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
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.
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).