Perforation Vs Non-Perforation Question

My understanding is that perforation is there to make stamp separation easier, to sell faster at a post office. Then there are stamps like this one, which are just cut out. That must have required scissors. Why to make it more difficult? Or were these stamps pre-cut?

It's cheaper to leave out the perforations. And scissors were around before perforations ...

This particular stamp as issued in 1939, perforating machines had been around for some time.

This stamp was issued "for bulk mailings of commercial printed matter". The unoverprinted version of the stamp was for mailing newspapers.

It may be that it was felt unnecessary to perforate the stamps, as it would be just as quick for someone franking items in a mass mailing to cut them apart using a scissors, paper cutter and/or knife.

Whereas for someone using only a few stamps at a time, the perforations are more helpful.

These stamps were for use in the German-occupied portion of Czechoslovakia. I note in Scott that the Czechoslovakian newspaper stamps from before the war were also imperforate.

Postal administrations did do strange things.

This stamp from Indore State in India was normally issued perforated:



However, the Indore authorities specifically ordered some of these,



and some other higher, non-letter rate, values to be supplied imperforate in 1933, and issued them for use in the late 1930s.

My theory (and it's only a theory) is that, as these stamps were higher values, and they were only for government use, the authorities decided to save on the cost of perforating, since they would only be required occasionally.

The imperf 4 Anna stamp above would have paid the registered letter rate, and the cancellation is from a smaller post office. It seems likely then that these imperfs were distributed to places where having to cut the stamps from sheets wouldn't be too much of a nuisance.