What Happened To This Stamp?

Khj,
You are correct. I just measured the stamp. It is 20 millimeters on both the top and the bottom.

Although I can't completely verify its use, this came from a collector that would have received mail from the archdiocese.

I did some measurements (and even doublechecked them) for the image using Photoshop.

First a visual summary:



The units in my measurents are pixels (as they are de facto measurement unit used in digital imaging). And the results are:
* total top width: 225px
* total bottom width: 222px

So the top is 3px wider than the bottom... And this comes from the right side stamp which has top width of 136px and bottom width of 133px.

So I'll still say "happy scissors". But that's just my opinion based on image on the screen

-keijo-

Keijo,

You definitely have very sharp eyes! Nice work with the Photoshop, too!

However, 3 pixels out of 225 is 1.3%, is not unreasonable for a hand-held mechanical affixer.

Also, perhaps this only applies to me, but if they were using scissors and in such a hurry or unconcerned as to miscut it by 40%, I'm very surprised they were able to get such a small variation in width. I know that I can't get that good with scissors even when I'm actually trying. That's why I use a paper cutter. I guess I'm trying to fathom how it could be so badly miscut, yet so nearly parallel! Off by 40%, but within 1.3% width tolerance! I would have thought if they took that much care, it would make more sense that they would have cut it at the perforations?

Anyway, we will simply have to agree to disagree. I've been involve with several non-profit groups doing volume mailings for nearly 2 decades, and I've yet to run across any that use scissors to separate the coils. But perhaps the groups I've worked with are in the minority? (Or maybe they just copy the way I do things?)

Since neither of us were there when the stamp was applied (or at least I wasn't there ), we can only put up a best guess. The hypothesis of "happy scissors" cannot be ruled out. It does have the advantage of explaining why the width of the cuts are so much smaller than the actual stamp.

Interesting cover. Thanks for sharing the cover, and thanks to everyone who proposed possibilities!

k

Wow! Counting pixels! I'm impressed!

I just used the millimeter ruler on my trusty old Linn's Stamp Gauge.

An error of ±1% on a measurement of ±20 millimeters seems to me to be within the error range of a mechanical stamp dispenser. Of course my cropping and resizing of the image to post here may have had an effect as well. I have no clue what those alogrithms do to accuracy.

I think we can rule out the sacramental wine theory though.

Many thanks to all of you for the interesting and informative discussion!

I know the cover is of little or no monetary value but this discussion adds value to me the next time I browse through my oddball and interesting covers!

Actually, I would say the cover would easily go for several bucks. Not a whole lot, but will still be sought after by EFO collectors (oddity, not an error nor freak). Miscuts are common on these covers, but the degree of miscut makes it a nice piece. Definitely a keeper!

k

Actually Photoshop does have a digital measurements tools that makes this kind of measurements childs play (just few mouse clicks and presto). It's used in questioned document examination etc. but it's very handy in philatelic research too as it provides much better accuracy than "old school" measurement tools.

Typical coil dispenser damage.....