Help -- Is This An Unused Scott#544

Al E. Gator,

On that 405, the perfs are 11 1/2. How did you determine perf 12 instead of 11? Is it the 19 X22mm size that determines its a 405?

Thanks,
Jack Kelley

The perfs are 12x12, perhaps the perf-gauge is defective.

Excuse me..
It is a Standard Perforation Gauge.
Actually, the measurements of the stamps are 21,5/18....not 22/19mm
...
I don't know what makes the difference.
Please let me know if you need more pics.
...
Thank you for all your comments!

Only three possibilities
- fake perfs
- gauge error
- user error

There is no perf 11 1/2 for this stamp design. Choices are

imperf.
8½ hor.
8½ vert.
10 hor.
10 vert.

10 x 10
11 x 11
12 x 12
12½ x 12½

12 x 10
10 x 12
Don

Just to be clear about where I am coming from. A 405 is a light or dark yellowish green perf 12 flat plate stamp. On the other hand, a 498 is a light or dark yellowish green perf 11 flat plate stamp. The 405 is single watermarked while the 498 is unwatermarked. Since we cannot discern watermarks here, we can dismiss it from consideration. So, all other things being equal, the determinate must be size. (?)

Jack Kelley

Stamp design sizes are very difficult to determine; using a ruler or calipers usually isn't going to work well. Making and using templates is probably better but frankly determining size requires experience, an understanding of paper/stamp manufacturing process of the day, and a good eye. Using the design type, perfs, watermarks will make a good ID process in most cases. See Stamp Smarter Washington/franklin ID tool for quickest way to narrow down the choices.

The compound perf stamps need to be sent in for certs.
Don

Jack---Paper shrinkage in the W/Fs is a factor in determining Perf. gauge as well as image size. Scott's listing are an "approximate" in part due to that factor. A Kiusalas specialty gauge should be used to more accurately get perf. measurements. To determine gauge from a scan image, count the complete perf. holes between the image borders on top and/or bottom. It can also be done on the side perfs. by counting an area equal to the distance across the top/bottom image. I just use a piece of paper with the distance marked off on it laid against the monitor and count the holes. Sometimes, because of the perf. hole alignment, you may have to count two 1/2 holes on each side as a single hole. A perf. 10 will have 9 complete holes; perf. 11 will have 10 complete holes; perf. 12 will have 11 complete holes.

Attached is an article from the USSS Specialist for you to read giving another method.

Thank you Al. To recap; if we have a stamp which measures 11 1/2, it is really a perf 12 stamp which shrank to 11 1/2. It would be impossible for a perf 11 stamp to "shrink" to perf 11 1/2. Right?

Jack Kelley

You're more or less right--shrinkage of the paper can give that appearance. Look closely at the images showing the stamp upon the perf. gauge---the perf. holes are not lining up exactly with the black circles, so it's not exactly "measuring" 11-1/2. If the stamp were placed over the perf. 12 spot on the gauge, it may or may not line up exactly there either, but should be closer than what's showing on the 11-1/2 (I think). In any event, there are no 11-1/2 perf. stamps in the W/F series so if it looks like it is, then its most likely a perf. 12. Again, when measuring perfs., a Kiusalas gauge is recommended.

Al,

Thank you for you insights. They are very helpful to me and are appreciated. I hope others are learning from this as well.

Jack Kelley

18,5 by 21,5mm
Perf. 11 x 11

Scott 545?

I didn't try Stampsmarter, but looking through my Scott's, there is a 11x11 booklet pane of 6 that is identified as Scott 498e. The value is about $2.50. You may want to check that yourself.

Thank you very much.
I checked.
The stamp sample on StampSmarter (the 498) doesn't look Green )))

Hi, can you guys help me with these at all? the cuts on some of them are straight which is confusing.