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!

Taller Than Scott 552 But Shorter Than Scott 632 Perf. 11 Both Sites

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 5 / Views: 611Next Topic  
Valued Member

Germany
58 Posts
Posted 01/14/2020   4:52 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add stamphunter1 to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
--- Ok thanks John for the advice.
So to orient you
You will see first photos from the first, and comparison with two cutted stamps.
than the second the same.
I took a scott 642 monroe rotary 11x10.5 cutted and also a flatplate scott 552 cutted to compare the stamps in question. the last photo is the back of the two stamps. ----

I have a hard time with this 2 stamps.Logically they would be scott 552 because they are shorter than the yellow monroe rotary stamp or scott 632 rotary, but they are taller than the regular scott 552. So they are between 552 and 632. they have perforation 11x11 for shure. I have many 552 they are all shorter than this two. 594 couldn't be they are not so wide in image like the coil rotary stamp 597.
So thanks for sharing opinions.









Send note to Staff
Edited by stamphunter1 - 01/14/2020 8:30 pm

Pillar Of The Community
3351 Posts
Posted 01/14/2020   5:08 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add John Becker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Gentle suggestion. Your posts goes back and forth between 2 stamps. I would recommend that you delete the images of the 2nd stamp from the initial post and place them in a second post in this same thread. The background of an envelope is also distracting.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3351 Posts
Posted 01/14/2020   8:49 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add John Becker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Ok, now you have gone and changed EVERY picture in the original post. STOP.

The best way to make your case is to be very organized in your presentation. Please, address only one stamp at a time. Show a scan of the front, then of the back, then against the perforation gauge, then with the various overlay templates.

Then make a second post of the similar images of the second stamp. Putting two stamps together in the same post is very confusing and difficult to get meaningful feedback. My apologies if this sounds harsh, but the more you help us, the more we can help you.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
1206 Posts
Posted 01/14/2020   9:28 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add JLLebbert to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Is it possible that your template stamp is from a booklet? If I recall correctly, flat plate booklet stamps of this era were a bit shorter & wider than stamps from panes. Don't recall whether this was true for 552 maybe John Becker can tell us.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3351 Posts
Posted 01/14/2020   9:59 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add John Becker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Jllebbert - good point. It does have that appearance. It would be best to use fully perforated sheet stamps for making templates and remove that possible variable.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Germany
58 Posts
Posted 01/14/2020   10:54 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add stamphunter1 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Is it possible that your template stamp is from a booklet? If I recall correctly, flat plate booklet stamps of this era were a bit shorter & wider than stamps from panes. Don't recall whether this was true for 552 maybe John Becker can tell us


Jllebbert good hint. Gratulation for your sharp sense. That's the reason why the template 552 booklet stamp is shorter in design than my two regulars.
And I made twice the mistake comparing the two stamps ( that I though they are taller) also with another booklet stamp on a cover so I had wrong assumption that they are taller than a regular 552 flatplate


Quote:
Then make a second post of the similar images of the second stamp. Putting two stamps together in the same post is very confusing and difficult to get meaningful feedback. My apologies if this sounds harsh, but the more you help us, the more we can help you.


John I understand your request. Next time I will put only photos from one stamp in one thread.


Quote:
Jllebbert - good point. It does have that appearance. It would be best to use fully perforated sheet stamps for making templates and remove that possible variable.


I think it's clear now as Jllebbert mentioned that the template stamp that I used to compare is foremost shure a scott 552 flatplate booklet stamp so they are shorter in design than common 552 and so shorter than my regular two 552 showed here. That made the confusion.
Something between the height of the design of a 552 flatplate and a rotary 632 or 596 doesn't exist in my opinion so they are regular 552 (they have also som ink on the back I've only just discovered).
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by stamphunter1 - 01/14/2020 11:01 pm
  Previous TopicReplies: 5 / Views: 611Next 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 - 2021 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 - 2021 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.17 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05