Gauging Perforations: Stanley Gibbons Vs Scott

My copy of Stanley Gibbons, Commonwealth and British Empire, says that perforations quoted in that catalogue are rounded to the nearest half. For example, perf 13 ¼ is rounded up to 13 ½, perf between 13 ¼ and 13 ¾ is also quoted as 13 ½, and perf 13 ¾ is rounded up to 14. Does Scott do the same? If not, won't these two catalogues sometimes disagree on perforations? What, for instance, does Scott do with a perf 13 ¾? I've searched this forum and haven't found the answer so far.

Whatever code you are using (for fractions?) displays on my monitor as a "z" with different dashes and curves above it. It fails to communicate your message.

Hi,

I can read the fractions in the original post.

I could not find a statement in Scott about rounding. Most examples seem to be given to the nearest half perforation, but I did run across some examples given to the nearest quarter perforation (for example, Canada 2464).

It would be useful if they made their policy clear.

Jan

zzzzzz

All I see is z with an umlaut over it.

Sorry all. Clearly a problem with the way that some printed characters are transmitted and reproduced. I should have used decimals. I'll try again:

My copy of Stanley Gibbons, Commonwealth and British Empire, says that perforations quoted in that catalogue are rounded to the nearest half. For example, perf 13.25 is rounded up to 13.5, perf between 13.25 and 13.75 is also quoted as 13.5, and perf 13.75 is rounded up to 14. Does Scott do the same? If not, won't these two catalogues sometimes disagree on perforations? What, for instance, does Scott do with a perf 13.75? I've searched this forum and haven't found the answer so far.

For Canada Scott/Unitrade 178-183 and 205-207, they gauge 8.75 vertically but Scott/Unitrade has them as gauging 8.5 vertically.

For Canada Scott/Unitrade 162-167, 169, 191, 192, 195-197, they gauge 11.25 x 10.94 but Scott/Unitrade has them as gauging 11.

So, if Scott/Unitrade 178-183 and 205-7 gauge vertically 8.75, Stanley Gibbons would round up to 9, where Scott/Unitrade say 8.5? And if Scott/Unitrade 162-7 etc. gauge horizontally 11.25, Stanley Gibbons would again round up to 11.5, where Scott/Unitrade round down to 11? As if proper ID weren't already hard enough! Is this a real problem, or am I missing something?

The gauge 11 1/4 tends to be a rounded number, already. Both gauges 11.3 and 11.2 rounded to the nearest quarter would give 11 1/4. However, rounded to the nearest half, the first will be 11 1/2. The other will be 11.

That is the way Gibbons does it. Does Scott do the same? Didn't seem so from jogil's post above.

Seems that with 11.25 Gibbons rounds up to 11.5, whereas Scott goes down to 11.0. Doesn't that cause confusion?