US Scott 231 Columbus Stamp Paper

On sorting through many used copies of U.S. Scott 231, they were found to mostly have vertical wove paper with only a very few having horizontal wove paper.

This appears to slightly affect the design dimensions of the stamp.

Narrower and longer for vertical wove paper and wider and shorter for horizontal wove paper.

I got the idea of looking into this from previously finding Canadian Victorian stamps that were printed by the same printer the American Bank Note Company that had these same paper differences.

Interesting topic. Yes, I also saw this, and for such cases I find the Siegel database also important. As those are scans there you can easily compare two or more stamps in image software to see if the size is different (due to wove).

In Scott they write that the Columbian stamps were printed on:
- plates of 200 subjects in two panes of 100 (1c, 2c)
- plates of 100 subjects in two panes of 50 (2c-5c)

this explains the different wove direction and also the case of the 2c appearing in the two directions.

I think the paper direction and the watermark direction is something not really present in the US philately. For example there are the 1 Dollar Franklin stamps (brown) and the 15c Sc. 309 where there has not been made any research.

Are you aware of any US stamps, for example the commemorative stamps after the Columbian or the definitive stamps where there are watermark orientation errors not mentioned in the catalogues? I really wonder if there were none at all while in other countries like Australia or Germany, those exist and are well-known.

You are analyzing images, not stamps.

You cannot use scanned images for dimensional analysis. Stepped motors wear, CCD lens introduce distortion, and warmup times can affect the scanning accuracy; so trying to compare scanned images taken over time is a fool's errand.

If you are unconvinced here is a US Specialty Multi Gauge scanned twice (optical resolution 300 dpi) on a single flatbed scanner, using the same software configuration. First scan is next to the left hand edge and the other scan is with the gauge in the middle of the platen. With the gauges lined up on the '1' note how much they differ by the time they get to 220.


Here is full 300 dpi scan


Don

There is no problem in using Siegel's images as we don't talk about 0.1mm here.
Also, it's not about the absolute size but the aspect ratio, you can even see it without using software.

You can 'see it' in the images, not stamps in hand. Everything is based upon assumptions on how the images were generated (I doubt even Siegel could tell you how all their images have been generated over the years). Why not invest time with 'stamps in hand' and remove this additional questionable variable? The lower denomination Columbians can be purchased in large quantities for little cost.
Don

Don,

While working on overprints and cancels, I noticed that some images from Siegel had a slight keystone effect, because a camera with a macro lens on a copy stand made images. While a scanner may be more convenient for ad hoc scanning of stamps, an IT8 profile and support software would be necessary for production of high-quality scans with accurate color. Film or digital camera images are still likely to be sharper with better color and more pixels than scanner images. Perhaps recent generations of scanners are more competitive.

Slight keystone effects and lack of dimensional metadata would not be a problem for publication in a paper catalog. Images from an unknown source may yield anomalous results if used for comparison without checking the accuracy of the width, height and aspect ratio of the image.

Thank yout both. Of course you can only use images at Siegel for aspect ratio comparison that were made with a scanner. You can easily see this in the metadata (and normally also just by looking at them). If an image was produced by a scanner, it's no problem to use them for a homemade research. I don't think that Siegel changes the aspect ratio of all images just like that. I just mentioned all this as a help and additional answer for Jogil who was talking about the Columbian stamps above.

Here are some scans.


The wider stamp is on the right.


Horizontal wove paper on the right.


The wider stamp is on top.


The shorter stamp is on the right.

Some more scans.


Horizontal wove back.

Horizontal wove back.


Horizontal wove front.

Horizontal wove front.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Vertical wove back.

Vertical wove back.


Vertical wove front.

Vertical wove front.

This paper variety was most likely created by a sheet of paper being put in the stamp printing press at 90 degrees from the usual.

jogil, or rather BOTH are normal paper feeds, but you have an example from the 200-subject plate and the 100-subject plate. ??

John Becker: Do the sizes of the stamp subjects differ between the different printing plates?

Here is a similar comparison from another country.

I have no authoritarian answer, but it seems logical that the same die - to transfer roll - to plate would be identical in process. I see absolutely no reason why there should be any difference of the image sizes on the plates between the 100- and 200-subject flat plates.

The size of stamp subjects would be the same on every plate made from the same die. If a sheet was rotated 90 degrees and printed and perforated, most stamps would be badly off center horizontally and vertically. If a decision was made to change the paper orientation in production, perforator setup would require changes to account for the size of the printed subjects after the paper is dried before gumming and perforating.

Making new plates for recess printing from the same or similar dies may have different measurements!?

http://goscf.com/t/48681