Different Perforations That Aren't Mentioned In Catalogs.

I have two pairs of stamps that differ in perforations. Thought that every perforation gets its own cat number, but couldn't find it. Any idea why?

The first pair is from Latvia. Am I right in assuming they have different perforation?



Second pair is from Bulgaria.

The first pair you show is not gauged correctly. Either that or there is something funny going on with the perfs. The Bulgarian set looks like the second stamp has some sort of syncopated perforations. Usually if there are different perforations on a set of stamps that will be indicated in a good catalog, especially a specialized one.
As far as your perforation gauge is concerned, may I suggest you get one that is easier to use?

Peter

I agree. The Uni-Safe Metal UNITRADE Postage Stamp Perforation Gauge with Slot is easy to use.

Thank you for your help.
I'm using simplified Scott and SG catalogs - shouldn't they be enough?
As for the Latvian stamps - don't they look different, even to the naked eye?

I believe simplified catalogs do not show differences in perforation or for that matter varieties of any kind.
Also, it is hard to tell a difference in the Latvian stamps on white background. Please use black for better contrast.

Peter

The Latvian stamp....Sc 176....supposedly comes perforated in 6 versions, 10, 10 1/2, 10 3/4, 11 1/2, 10 by 10 1/2, and 10 1/2 by 10. The rarest being the last 2 types. This from Lettland Handbuch Philatelie und Postgeschichte by Harry v. Hoffman. Scott's lists only the 10 and 10 1/2 perforations.

Scott, in the past, would round the perforation gauge to the nearest half gauge. So two stamps, one perf. 9.8 and the other perf. 10.2, would both be listed in the Scott catalog as perf. 10. This may be the case with the Latvia stamps.

With respect to the Bulgaria stamps, the Scott editors may not be aware of the perf. change. You might want to contact them about the difference. I did that once for a perf. change on a modern Tanzania postage due stamp that I came across--it's now listed in the catalog.

Robert

There's simplified and simplified. Gibbons's Stamps of the World doesn't indicate perforations. Its simplified GB catalogue, which is a different animal, does.

Here's a scan on a black background. From John's reply, I guess I was right.
How do Scott and SG mark these stamps? An additional letter after the cat number?

Now you got it. It is clear that you have two different perforations there. Now all you have to do is find a decent gauge and you are set.
As far as how Scott marks these stamps - no idea if they even list these varieties. Main thing is, again to find the correct perforation. And probably a better catalog ( see John Freiberg's post . Sometimes general catalogs will mention the existence of some varieties in a footnote, but for this particular stamp you will need something more sophisticated.

Peter

Here is a copy of a copy of the listing in Scott's followed by the first page of 7 in the v.Hoffmann book

Thaks for your help. I admit that buying more specialized catalogs is not in my budget at the moment (a bit unemployed), so I really appreciate your support and efforts.

These Latvia stamps of 1934 are in both perf. 10 and perf. 11, not mentioned in the concise catalogue, although the 40s perf. 10 doesn't even get a mention in the specialist SG catalogue. Both are about as plentiful as each other. Can't help you with the Bulgarian stamps, though.

That seems correct Trainwreck. The perf difference in your case is 0.4

The following could also happen:

A stamp is perf 10.2 (rounded to perf 10) and another is 10.4 (rounded to perf 10.5) so both are listed, despite the actual difference of being only 0.2.

Rob Roy- there is at least one free-to-use online stamp catalog: https://www.stampworld.com/en/

It may not have Scott or Gibbons numbers but may provide you with insights as to various varieties. I don't use the catalog so I am not certain how in-depth the listings may be.

Stampworld is great for a general collector, but does not show varieties as a rule.

Peter