Help With Finnish Stamps Pls

Please, re-measure... Based on image, it would appear as 14¼x14.

scb, I've measured and remeasured this stamp several times now to check (I didn't want to make a fool of myself again after the 'vertically laid paper' debacle) and it's definitely 13.75 not 14.25. (13.75 all the way around, actually.)

If I'm wrong, my perf gauge has to be faulty!

It was my pleasure.



I've created them by accident when soaking kiloware, LOL:
And of course I've seen mint stamps/sheets with glue striping.



It's possible, that the gum has simply "stained" itself to paper...

scb, if I'm wrong about this stamp's perf then all my other stamps are perf rarities!!

This is what I'm using:

Great info, scb!

jjt, your stamp is definitely not 13.75, based on your pic. Your perfs are not lined up with the 13.75. It looks like 14 to 14.25 to me.

khj, I wasn't trying to line it up. I couldn't possibly flatten the stamp at the right place on the scanner bed without attaching it somehow to the perf gauge. The stamp is just there for scale.

When I fit the teeth of the stamp into the black balls of the 13 3/4, it fits perfectly. When I do 14 1/4, it doesn't.

I can't see what I could be doing wrong, because this works for all my other stamps. I've been through countless stamps using the same gauge.

Don't use the black balls. They won't be accurate for measurements at the 1/4 level. Use the lines. I shift the bottom perforations and superimposed them onto your 13.75 scale and lined it up at left. You can see that as the perfs move to the right, they are tighter than the perf 13.75.




In fact, if you look at your original pic and the right side of the stamp, you can count 14 teeth for the 20mm sidebars.

Here's the right side of your stamp on the gauge. Placement turns out to be pretty useful. The red line is from sidebar to sidebar, which by definition of the gauge will be 20mm. You can clearly count 14 perf holes within this 20mm length. So the stamps is at least perf 14, if not slightly more.

Thanks, khj. I can see clearly what you mean now.

I'm terribly disappointed that they can't produce a reliable perf gauge though.

It's not rocket science, is it?

I know for a fact that there is no 13.75 perf on this stamp, nor any stamp for type-1917.

If you have 1mk red/black stamp (most common of type-1917 stamps), place it next to 10mk stamp, and compare the perfs side by side. As the 1mk stamp exists only in 14¼x14 perf, it's a quick and easy way to see if perf cauge is wrong.

The alternatives...

Perf hole sizes can vary a bit, but they should not affect the result to this extend.

Another possibility is that stamp has been soaked too long, and it's shrunken. In such case the stamp should be slighly shorter & narrower than the real thing.

BTW, I just checked the Facit catalog. For the unwatermarked 1st series 10m stamp, Facit actually lists the perforation as 14x14. The 2nd series unwatermarked 10m stamp is perf 14.25x14.75

scb, yes the perf holes on the 10 mk align perfectly with those on the 1 mk red/black. Thanks for the tip!

You wrote, 'Another possibility is that stamp has been soaked too long, and it's shrunken. In such case the stamp should be slighly shorter & narrower than the real thing.'

I wonder if this is what happened to stamp (3). I didn't mention it before, but it's appreciably narrower than other examples of stamps in this series.

If the stamp has shrunk, then the measured perforation would be higher than the actual perforation. In other words, if jimjamtwo measured 13.75 for the shrunken stamp, then the unshrunken stamp would have an actual perforation of <13.75.

Regarding the p14 and p14.25x14.75, these are actually listed in Scott as #108 and #108a. Your stamp is definitely #108.

This is "an errata" in Facit... The first series (1917) is truly 14.25x14 (I just measured it with few stamps); and If I recall it's also in the type handbook. The second series (1929) is 14.25x14.75.

But there's always a minor (up to 0.2) flux with perforations with these, as needles were consumed/replaced between different values/prints.




I noted that it was a "tall stamp". These were a result of poor quality control in this type; also short, narrow & wide stamps are known. They have no special value unless they are truly freaky.

scb, a question if I may.

You mentioned that in the past you've sorted through a considerable volume of Finnish defins.

You've already indicated that Finnish collectors are not much interested in paper types, and that while numerous shades of the various issues exist, none are of any significant difference in CV. Perf variations would also seem to be just about nonexistent.

So what exactly were you looking for?

I ask because I find myself with quite a lot of Finnish stamps, mostly defins, but from what you write I'm starting to think this is a very barren field to begin exploring.

Maybe I should just give up now and flog the lot off on ebay!!