Booklet Stamp: Where Does It Go?

ddreisba,
Your stamp is not from a booklet. Its vertical and horizontal perforations don't match. That plus eyeballing its aspect ratio makes think that your stamp is a #634 "tall" rotary printing. If it was a booklet stamp, then the outer frame lines would be much more like a square than the elongated rectangle that it is. It does have an edge without perforations, but doesn't appear more squarish than other printings of the same design.




It appears that your stamp is 11 x 10.5. Those "measurements" are not exact. Stamp perforations are "classified" as a certain type as opposed to "measuring" an exact decimal number. What is most important is that perforation "measurements" should match a known type. Our forum member Clark is a master of knowledge about obscure perforations. First try to match your stamp's perforations to a known type. If you can't, then query those such as Clark for better understanding of rare perforations. In the meantime, I'll do my best to help you and others classify your stamps to known types.

I do like your booklet cover despite it not being in great condition. Please note that it and your stamp are not related.

I agree with cjpalermos1964 and others in that I don't collect to fill in spaces in a pre-printed album. I collect to suit what I enjoy. I and others express the mentality that a collection matters most about what it means to the collector more than filling a catalog or album.

The OP did say he took the stamp from the booklet, correct? That is the way I read it.

I don't follow your reasoning.

Rhett,
Yes, ddreisba did state:




That statement directly states a remembrance of taking the stamp depicted in the first image from a booklet.

However, the 1922 series 2c stamp in the original post is definitely not a booklet stamp.

Human memory is actually not very accurate. I do not see any attempt at deception. I only see what is a normal limitation of human memory. For example, witness statements in a trial that are based on memory are notoriously inaccurate. I do not fault the OP for misremembering where a particular stamp came from a long time ago.

In essence, I read "it" the same as you. However, the characteristics of the stamp dictate a different story. That "different story" is attributable to normal humanity. I.E. a discrepancy, but not deception. OP is legit and I comment for the purpose of explaining OP's material.

eyeonwall,
I based those statements on flat plate printings. I neglected to consider #634d. Upon further research, OP's stamp and booklet cover could be #634d.

It appears that I may have made a grievous error by not considering such a possibility. Let me get some sleep and then I'll reevaluate the situation.

I thank you for challenging my statements.

I am an old man, and my memory is going, as my wife and son keep reminding me, but I am not yet completely gaga. I tore the individual stamp from the booklet. I do not have a mass of mint 2c Washingtons lying about. Where else would I get the stamp except from the booklet that I found.





I have not measured, but the stamps in the booklet look rectangular to me, not square.

Don

I have never had occasion to use the booklet section of Scott's before, so I am not very good at it. I went back and tried again.

Conditions that must be met: 1) Must sell for 49c. 2) Must be red on pink. 3) Must have horse and rider on cover. Now, there's BK 73 that meets those conditions, but those stamps were perforated 10. But there was also BK 81, and now I think this is the right one.

My dad was born in 1903, so he would have been old enough to buy any of these stamps. But I don't think he had the desk till the depression. He worked throughout the depression, and bought a lot of stuff during it from people who had real financial problems. BK 81 came out in 1928, so would have been sold during the depression.

Also, BK81 had, at least in some cases, cellophane pages between the panes, which I think is what you see as the background in the picture above. It is transparent. That is, you can see the stamps through it, although it is not clear. A bit like observing through sunglasses.

Incidentally, after my debacle in trying to get a scan of the cover posted, my attempt to post the scan of the stamps went without a hitch. I am still capable of learning.

Don

Hello again Don,

I apologize for the confusion. I presented an argument that is incorrect. My incorrect argument was that your stamp was not a booklet stamp due to an incorrect aspect ratio. That argument would be valid for flat plate printed booklet stamps. However, yours is a "tall" rotary printing which makes my argument invalid.

It cannot be a 554c because your stamp is not a flat plate printing. It is a "tall" rotary printing.

I should have made an argument concerning the presence of perforations on it's bottom (south) edge that does not fit with your later presented booklet which you believe that the stamp came from.

From Scott Specialized Catalogue of 2006: "Rotary booklet panes issued from 1926 to May 1978 (except for Nos. 1623a and 1623c) were made from specially designed plates of 180, 320, 360, and 400 subjects."

Illustrations of each of those plates show that the bottom most right stamp would have a straight edge on the right (east) AND the bottom (south) perforations. Therefore, your stamp could not come from the position that is absent in the booklet that you later posted.

Here I have superimposed your original stamp upon your posted booklet that you believe is its source:



The aspect ratios of the outer frame lines do match. However...

The colors do not match. Regardless, that could be due to various computing related reasons.

The perforation remnants don't match.

The right hand (east) straight line edge doesn't match between them.

Conclusion: it is very unlikely that your stamp came from the booklet that you posted an image of.

I in no way intend to criticize your capabilities, regardless of age. I only wish to help others like yourself.

"I am still capable of learning."

I don't doubt that and I feel similarly in that I too have a lot to learn.

Please respond with any question that you might have. My brain is a bit scrambled at times from trying to relearn several years of calculus in a several month period. I'll try my best to provide you with accurate information. I have certainly learned a lesson to only respond when my mind is clear and when I can fully fact check my statements.

Ryan

DNA,

You are correct, I did not get the stamp there. There were six stamps on a page; hence four pages to make 24 stamps. The stamp I pulled was on another page, sitting alone on the right top. As for color, I don't know why scans are so unreliable, but they are. I assure you that if you lived next door and came over for a direct look at the stamps themselves, not mediated by software, you would see that they are the same color.

Good luck with the calculus. I had three semesters in college, plus a course in differential equations. Then my interests changed and I switched to the humanities. I haven't used calculus for half a century, and would hate to have to relearn it now.

Don