How To Measure Stamp Design?

Do I measure from the design only or the whole entire stamp?

The "design size" is the colored part of the stamp. That size is usually constant in a series.

I measured the design of a 1923 Harding on three different stamps. From left to right it was 19mm on all three and then 22mm on the 2 with a perf of 11x11 perf and the other was 22.5 with a 9.5 x 11perf. When I went to look the sizes up there wasn't nothing on those sizes. 610-611-612-613 Scott all of then was not accurate.

I'm using a PERFECTOGAUGE.

Thank You!
Historical DNA Collector

Hello,
does "design" include the text(s) outside the real picture - I mean the year and decription(s)?

For stamps with a rectangular outer frame, you measure the outside of the frame. You would measure between the red lines:



A template made from a cheap stamp is quick and easy. Pick a cheap flat plate stamp:

http://1847usa.com/washfrank/printingmethods.htm

A ruler accurate to 0.1mm works. A set of measuring calipers works, just be careful and use some clear plastic to protect the stamp. Some specialty gauges have a window like my picture that are quick and easy to use but cost about $18.

The reason to measure design size is useful to determine flat plate or rotary printing. For example, this is used to help identify different types in the Washington/Franklin series. The flat plate prints are nearly all the same size. They might differ up to 0.3mm or so. Rotary prints can be wider or taller by anywhere from 0.5 to 0.75mm. Some are wider by 0.25mm and taller by 0.75mm. Some are the opposite.

If your stamp measures at or above the listed design size for a rotary stamp, then you can be 99.9% sure that it is a rotary print.

Oliver, for that series of stamp, you just need to measure from the top to bottom.

22.25 mm or less would mean a flat plate printing: 610 or 611 depending on the perfs.

22.5 mm or more would mean a rotary printing: 612 or 613 depending on the perfs.

If you think that you have a 613, then I'd love to see a scan of it here. There are 7 billion people in the world. Only 49 of that stamp have ever been found.

Your PERFECTOGAUGE is made of heavy paper and is not very accurate down to 0.1mm . It also seems that you are confusing yourself. Try identifying them one at a time. I've confused myself at times when I get in a hurry.

I would strongly discourage measuring the design of stamps. Not only is it a slow process, but the results are not likely to be useful using the measurements in the Scott US Specialized Catalog which are specified only to the nearest half millimeter. Comparison with a known rotary press or flat plate stamp is much more effective. Paper shrinkage and paper grain direction will also play a role with flat plate stamps.

United State definitive stamps from 1890 to the 1960s or later were laid out on the die with the nominal dimensions of 3/4" x 7/8". Normal sheet stamps with vertical paper grain shrink primarily in the horizontal direction. Booklet pane singles, 200 subject plate stamps, a couple of First Bureau error printings and Fourth Bureau special paper stamps had horizontal grain and with shrinkage in the vertical direction. In a few cases the same plates were used for wet and dry printings, the effect of no shrinkage with dry printed stamps is quite remarkable when compared with a wet printed examples.

The plates of rotary press stamps were bent to fit on the cylinder of the press effectively stretching the design horizontally for sideways coils and vertically for vertical coils and sheet stamps. Stretching the design resulted in larger differences than occurred with paper shrinkage.

Some third and fourth Bureau regular issue stamps were printed in a horizontal format, but the same observations apply. Rotate the stamp by 90 degrees and treat the sides as the top and bottom.

Clark

Clark,
I thank you for your very informative post. I agree with you absolutely. However, what I have written is based on the audience of a new collector or even an experienced one who does not have access to a reference set or a ~$20 specialist gauge. Many have a few Washington/Franklins in their collection but not enough to build a reference set nor can justify the cost of a specialist gauge.

"nominal dimensions of 3/4" x 7/8" This gives me a new perspective and I will see if I can use that information to be useful to provide information about somewhat accurate measuring devices. Many common household object are at those sizes. Given some experimentation, maybe a "reference set" may be created from non-stamp items.

Regardless, you have given me a rational argument to include more information in my future posts. I will do so.

Thank you,
Ryan

Ryan, You did a fine job of illustrating how to take measurements of a stamp design. However, for the problem that Oliver brought up about non-standard measurements, you were remiss in all that instruction in not warning about the way paper shrinkage can change the numbers. Clark filled that in. On the other hand, Clark suggested substituting comparison with other stamps for a ruling standard. That is certainly the quick and dirty way to do the job, but a lot of learning is taken for granted and lost in the process.

I hope Oliver will take the two sets of responses in hand and figure out how and why these things work.

essayk, you have highlighted an issue that I have been thinking about. Providing all of the details of any one topic in a forum format has many pitfalls. Having a set of pre-written answers seem to be a good but impersonal solution. Writing the same information for varying audiences adds complexity.

The Scott Catalogue and other sources do explain a lot of this information, but in a manner that many beginners will have difficulty understanding. Many sites on the Internet are good resources with clear illustration of the concepts. However, I haven't found any sites that compiles all of them in an easily navigatable manner.

There is a large amount of information to be learned before gaining entry into certain aspects of stamp collecting. Part of the reason why I try to answer so many "newbie" threads here is to further understand the different audiences and refine how I present information. I'm working on an illustrated guide that will hopefully bridge the knowledge gap that is accessible to all.

Often times I fall short of doing that. This thread is a good example. I failed to achieve a balance of providing all of the relevant information in a short enough period of time to keep the reader engaged. I tried make up for that shortcoming by listing an upper and lower measurement threshold for just this series where the gap between them is undefined.

My reply to Clark was poorly explained. There is an issue of "chicken and egg" where one must be able to identify a good reference stamp in the first place. Some people will not have a stamp with a design type and perforation that has only been printed in flat plate. Then the issues of shrinkage, paper grain orientation, and above average size printings further complicate the problem. Certain measurement devices can be accurate enough to do that reasonably well. As Clark pointed out, this is a slow method that also has its pitfalls, but it is accessible and useful for many beginners.

In conclusion, I should delay responding to a post at the end of a day when I'm getting tired. I thank you for relating the two sets of information for Oliver.

I have to respectfully disagree. Many stamps exist in only one format and can be used. For rotary press sheet and horizontal coils, a 1, 2 or 3 cent Presidential issue will work just fine. Any Fourth Bureau rotary press sheet stamp or horizontal coil will have the same design size. Any stamp not matching the height of a rotary sheet stamp or the width of a rotary horizontal coil must be a flat plate printing. It is almost always possible to start from a stamp known to have been only produced one way, like a 7, 8 or 9 cent Prexie.

Flat plate 4 cent through 10 cent perf 11 Washington/Franklin sheet stamps are also very common. Any of them can be safely used as a size template for a normal flat plate sheet stamp. Paper shrinkage is only important when trying to explain the slight size differences between booklet pane and regular sheet stamps or certain high denomination sheet stamps or later special paper printings of the Fourth Bureau on left over flat plate booklet pane paper after production was converted to rotary press.

Clark

To add to the discussion, I've two stamps, both 2cent2 W/Fs Type one, flat plate printings, measuring 11x11 (all sides perf'ed so they are not booklet panes) and unwatermarked. Both with a clear year date cancel, one 1922 and the other 1923. They really can't be anything but #499. Now, all reference sources say the design will measure 18.5 to 19mm by 22mm. Both stamps measure 19mm x 22.5mm, using the Sonic Labs Gauge. Just amplifying that design measurements, compared to common reference material, can be misleading and other factors must be considered in identifying stamps, particularly in the W/Fs. I'm strictly guessing here, since I'm by no means an expert, that the design may have been rocked in somehow differently to create a slightly taller image?

Clark, I stand corrected. You list a few examples that I believe everyone may have one of and can be identified by an untrained eye.

When I started learning to identify the W/F series, it took hours for me to make sure that I wasn't going to cut up a stamp that I would later regret.

I'm sure you remember my 544 thread, that 498 still closely matches a rotary print in size. Input from you and the others has helped me to avoid sending someone else into that pitfall.

I still have a lot to learn and I always appreciate your expert input.

No, not really very likely. The measurements listed by the Scott Catalog are not accurate enough to be useful. A ruler is useless for measuring stamps. A caliper should work or a good scanner with Photoshop elements. Measurements are quite accurate in the stepping direction and should be OK in the optical direction. A properly saved image will contain metadata making it possible for Photoshop to measure within the image. However, don't try to resize the image before taking measurements. Save the original image as a .psd (Photoshop) or TIFF file, not a .jpg.

There are exceptions to every rule. Interior AEF booklet pane singles are perforated on all four sides and one could turn up in a 1 or 2 cent mix, but don't count on it. Other than 500 and the occasional 540, few, if any, of the other rarities likely to be found, not that it is impossible. AEF singles have been found on appropriate World War I covers.

Clark

Well, actually these did come out of a two-cent red mixture..and..I did find a nice #500 in the mixture too. W/Fs are a fascinating study.