1891 Small Queen Error/Reentry?

Here is another example from the same issue but on the 3c. These are definitely collectible.

jimjung...That is a beauty..wow

Robert

Yes, quite a stamp Jimjung. Have you measured the height of the inked design?

No, I haven't measured it but hang on.

I measured it right down the middle of the stamp at 21.7 mm but only by eye. Looks to be just a bit more than 21.5 but not quite to 22 mm. Tough to get it more exact. Is there a better method to measure?

Jimjung, I measured mine by eye with a fine lined ruler first. Yes it is a bit tough on the eyes

With the image above I scanned the two stamps side by side in the middle of my scanner (more accurate there), then pieced the halves together. The grid is a feature of the program I use, PaintShop Pro 10 (yes, I still use that old software!). The grid is set in millimeters.

I think your measurement helps confirm that some dry prints of the small queens are taller than the wet prints.

Very nice stamp. Beautiful centering.
It looks like the whole stamp was short of ink.

Scan it side by side with another of same value like BeeSee suggested.
Then you can compare height. Mine was a hair shorter not taller.

The mysteries of the small queens.

Perhaps your other stamp was a dry printing too. They do not all show missing ink.

Also, depending on the mesh of the paper, the shrinkage could vary. Both my stamps have a distinct horizontal mesh, which would show shrinkage more in the vertical direction.

Stamps with a vertical mesh would have less shrinkage in the vertical direction, more in the horizontal.