what Scott number these were. But they are interesting to view.
Thank you all for taking the time to view the stamps and expressing your thoughtful thoughts about them too. smiles

P.S. when I look at each of my stamps, I do check the perfs first thing, and look at scotts to see if they are the perfs written matches including watermarks.So, please do not think that I choose to do something otherwise. The only reason why I placed this stamp was I felt it was not average stamps.
Have a great day all of you!

Blazenstar

Scott 554

This has gone well beyond the limits of reason. Counting the perforation holes or tips in the image is sufficient to determine that the stamps are perf 12. In the Horizontal direction, count 12 perforation tips or 12 holes within the width of the design. A visual comparison with a 554, 634, 583 or 599 would reveal extensive differences. A 554 would have rougher perforations, larger margins, more saturated printing. Check some listings from competent sellers on ebay. A 634 would have horizontal gum ridges on the back. The gum on the imaged stamps does not have gum ridges and appears to be crackly compared to normal smooth 554 gum.

The stamps are postal counterfeits, and quite collectible. I doubt if they are engraved.

Some of the previous posters should consider being more observant before posting.

Clark

...

This is what shown on perf gauge..12..

Clark, thank you. I had not considered that possibility.

blazenstar, can you provide a clear scan of one of them so that we can all see the poor printing quality?

Thank you so very much Clark for being so truthful with your comments. Truly appreciate your honesty and excellent observation and words expressed.

Warm Regards,

Blazenstar

reconsidering, the postal fake option looks correct.

Here you go,Ryan..
I am not really great at scanning to make look very clear..i tried..if someone else can do better, please do. smiles

Blazenstar

They look like they were stamps that were perforated by an old Rosback stroke perforator (Kiusalas 12-67=11.75). This gauge measurement was used for high dollar value revenue stamps. The perforations are too round and clean cut for the regular Kiusalas 12-66=11.93 perforation from a rotary wheel perforator for flat plate stamps so that they are from a stroke perforator. The stamps also do not appear to be engraved stamps but lithographed stamps. Also, all of the perforations across from each other in different rows appear to correspond/align with each other which is not typical of rotary wheel line perforations.

jogil,
Thank you for the additional information and observations. Can you recommend sources for us to learn more about perforation varieties?

Historical DNA Collector: Here is an interesting website on the two different old Rosback perforators which were used on some U.S. stamps: http://www.rosbackcompany.com/Rosback_History.htm
Their stroke perforator was Kiusalas 12-67=11.75 (used on high value revenue stamps from 1914 to 1958) and their rotary perforator was Kiusalas 12.5-63=12.5 (used on one 1919 stamp Scott number 536). Since these perforators were also available to the public, these same perforation gauges have also been found on privately made stamps. It looks like these stamps may be what is known as the "Boston Counterfeit". Boston counterfeit: the US 2¢ stamp of the 1922 series, look for a large and out-of-proportion "S" in Washington, plus variations in the perforations (perf. 12 or 14). See: http://www.fipfakesforgeries.org/fi...23-issue.pdf See: http://www.ebay.com/itm/MALACK-554-...201438783441