To Be Or Not To Be; US Scott 595

This came out of a pile of red 2c I have. It just plain looked wider than the other hundreds I have of this design.

Ideally, to be a #595, it would measure 19.75 mm wide. But according to www.1847USA.com, 19.50mm wide is the minimal width. If I have correctly placed the mm rule over the stamp, it reads at least 19.50 mm. It is perf 11.

Is this stamp a #595 "to be" or is it "not to be" ?

If the photo does not appear, please let me know. When I checked the preview of this post, only photo info is displayed and not the photo.

www.stampcommunity.org/uploa...aybe595.jpeg" border="0" style='cursor:default' onClick='doimage(this,event)'>

Marty

Take 2; Now the photo uploaded correctly.

I think I have answered my own question. Upon closer examination, there is a faint transfer of ink on the back which makes it a flat plate printing and therefore a scott #554. It sure is a wide #554, though.

Hmm, now where is that post on Confessions of Stupidity

Marty

Sorry, Marty, but I do not think you have a 595. Still looks like a 554?

A 595 will have the exact same dimensions as a 599 (ignore the perfs). I have scaled (by matching the vertical dimensions) a genuine 599 and superimposed it over your stamp. As you can see, the 599 is clearly wider than your stamp.



Compare the height of your stamp with the other 554s that you have. If the height is also slightly taller, then you may have a stamp that was pressed in a vise for some reason.

Also, I note 2 other things:

1. It looks like you are using the right-side convention in your measurement (i.e., using the right edge of the divisions on the ruler). For 0.25mm measurements, you do have to take into account the thickness of the printed division, as it is no longer a trivial thickness at that level. Or, you have to make your reading based on the RIGHT edge of the 20mm division, not the left edge. That is why I recommend using "middle of line" convention.

2. I actually see some white paper between the 0mm division and the left frame line (circled in green, however, look at your original scan because my pic lost some resolution during the re-save).

Take those 2 into account, and I wonder if your measurement is actually slightly less than 19.5mm? Try to remeasure, as my opinion is based on the scan, so my opinion will be quite limited in accuracy.

Anyway, just my opinion. One of the reasons why my rotary/flats are in "storage".

OK, while I was busy making my pic and typing, Marty already answered his own question...

k

Kim,

I may have answered my own question but you provided me additional information I need. You mentioned my positioning of the mm rule (right-side convention) and the need to take into account the thickness of the printed division. I was wondering about that exact issue. What I did not consider was that the stamp may have been pressed in a vice.

I did measure my stamp in question with the height of other #554s and all are exactly 22mm. At best, it appears that the stamp is wider than the average #554 and might even come breathlessly close to the minimum 19.5 mm width rotary press stamp. However, the flat plate printing is a definite "not to be".

Great observation and advice Kim

Marty