Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Rochester T&t Type 232?

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 7 / Views: 1,596Next Topic  
Pillar Of The Community

United States
507 Posts
Posted 05/27/2017   08:21 am  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add dkabq8 to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
I have a stamp that on first blush appears to be a T&T Type 233. However the space between the lines on my stamp is 12 mm, which would make it a Type 232 (not listed for Rochester in the T&T catalog) rather than a Type 233 (11.5 mm line spacing).

In addition, the lines on my stamp appear to be 1 mm thick rather than 1.1 mm thick. But as I am using the mm scale on an Honor-Bilt perf gauge, I question my capability to measure to the 0.1 mm with it.

Any help in figuring out what I have is appreciated.



Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
United States
2485 Posts
Posted 05/28/2017   09:29 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add chasa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Interesting questions, I will bring it up with the PSS catalog guys. I am sure they will say the 1 vs 1.1 mm issue is immaterial because of vagaries in the printing process. There is no way to determine, 90 years after the use, if there were two different devices or just over inked printing. The 11.5 mm versus 12 mm issue is trickier. That appears to be the only difference between the catalog listings for PSS type 232 versus 233. Some of my Rochester's look to be 11.5 and some 12. I think everybody would agree that they were probably on the same device so listing one PSS type is proper. I would suggest to the catalog guys that PSS 232 & 233 should be lumped together with spacing 11.5 to 13.5. I do not recall if any city has a 232 and 233 both listed which might require listing 2 different types.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
45 Posts
Posted 05/28/2017   11:09 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jackblack1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Just looked at 232/233 in my book and I had noted on 1/1/17 the line spacing on 232 was changed to 12 to 15 mm.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
507 Posts
Posted 05/28/2017   12:10 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dkabq8 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks for the responses. I figured it was an issue of minor vagaries in printing. But as I am a n00b I wanted to check with the experts.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2485 Posts
Posted 06/17/2017   10:24 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add chasa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I have gotten back information from the PSS catalog editors on this question - basically the answer is the descriptions for PSS232 and PSS233 both might have some vertical spacing differences between different towns and different cities. They are slight, don't fret about them. There seems to be only 1 town in the catalog with both 232's and 233's - so we should be able to figure out that type we have without difficulty.

quoting...

Hi, Charlie,

It turns out that there is only one town that has both a 232 and a 233. That is Stamford, CT.

The 233 from Stamford measures between 11 and 12 mm line spacing (Like the Rochester) and the 232 measures about 13 mm.

Many of the electros have row by row slight variations in the line spacing dimensions of mm or less, which is below the threshold of significance.

I do not feel that we can eliminate the 233, which occurs from 6 towns, by expanding the dimensional specification of the 232 to 11 to 13 mm. from the current specification of 12 to 13 mm.

We possibly could change the dimensional criteria for the 232 by increasing the lower dimension to 12 from 12 mm, but this would require measuring (or at least eyeballing) all of the 105 232s listed in the catalog, a task that I do not wish to take on.

We could change the dimensional criteria of the 233 from 11 mm to 11 to 12 mm, but this would make the upper limit of the 233 the same as the lower limit of the 232, unless we increased the lower limit of the 232 at the same time.

At some point, the various state editors established what they would call these types, 232 or 233, and there is no reason to believe that having once made this decision, that it needs to be revisited. I am quite sure that we are not going to find another town which has both 232 and 233 devices, although we might well find one or more towns that has more than one device of whichever type is listed. If we did, the best we could do is to apply footnote (11) as the dimensional difference would not exceed the minimum mm to list both devices.

Basically, I do not feel that this is a significant enough issue to justify the work required to resolve it, but if anyone wishes to check the dimensions on all of the 232s (and the 233s) to see what the range of dimensions actually is, I would then be happy to make the indicated adjustments to the Style Chart descriptions, if appropriate.

Best regards,

Arnold (Selengut) "

If nothing else this response gives example to how seriously the editors work on getting the catalog right and helpful. There is no need to change the 'traditional' listings in this area.





Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
45 Posts
Posted 06/18/2017   12:52 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jackblack1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Well it looks like my info about 15 is wrong. Not sure who told me this, but I did note it my book at the time, sorry for the wrong info.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
507 Posts
Posted 06/18/2017   08:04 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dkabq8 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
@chasa

Thanks for the info. If I ever get all of the 232s and/or 233s I will have to take Mr. Selengut up on his offer.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2485 Posts
Posted 06/18/2017   4:00 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add chasa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
dk: make sure you check all 10 lines in each 232 because the lines spacing might very slightly within the device also! jack: there may still be some subtle changes in the 8th edition descriptions - coming soon !
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous TopicReplies: 7 / Views: 1,596Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2022 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2022 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.19 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05