Us-1c-Franklin-P11x11 - Scott Number

Hi,

To continue talking about this thread : https://goscf.com/t/37779&SearchTerms=#596 (sorry, closing Picassa erase pictures)

I found a stamp looking like this one (Philatelic foundation) #596

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/images/386/386803.jpg

Look like twin :-)

Perf at left, right and bottom are very close than this stamp. Centering too.

Compare perforations/centering stamps is a good idea or not?

What do you think about that?

Thank you!

CDNum.

Adding new picture

My opinion: its a twin, of Sc 552

Hi Chasa,

Why (so) sure ?

Thank you.

CDNum.

http://www.linns.com/news/us-stamps...-or-596.html

Almost all you need to know.

Hi,

I will continue to read about #596. A very interesting stamp.

Thank you Cjpalermo1964!

CDNum.

Hi,

I found something when I look at some #594 stamps.

The right 1 "wiping" (bottom pic) is similar to the left 1 (coil waste #594) :

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/images/520/520945.jpg

Interesting :-)

your comments are welcome.

Thank you.

CDNum.

cdnum,

It looks to me that the left side is re-perfed for sure. It isn't even parallel!

Jack Kelley

Actually, perfed or re-perfed all around.

Jack Kelley

No, no, no. The stamp is not reperforated. It is nothing special. It is a perf 11 flat plate Scott 552 with an ugly stain. It has no commercial value.

To the eye of an experienced philatelist this stamp bears little resemblance to a rotary press sheet stamp, either in appearance, color or margins. The stamp most closely resembling a 596 in color and appearance would be the rotary press perf 10 Scott 581. The only difference would be the spacing of the perforation pins and the type of perforator used.

Hi,

I don't say it is a #596 but i'm very surprise to see coil #594 stamp left 1 looking like the right 1 (wiping) on my stamp (same angle and definition). Very surprise to see another #596 centered/perf like mine and other #596 with the same cancel. Top right corner is a bit upper too. Plus, someone let his initial on back.

Yes, CfrPhoto, it is not a lightly hinge stamp :-)

Philatelic foundation is very interesting and help people to understand. Siegle power search too.

I tried to find some flat plate #552 (with wiping) without success; maybe someone have one ?

Thank you.

CDNum.

cdnum,
You are correct that you see "wiping" on your stamp. Wiping marks are common on many stamps including flat plate #552.

There are many characteristics of your stamp that indicate that it as a flat plate printing. Rotary stamps have much more detail which is most obvious in these areas:



I agree with Clark(cfrphoto) that yours is a common #552. I also agree with Clark that you should look at images of rotary press perf 10 Scott #581 to get a good idea of what "tall" rotary printings look like. The simplest definition of #596 is that it has the appearance of #581 but has the perforations of flat plate stamps such as #552.

Your stamp does have the perforations that are characteristic of #596, but is a flat plate printing instead of a rotary printing.

It is definitely a #552. These things are not easy to notice without help. Hopefully this reply will help you to see the differences.

Many cancels are the same on common AND rare stamps.

Initials on the back of a stamp DO NOT necessarily mean anything important.

The most important thing is if your stamp is flat plate or a rotary printing. It is definitely a flat plate printing so it can only be a #552.

These things absolutely can be confusing. Hopefully Clark and I have explained it so that you fully understand.

P.S.

I forgot to mention why the sides are not parallel. That is because the image is a photograph and NOT a scan. If you scanned it, then you would see that the sides/perforations ARE actually parallel.

The differences between a common #552 and rare #596 are not easy to see. Especially when you are just starting to learn the differences between flat plate and rotary printings.

Carefully consider all of the information that has been presented to you. If you still do not understand, then explain what is confusing. I'll try my best to help by illustrating the differences.

Excellent answer Historical DNA Collector; Thank you!

Clark,

I'm looking at this stamp again and I still believe it has been perfed or reperfed. Either that or the image is deceiving.

Jack Kelley

Hi,

Maybe pic with black background can help...

Thank you!

CDNum.

Yes DNA. I see it now. I couldn't figure why someone would perf/reperf this stamp unless it was a poor example of a fake. The above image shows that the perfs are indeed parallel.

Jack Kelley