Having Trouble With This Queen Stamp

Hi guys

I have what I thought was a Scott #37...??

The 3 cent Queens perforations are as per Unitrade are as follows:

12x12
12.5x12.5
12x11.5
12x12.5

But my stamp is 12.25 x 12.25...???...See pics below.

I believe there is a variety of the Montreal printing for this stamp that is p12x12.25. Don't know about p12.25x12.25.

I'm not that familiar with the Canada Queens, but in general when I run into this type of situation, I do the following --

If you have one of the p12x12 stamps, measure the diameter of the outer circle (circle can be hard, but you can choose some other wide/tall fixed feature). Compare it to your p12.25x12.25 stamp. [Or you can scan the stamps side by side and overlay it in software.] If the dimension measurement of your p12.25x12.25 stamp is smaller, then what you might have is paper shrinkage. Not saying that's what happened... just a thought.

But of course, I'd be interested in reading what info the Canada experts might have!

Hi Wert

The perf 12.25 was printed in 1888 at the Montreal Gazette immediately prior to BABN returning to Ottawa. It is a #41. They also printed 1c, 2c and 5c at the same time. See page 55 of the Unitrade (2012)catalogue.

GJP

Hi gportch

I see Scott #41 on page 55, but it says it is a 12 x12 perf...

In the Scott catalog, Canada #41a is the Montreal printing variety. What Scott neglects to mention is that it is more than just a color variety -- it is also a perforation variety of perf 12x12.25 (should be mentioned in the Unitrade somewhere).

However, still not the 12.25x12.25 that you said you measured. So, still wondering about the possibility of paper shrinkage...

Hi khj

Paper shrinkage is a possibility, but doesn't a stamp only shrink lengthways, I mean as in top to bottom...That would explain going from one perf to another, but not left to right/right to left.

If it did shrink, boy oh boy, it did shrink to EXACTLY to 12.5 x 12.5...Too much of a coincidence.

Hi Wert.

We have discussed these many times before on SCF. I am just as confused as you are, because there are some MAJOR errors in the Unitrade catalogue.

GPortch is correct in what he says, 41a is perf 12 x 12.25, but my many examples are like yours, closer to 12.125 or 12.25 x 12.25. This SHOULD be mentioned in Unitrade.

Also, the heading above #41 says "Ottawa printings". So how can 41a be called a Montreal printing? It should be marked as such!



Also, the Kiusalas gauges are wrong as I have said before, the first Ottawa printings of 1870-73 are not 65 or 63 as in Unitrade, but 66 or 67.

I finally get something right, and somebody else gets the credit. Story of my life...



I know what you speak of. I wouldn't have known that #41a was a special Montreal printing without the Small Queen Identification Table in Unitrade (p55 of my 2010 Unitrade).

Now to get back to getting stamps lost on my desk...

You know guys, there are people from stamp businesses that hang around on these sites...If I saw that my company made mistakes and the people that I am selling my product to noticed it....I WOULD MAKE CHANGES.

Do they care, maybe, maybe not...They are still selling their product., AND PEOPLE LIKE US ARE STILL BUYING IT..

A good reputable company would make an effort to contact people that notice irregularities with their product.

Maybe as far as to contact a person to have their stamp analysed by some one as to determine if ANY stamp is a new error or variety.

WILL PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN..MONEY IS THE MAIN DRIVER IN BUSINESS.

Oh ya..P.S. - I am not putting Unitrade down, they produce a fantastic product.

Well, now I think changes will come. The current editor of the Unitrade catalogue is a member here and he admits he did not collect Small Queens. The information on them has been supplied by others.

It is my opinion that ANY stamp listed in a catalogue should be identifiable to the collector by using the information supplied in the SAME catalogue. One should NOT have to rely on additional highly specialized (and usually expensive) catalogue.

Specialized catalogues do have there place of course, and can list and identify other specialized varieties.

The vague (and sometimes erroneous) descriptions in Scott and Unitrade on the Small Queens actually turns off collectors' interest in the stamps, as can be seen by the frustration of collectors on this board.

Improved listings will actually encourage MORE interest and incite collectors to dig further and perhaps buy the specialized catalogues.

So, I am stuck not knowing what my stamp is until Scott or Unitrade step up and fix the problems that they have with their catalogues.

Just great.....

If you weren't so detail-oriented, you wouldn't be in this predicament, would you?

But seriously, it is because of the tireless efforts of collectors like yourself that changes are made. I've only been using Unitrade for a couple of years, but when comparing my first copy (2005) with my latest copy (2011), Unitrade has made a LOT of changes for the better.

Keep up the good fight!

Brian

Unitrade rounds perf measurements to the nearest half fraction of a number.

Is the other side of the stamp also in the holes on your gauge or a bit off or out? Don't move the perf gauge, just move the camera.

Actually Scott and Unitrade round to the nearest 1/4 of a perf. For example, see Canada #1956 for example. It is perf 13 1/4 x 12 1/2.

41a is incorrectly marked as 12 x 12, it must be corrected to 12 x 12 1/4. As mentioned before, it is not even an Ottawa print.

Oops,. In my 2005 that's what they say (1/2) I will have to check the newer catalogue at the library. Thanks.

Sooooo basically...mine is NOT a 12.25 X 12.25....???
Even though it is, then what you are saying is forget about what really is the perf. and go by what Unitrade says...That dosen't sit well with me...!