Victoria 2d Mauve (Perf 12.5) - Anyone Know The Cv?

I wonder, if I were to supply the exact dimensions of the frame, whether anyone would be able to calculate the exact perf of this stamp?

I get 12.5 on all sides, except the bottom, which would be 12.6 or so.

However, it's always possible I'm doing something wrong, so perhaps one of the more mathematically-competent members of the forum might like to come up with their own figures?

Rod's done that from time to time...a little algebra practice never hurts anyone...

Yep,
measure the printed image only
and I'll give you the perf

The measurement has to be spot on,
best done by a steel rule
1 mm can easily be fudged.

Jimjamtwo,Rod222, in the past I have found a couple of Australian State stamps with perfs .5 different to similar in SG cat'. The thought occurred, thanks to your persistence with the 2d Mauve perf 2.5, that maybe all varieties are not currently known. Any thoughts?

Hello finches,
I think Tony Mac or Nigel C
explained somewhere, that early perforations
were inexact due to the state of the machinery.
Perforations had a wide allowed variance.

Perhaps try the preamble in the SG catalogue
under "perforations" in the front of the catalogue.

hi rod222, thanks for volunteering - the design dimensions are 19mm by 23 mm.

finches, the reason fo the persistence is that if MmmmBaff is right - and he appears to know his stuff very well - this stamp should not exist as perf 12.5.

This has left me extremely curious indeed!

According to my solar calculator I have had since 1990.
The perforation is 12.63 x 13.04
Hope that helps.

Interesting, rod222 - I assume you mean 12.63 top and bottom, 13.04 on the sides?

Does that make it perf 13? Or 12.5 X 13?

And solar calculator????

This is what makes this hobby so interesting. Not doubting the perf measurements at all but for the future of the usefulness of the thread If you can supply a 600x600dpi scan I would be happy to do pics with the transparent gauge and post. For what its worth Rod's calculations are always as precise as they come.
When things like this arise it makes you go back in time and think what may have possibly happened. Was it a mechanical error, did the night shify make an unofficial adjustment to keep up production or as stated was a wack of uncut sheets held back to true up the new perf machine .
To add to the perplexities, when I was a printer and we had jobs that we knew would be re-ordered or re issued we sometimes kept stock of the item. For example a very popular underground comic series called Cerebus the Ardvark. They always had second and third issues which was simply a reprint of the cover so we always had the insides ready to go.

That would be great, nitrolures. I really aprpeciate the offer. However, I'm already scanning at the highest quality I can. Would it make much difference, in terms of perfs?

This is another Victorian 2d mauve stamp whose perfs seem anomalous. If you're willing to do this scientifically for me, to speak, I can provide the design dimensions.

Yes 12.63 at top
see Nigel's post top of this thread,
personally I would take that as perf 13
but it is up to you
There is only the truth in the end,
that is, what you measure by your guage
and the slightly inexact mathematical answer of 12.63

I don't criticise people who see UFO's
but choose not to believe them myself

I bought the calculator from a door to door salesman
when I was a Real Estate Agent
Thinking of myself ..."suckered"

20-25 years later it is still working
and it has been completely free, no batteries ever used,
works from the power of light. (solar cell)
I searched the internet for the production date
but it just says 199?

Correction,
given that the image dimensions (frame) are exactly the same as the second
stamp shown, then your stamp is 12.5 x 13
because both stamps reveal the exact same amount of teeth
in the length of the frame.
One would then tend to go with the
published size in that catalogue image.

rod222, the reason I asked about the first stamp is because I got the same perf for all sides except the bottom. It's not clear to me which sides you were referring to when you wrote, 'The perforation is 12.63 x 13.04.'

My view would also be that the best way to describe it is 12.5 X 13, which is an uncatalogued perf.

I don't think 12.63 can be assimilated either to 12 or 13.

I wrote to Stanley Gibbons about the above catalogue item and received the following reply from the editor this morning. It clarifies the matter:

'As usual, my first act was to check my own examples of this stamp, of which I have a dozen or so, and found that all the Die I's were either perf 12 or 12½ (but that I had classified the 12½s as '13').
Checking the literature, Geoff Kellow describes SG 176-80 as Perf 13, but Robson Lowe calls it 12½, 13. Previously, the SG catalogues included an extended note on the Victoria perforations which explained that those which we classify as '12½' actually gauge between 12½ and just under 13, but this note was deleted a few years ago in the interests of simplification.'

He thinks it might be appropriate to reinstate the note.