Small Queens Perforation Question 12.25 Or 12.30

There are some Small Queens stamps that vertically perf 12.25 or 12.30 from the late Montreal printings. The question that I want to know is if they perf 12.25 or 12.30?

I have a couple of loose singles and 4 covers of this stamp, Scott 41a Rose Carmine. When I measure them, they all appear to be closer to 12.25 than 12.30. But of course it is difficult to tell this small difference on single stamps. If anyone has vertical multiples, that would help in determining the true gauge.

As such, it is possible that Kiusalas 12-64 = 12.30 may be close but not perf 12.25

Yes I agree Jogil. When I put all three stamps below on my Kiusalas gauge, they do not quite match 12-64. They match better with 12.25 on my standard gauge.



I have aligned the vertical perforations to prove they are all the same.

The middle stamp is not dated but is clearly 41a, rose carmine, the Montreal Gazette printing. The right stamp is dated 1896. Perf 12 x 12.25 is also known 1896-97, the last printings of the 3c vermillion.

The left stamp is a bit of a mystery. It is clearly perf 12 x 12.25, but the date is 1886. The shade is pre-second Ottawa, but obviously not from the Montreal Gazette printing.

I checked the above three stamps again. I am quite certain that they are closer to 12.2 or 12.25.

I assume they would have been perforated with "A wheel with 196 pins or holes which gave around 12.25 (12.19) perforations per 2cm (1868 to 1897)" on page 37 of your book.

Anyone know the earliest date for perf 12 x 12.5 12 x 12.25 on the small queens?

Correction as above.

Jogil, the 12 x 12.5 comes from the 1888 printings done at the Gazette. Additionally, the last Ottawa printings in 1896 & 1897 were also 12 x 12.25

BeeSee, I don't believe that any of the Small Queens were perforated 12 x 12.5. Unless I have missed something, the only time a 12.5 was used was in 1870 when a few stamps were perforated 12.5 x 12.5.

Just as a piece of general information, collectors should not get bent out of shape over minor variances in the perforations because there is on some occasions, shrinkage in the stamp. Remember that printing plants were not air conditioned in the 19th century and there can be a large difference in stamp dimensions caused by paper expansion and contraction. Dramatic examples can be found by examining "tall thin" stamps.

GJP

Sorry, that is a typo! I meant 12 x 12.25

gportch: Is the new information in your Unitrade Canada catalogue 2017 Small Queens perforation chart?

More 12 x 12.25 information:

According to an updated "Shoemaker" table in BNAPS BNA Topics, Jul-Aug-Sep 1999 No.3, the 3c Small Queen is know perf 12 x 12.25 dated Sep 13, 1888 in "Dull Orange". It is classified as a regular Montreal printing, not a Montreal Gazette printing.

Perhaps my 1886 stamp shown above is an earlier known date of this one?

I don't think any of my stamps have expanded or contracted.

I found this helpful in understanding paper moisture http://printwiki.org/Moisture_Content. "Dimensional changes usually cause the most problems in multi-color printing work, as dimensional changes that occur between passes through the press can result in misalignment of successive colors." I assume the same holds true for the perforation process.
Don

Jogil. Thanks for asking but the perf chart is (again) in the upgrading mode. The Unitrade catalogue has not published any changes in this info for 2017. I agree with that decision and plan to get it right before Unitrade updates.
GJP

Thanks for that link Don, an interesting read.

I design machines for the plywood industry, which includes giant veneer dryers that dry 4 ft x 8 ft thin sheets of peeled veneer that are used for the plywood laminations. The part in the Printwiki that talks about shrinkage and moisture content of paper applies exactly the same to the veneer, except it is the glue for lamination rather than ink that works best under certain moisture conditions.

When comparing stamps, I think that measuring the printed design size would would indicate if different amounts of shrinkage occured. As for perforating, I ASSUME that was done well after the printing, so by then the stamps would be at there final size.

As for my 12 x 12.25 stamps, the printed area measures the same on all of them, so I believe my measurements are accurate. I measured them with three non-electronic gauges; a standard 1/4 increment gauge, another that measures to 1 decimal place, i.e. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 etc. and Kiusalas.

gportch: Do you have an updated chart that is available for Small Queens perforations?
BeeSee: These older stamps were printed and dried then gummed and dried before being perforated.

So lets say a large stack of printed, gummed stamps were sitting on a pallet in front of the perforator line. It is Friday afternoon and the Relative Humidity (RH) in the plant is 20%; they start the run and perf the stamp exactly at 12 but only finish half the run before going home for the weekend. The RH in the plant raises over the weekend and on Monday morning it is now 70%. Would the resulting stamps still be the exact same perf as the ones run when RH was 20%? (I assume that the paper on the top and around the edge would be affected the most while the paper in the middle of the stack would not be as hydroscopic.)
Don

I cannot get close to the accuracy of five parts in 1200 when perfing stamps. At best, maybe I get within one quarter perf, i.e. 25 per 1200. I beg to differ with the computerized perfing software, one cannot just pick a start and end perf then divide by the number between! The process requires you of judge based on average spacing between holes. PS the gauge has to be perpendicular to the holes as well too.