Canada Small Queen #40 10c With Guide Dot

I have this 10c small queen, perf 12 all around, that clearly has a lower left guide dot. However, the Unitrade 2016 table on page 55 does not indicate any guide dots at all for the 10c printings.

I assumed ALL values of the small queens have guide dots on the first Ottawa and early Montreal printings (except the left column).

BeeSee, the enlarged picture is out of focus and I can not blow it up. But it looks like it may not necessarily be a guide dot. It looks on my monitor that the dot is not sharply outlined, which I think most guide dots are.
Just my two cents - I would love to see a clearer picture.

Peter

Peter, the scan was done at 1200dpi, that is as sharp as it will get. The lower left corner is still at 1200dpi while I reduced the size of the whole stamp. It appears to be printed from a worn plate. Under a 10x glass it is no clearer.

This is my only 10c stamp. I just checked ebay and have seen a few other stamps that clearly have the dots. I suspect the Unitrade table is in error.

Here is an ebay listing with a dot, http://www.ebay.com/itm/311513211661



Oddly it is described as a late (brown) Ottawa printing, Unitrade #45, which should have NO DOT.

BeeSee, on your last picture it looks clearly like a guide dot. Somehow your stamp is out of focus on my computer - not the overall picture but just the thumbnail. Anyway, maybe you need to send all this info to Robin?

Peter

I scanned it again right beside a 3c fairly sharp printing - you can see the wear difference.

There was only one plate for the 10 cent Small Queen and it was used both in Montreal and Ottawa. There were no "first Ottawa" printings. The Ottawa printings of 1889 - 97 do have dots as they used the same plate.

GJP

Thanks for clarifying that GJP. So my stamp could easily be a 45 rather than a 40.

The perforations are 12.1 (K65), so guess it is 45a or 45b (dull rose or pink).

Hi BeeSee. I am going to hazard a guess that your stamp is a 45 because it appears to be more pink (salmon) than violet. Neither the Nixon/Hillson book on the subject nor my own research indicates a 10 cent Small Queen perforated 12.1. The Ottawa printings (1890 and later) are all perforated 12 x 12 with the 1897 printings being 12 x 12.25 (see Nixon page 187).

Because the single plate of 100 subjects was made in 1874, it would be reasonable to assume that the standard procedure for position dots was followed resulting in dots in the lower left of all stamps except those in the first column (again, see Hillson/Nixon pages 10 and 11).

By the way, no need to bombard Robin with emails about this posting. He is aware of the discussion and we are doing something about it.

Also, by the way, I heartily recommend that anyone who is actively and seriously collecting Small Queens should have a copy of the book by John Hillson & Ted Nixon. It is the definitive work on the issue and contains answers to most of the Small Queen questions posed on this Forum. The book is available through the Greene Foundation with purchase details on the Foundation website (www.greenefoundation.ca)

GJP

I just measured it again first with my Unitrade gauge, and yes it could easily be 12. But it really does fall somewhere between 12 and 12.1, definitely not below. And it is definitely not 11.5 x 12 or 12 x 12.25. The difference between 12 and 12.1 is really hard to differentiate with a gauge, especially on the top and bottom because of fewer holes. You really need a pair or greater multiples.

On single stamps, if the last two perf pins that are measured were bent slightly to the left or right, it will make a difference in the reading.

I have now measured the perfs using the SCB (Stamp Collecting Blog) electronic gauge and a 1200 dpi image, and it indicated 12.05 on the top and sides, and 12.08 on the bottom.

As for colour, I think you are correct GJP. There is definitely no violet in it.