Scott 1700A Or 1700e

Here is a little stamp investigation...This cover below has a single stamp from the Scott 1700a booklet..




Now most collectors would look at it and not give it a second thought...Unfortunately I was trained to think-out-of-the-box (Good thing,but sometimes a bad thing)...Notice how far off center the stamp is..?

Now here is a possibilities of 2 different things that could have caused it.

1 - The die cut was off terribly..That would explain the part stamps in the top and right side of the stamp...Nice variety

2 - OR, OR, this is a Scott 1700e...Notice the extra part stamps as shown by the RED arrows...BUT, notice there is NO die cut shown by the BLUE arrows as to where it should be....Now think for a moment, IF, IF a customer bought the booklet from the post office and brought it home to find out they could not peel off a single stamp and just worked around it by using scissors to cut a stamp out, this may prove that the booklet was missing the die cut .

This is a stamp that is frustrating to identify as shown in the close up below...Any ideas, or comments....?

Robert

Of course I am just kidding you Robert. It will be interesting if more knowledgeable folks can answer your question definitively.
Don

Robert, I think the die-cutting is "off terribly". I am sure I can see the part of the vertical cut between your red arrows in the top right.

Don, I am a flyspecker myself. Why is the word flyspeccer misspelled?


Peter

Hi Peter,
Because I just whipped up the image based on my frustration when I get cross eyed with a flyspeck problem like Robert posted. I go outside to 'renew'. How is it spelled?
Don

Don my old friend, I can always count on you to give me a zinger or two...haha




BeeSee...If you have the stamp in hand, you will see no die cut at all..look at pictured of top right corner..added light to see texture and no die cut.


Robert

Well if Ms. Tran cut the stamp out, she is a very straight cutter, yet cannot find the spaces between the stamps!

It is a very strange situation with this stamp..Look at the comparison of this stamp and a regular die cut stamp...Using a calliper (and remember your eyes and everyone else's eyes read a little off), but the normal stamp is approx. 19.8 mm top and bottom and 24.3 mm right and left side.

The stamp on the cover measures 19.8 mm to and bottom, but 27.2 mm left and right side...see the stamps side by side in the picture below...Cover on right stamp.



Below is where the stamp came from on the booklet where the RED squares are circling them.



In conclusion I believe that this is a booklet (stamp) that did not receive a horizontal die cut because the bottom selvedge of both stamps are equal in size...Also if the de cut had been shifted up, you would not have that standard selvedge on the bottom.

I do believe this came from a booklet that DID NOT get a horizontal die...Does that sound about right..?

Robert, is it possible that it is what we call here "printer's waste"?


Peter

Now that is a thought Peter..But no way of proving it unless I contact the sender of the cover I have.

Robert

I think that it is imperforate horizontally and mis-aligned vertically die cutting at the same time.

Although it is possible that the verticals were hand cut, I don't believe that to be the case (IMHO).

I had nine booklets of the vertically mis-aligned die cut SC 1700 stamps, but the horizontal die cut was correct on all nine.

There are horizontally imperforate 46 cent 'Flag over Iceberg' stamps (SC 1698ii) as well.