Different Information On Design Sizes For 2c 546

Hello,

in Scott and other publication and as I knew before, the 2c 546 is a rotary printing with design size about 19,5mm x 22mm. This is also what says Scott. But in Micarelli's identification book it says the size of the 546 is 19mm x 22,5mm. Are there different versions of the rotary printing or is this just an error in Micarelli? (page 108 in the 6th edition).

In my opinion design dimensions are the worse criteria to consider when identifying stamps. The dimensions supplied in catalogs and books are typically 'averages' or estimates. The levels of tolerances far exceed the accuracy needed to be used for an easy method for IDing US stamps.
Don

Hi Don, I think this is true for those mm measurements about 0.25mm, but for looking for differences of flat and rotary and differences of 0.5mm or even 0.75mm, this is a good way to differenciate for me (beside lack of setoff on the back which is no 100% parameter). So I really would like to know if there are different rotary design sizes or if this is an error in the book?

(by the way I dont mean necessarily measuring by ruler but also by template)

You can take inexpensive stamps and trim them to use as gauges rather than getting a scale (ruler) out.

Yes this is exactly what I wrote above :) when I said "template". Well, this thread really isn't about measuring or exact mm sizes, but about the question if there are different rotary design sizes or if this is an error in the book.

No.

[Quote modified for clarity. Applicable to Washington/Franklin, Fourth Bureau and the Presidential Issue.]

thank you - so the Scott information is correct (19,5mm x 22mm), not the Micarelli?

I puzzled over a stamp that seemed to be a 546. It's a type III which was used only on the rotary press. Micarelli (19.5 x 22.5) and Scott (19.5-20 x 22) are inconsistent, as noted above. I measured this one using the Photoshop ruler as 19.6 x 22.35, which doesn't fit either Micarelli or Scott. I then found that Schmid's "The Expert Book" gives a third alternative of 19.5-20.0 x 22.0-22.4 and the stamp I'm looking at is within these dimensions. My speculation is that 546 can be printed vertically or horizontally on the rotary press and this explains the range of dimensions.

Angore, perhaps this would be a good time to post a brief tutorial on how to trim a stamp and use it as a gauge. I for one have forgotten how to do this.

Grandpa,
http://stampsmarter.com/learning/Ma...methods.html
Don

PerZakley what I was after Don!

If you have a #546 with a design stretched vertically I've got a $10,000 check with your name on it. Seriously.

However, given the inaccuracy of measuring designs versus a direct comparison between known flat plate and rotary press examples, you could have a #500, flat plate printing, with partial shading lines in the ribbon that mimics type III. I bought a #500 as a #546 for that very reason. Price not much different but it's an interesting variety.

Yes, there are many errors in Micarelli's book. On the next same page, also the information about the 1c horizontal coil 448 and 486 seems to be wrong, at least if Scott specialized is correct.

We don't talk about measuring 0.01mm with a ruler here, it's about obvious design size differences. For example the 448 and 486 is given in Micarelli with a height of 22mm, in Scott specialized with 22.5mm. This is quite different and could be seen easily without a loupe or ruler, only with a template, if there were two different sized stamps on the desk.

So is the information about the 448 and 486 correct in Scott specialized, as I supposed (height of 22.5mm)?

If Scott specialized is correct, I still wonder: wasn't the 542 a coil waste from the horizontal coils?
Scott specialized says:
542: 19mm x 22.5-22.75mm
448/486: 18.5-19mm x 22.5mm

So it can't be the same stamp at origin?

Speculation should not replace research.

Scott 542, perf 10 x 11, is well documented as the first US rotary press sheet stamp. When the side perforations changed from 11 to 10, the stamp was listed as Scott 543. The perf 11 Scott 544 was produced from imperforate "sheet waste' not perforated normally. Horizontal rows of 542 and 543 were with a bar perforator after the vertical rows were perforated with a line perforator. As with other rotary press sheet stamps, except sheet waste, perforations were aligned between horizontal rows. Almost all rotary press sheet stamps had gum breakers. Vertical coils were produced on a Stickney press with a smaller cylinder. Resulting rotary press vertical coil stamps are very slightly taller than rotary press sheet stamps. Different plates were used. Check the 2016 Durland Standard Plate Number Catalog from the United States Stamp Society for details.

Measurements provided from the sources mentioned are approximate. None of them can be reliably used to distinguish rotary from flat plate printings. While a template is useful, any flat plate sheet stamp can be used to compare design size for width or height. Flat plate booklet pane stamps are slightly wider and shorter than sheet stamps and may be confused with rotary press coil waste stamps by neophytes. Measurement from a crude steel, plastic or wood ruler will not produce useful results. Many size differences, noticeable by comparison or in a high-resolution scan are too small to be measured using approximate dimensions from Scott catalog.

A booklet pane size comparison is shown below. A scan comparison of a 545 block will follow when time permits.



By the way, don't believe everything you read on ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...R0.TRC0.H0.X381871817460.TRS5&_nkw=381871817460&_sacat=0

thank you very much for the information. Indeed I was a bit fast in writing, as I did only want to give an answer in my own old thread that Pedigo brought up again. I only looked some moments and found the 542 categorized as coil waste at sales of Kelleher, Spink Shreves, Harmer and Siegel. Which is wrong as I learned now. Also it's kind of embedded in coil waste issues in the Scott numbering.

So of course it's clear now that it has not to be the same size than any coil stamp before. Still I think that design size differences between Micarelli and Scott specialized of 0.5mm for example are important enough to think about them. At least I always stop when I find such a difference and wonder which one is correct, as small design differences can, as you show, be because of sheet vs. booklet stamps, special booklet paper, flat vs. rotary, different coil orientation... so something very interesting to make some research in (instead of using Google for some seconds as I did above).

The differences don't have much significance because the dimensions given in various catalogs are too imprecise to be useful.