2c Stamp As A Counterpart For 544 1c

Hello,

when I look to my Scott and to one or two 2c stamps I have, I just wondered why there is no 2 cents rotary sheet waste? There is a 1c (544), but no 2c. I have these two stamps, where one of them is a bit higher than 22mm, and one is really "much" higher, so 22,5mm. I guess this is nothing rare? But what is the difference between the 544 and the higher 2cents then?

---
of course I talk about the A140 design and perf 11.

I think that part of the problem is that the Scott Catalogue lists #544 as coming from Rotary Press sheet waste, which would lead one to think that it is a coil waste stamp when it is not. #544 is a #543 perforated 11 x 11 as opposed to the normal 10 x 10 for #543. While there were 2¢ coil waste sheets of 70, 100 and 170 there were no rotary press printings of the 2¢ value as a sheet of 400 with four panes of 100. Both #543 and #544 were printed as sheets of 400 with four panes of 100. The only difference between the two stamps is the perforations.

Thank you - that's interesting. Still I wonder if taller 2cents stamps of this issue are "normal" then, or if they shouldn't exist? I read that also some flat stamps are a bit wider or taller sometimes, but the 544 also has 19x22.5mm, so it's only taller, no wider. Should I show a photo of my 22.5mm-2cents, or is this just a common size?

I would say that when discussing stamps and varieties, a scan is always useful.

Hello,

ok :)

here I show you my stamp. I don't have an USB microscope or anything like this, but I have a typometer (from graphics industry) which I "calibrated" with a precision standardized metal ruler. On the photo it's of course not exact, but under loupe I can say that the stamp is "nearly" 22.5mm tall, so I would guess something like 22.4mm.

But my topic is not really or only about this stamp. I would like to know in general if a taller 2cents (like the 544) could exist, so if I should look after taller 2cents 11perf as I look after taller 1cents perf 11?

You wanted a pic - I gave you a pic :-) !

Sorry, but I am again here looking at a big pile of 2cents stamps :). And I still wonder if I should also look after any taller 2Cents like the one shown above? I hope there was nothing wrong with my photo.

I understood that the 544 was made "from" 543, and there is no 2Cents perf 10 in 400 plate. Is this an information that we know or that we assume? Also, is it possible that a 2Cents was perf 11 "from" 1916 coils (though).

If all this is just not the case :), I would like to learn also, why the size of the 543 was taller when it's not rotary?

These are known facts.




It was printed by rotary press.




Sure. Scott 546 qualifies.

Chris

ok thank you very much, good to learn.
but 546 is wider, not taller?

Based on your scan, your stamp looks a lot like a Scott 499. Have you placed your stamp over a known 2¢ flat plate perf 11? Do not measure, but line the top of the design of the scanned stamp with the top of the design of a known Scott 499, they may well turn out to have the same size in which case your stamp is a Scott 499 (flat plate). Measurement with rulers can be inaccurate. Normally measurement of design to design is more accurate.

ok thank you - I made a photo with a template (actually made before, even laminated). I think you're right, it's not that much taller. though a little bit :).

so as 546 is not taller, there is not 2Cents of this kind which is taller?

#546 is a bit wider not taller. See the attached for reference on design size. The size of the design is a relative (as in not absolute) term. The millimeter sizes given in reference sources are approximates, not necessarily exacts. Determining what stamp you have depends upon more than the design size; although that is one factor. Printing methods and other characteristics must be considered. Use the resources from Stamp Smarter and other sites to help you learn how to determine what issue you have. Admittedly, it can be challenging wit the W/F series. I have examples of #499 that measure 22.25mm like the one you've posted.

http://www.stampsmarter.com/1847usa...ntifier.html

Just curious, why would you measure a Washington Franklin with a template of a different issue? Since you're talking fractions of a millimeter, wouldn't it make more sense to compare apples with apples?

Not trying to bash here, but if you're looking for gold, you might want to use the right tools?

Ray