Come On Guys - Am I The Only Poster Out There..haha

Hi gys...Bought a huge box of 60's...70's..etc stamps for $3.00 and going through them, only trouble is there are about 3000 to go through..

Anyways, here is a quiz for you..Look at this Scott # 715...Is the stamp on the right a "miss perf" or is it printed "off center"..

HINT..Look at the tagging.
Robert



---------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another oddity..Look at this Scot # 789a-as...One is a lot bigger than the other..weird.



---------------------------------------------------------------------

And one last imperf error..<in this Scott # 927c

Robert, some fun stuff there. The first one is weird. I have never heard of a stamp being printed off center. Printing is normally done first, perforation and tagging later? By the way, is that a plate crack in the C of Canada?
The second scan looks almost like two different stamps, or at least two separate printings. Look at the Queen's head, it is much more defined on the second stamp!
The third stamp is not imperforate, but looks more like a coil. To be imperforate the perfs have to be missing on all four sides. I would call it a mis-perforated coil stamp.

Peter

Sorry Peter, that was a slip of the tongue from me..Must have been day dreaming...

Robert

A bulk lot is indeed fun. I agree with Peter, on the first image the printing occurs first then perforating so "printed off center" would not be an accurate description of the cause or effect here. (Although an overprint such as a surcharge or local precancel applied to the finished panes of stamps could be "printed off center")

On the right example, the red ink and the tagging are mis-registered. The perfs align better with the tagging than the red ink, but not off by enough to split the red design onto 2 stamps. So in the realm of error-freak-oddity, I would consider this only a minor production oddity - still interesting though. Not dissimilar to your 32 cent coil, the centering is bad, but not bad enough to become "good" as a perforating error.

At what point is the tagging applied? It looks to me that the tagging and perfing might be done at the same time. I'm not familiar with the production processes for manufacturing stamps but some products I have worked on had ink-jet labels applied on the edges at the same time they were die-cut.

The pane (SC 789) and two different booklet stamps (SC 789a and SC 797a) in my collection are all exactly the same size.

I'm not aware of any other uses of this issue.

The booklet stamp is four-sided perforated 13.0 x 13.3.
The two booklet stamps have the same 12.0 x 12.5 perforations.

Copying and reversing the larger stamp's top margin on top of the smaller stamp's top margin, the horizontal perforations are a perfect fit.

Moving the larger stamp closer to the smaller stamp shows a very small discrepancy in the vertical perforations.

This suggests that the size difference is not due to stretching or shrinking the stamp by soaking.



Unless anyone else has an explanation why the larger version exists, I suggest that you submit it for certification.

My guess is that the stamp came from a booklet where the perforation was centred high. So the corresponding top stamp would be short.

This occurs on some Canadian booklets. The overall pane sizs does not change, just the location of the perforations.