Scott # 166 - New Wet/Dry Printings..?

Hi guys...I was going through some of my stamps and came across two Scott # 166's...Something right away caught my eye...The frames looked different...So I looked in my 2014 Unitrade catalogue on page 25 under the title "paper"...It states...

Certain values or the "Arch" or "leaf" issue (1930) and "Medallion" issue (1932) were produced using two different types of printing press.

Now the Scott #166 (King George V "Arch/Leaf" issue) was as far as I know printed in 1931...Not in 1930 (I could be wrong)...Anyways, Take a look at my pictures first to see the difference in the width of the stamp picture itself..









Now here is what is bothering me..Unitrade makes no reference to wet/dry printings in Scott # 166...only one of the following things could have happened.

1 - Like the reference to (page 25) rotary/flat bed printers is correct..??

2 - Did the wet/dry process continue into 1931 when it states that it did not happen..??

3 - Did the printing company to get their product out the door faster use old stock mixed in with the new stock (wet/dry)..??

Just bugs me why the 1931 printing of Scott #166 has two different widths of stamps...Is number two a theory..?...Any ideas..??

Wert: Yes, you are correct in your above stamp observation.

Wet rotary press printing was used in the Arch/Leaf Issue from 1930 to 1932.

The SHEET stamp (A) [166, Die II] is wet rotary press printed (perforated 11.25 x 10.95).

The BOOKLET stamp (B) [166cs, Die I] is flat plate press dry printed (perforated 10.95 x 10.95).

I wish that Canada stamp catalogs would have this important basic stamp information.

This is found in the booklet on the following page: www.stickneyrotarypress.com

[The right side "P" in "POSTAGE" has a larger spot in it in Die II than in Die I.]

[For this stamp, Die I and Die II are found for both wet rotary press sheet stamps
(166b and 166) and for dry flat plate press booklet stamps (166cs and 166as).]

Where are the Canada stamp catalog editors when you really need them?
It is hoped that they can take note of these things for their BNA catalogs.

There is another possibility: the catalog editors and other experts have considered your options and decided that they are not correct. This is especially true with items that are many years in the past.

You should contact the editors directly to outline your conclusions. They may or may not be able to give you a rationale why an item is or is not listed.

Glenn Estus

Glenn Estus...First of all to the forum.

""You should contact the editors directly to outline your conclusions.""

Ahhhhh.....not a good idea....haha
read the link below and you will see why.

https://goscf.com/t/37012