Sc. 632 And 633 Design Vs. Nebr. And Kans. Versions And Sc. 571 Sizes

Thank you both. Well, I just find this size topic interesting. And it's not me giving these measurements and fine differences of 0.25mm. When I read a specialized literature like Micarelli's book and find that there are size differences between the rotary stamps before and after 1930 - wouldn't you ask yourself why this happened? There is no explanation at all in Scott or Micarelli about the size differences, so I ask here. And actually I don't measure at all, I only compare, like shown above the three examples, and there is a difference you can see without ruler or magnification. Isn't in interesting what is the reason for it? I think this is important for learning to ask such questions. And as we see most collectors think that there are just two sizes of stamps of that time, flat and rotary, but Micarelli says, there are more sizes.

Something is wrong with the picture or the stamp on the left is not a rotary press stamp. In order to compare image sizes, the same scanner should be used, ideally with both stamps in the scan. To compare the images should be straightened using a program like Photoshop Elements. The stamps should be examined carefully. I doubt if paper shrinkage is a factor unless one of the stamps is soaked for a very long time and then dried with a hair dryer or a heat gun.

I believe what Micarelli is referring to is a subtle change in plate spacing but the designs would remain the same size.

Other mischief is possible. The stamp was issued as flat plate perf 11 and imperforate, horizontal coil and vertical coil and as rotary press imperforate, perf 10 and perf 11 x 10 1/2 sheet stamps. Someone could have added perf 10 perforations to a flat plate imperf or to the top or sides of a coil stamp or to an imperforate rotary press sheet stamp. It should be noted that a vertical coil stamp is slightly taller than a rotary press sheet stamp because the cylinder on the press used to print vertical coils was smaller. Finally, flat plate and rotary press paper will have a slightly different texture and feel.

I recently found a 631 that someone added perfs to to make it a 633, obviously for practice. So it does occasionally happen even with common inexpensive stamps.

hello Clark and revcollector,

I made a new picture showing some stamps. We shouldn't investigate about the 582, this stamp is ok, as mentioned it has the right size for a rotary stamp. My thoughts were about the other stamp 633 which then would be the 22.75mm.

Am I the first one to compare the different rotary sizes? Well, at least Micarelli did, but he didn't always right. As you can see in the scan, the perf 10.5 5c and the 1.5c are taller than the perf 10 counterpart, and especially than the 3 cents. I don't have the time now to check all the different sizes in Micarelli. When I began this thread I actually thought that this topic would certainly be known and analyzed. But it seems that we don't know why and when there were different rotary sizes. My first thought was that the stamps after 1930 were taller, maybe just for the Nebr. Kans. stamps, but when we get closer we see that also earlier stamps like the 633 are taller.



(Yes all stamps in one scan and no scaling, only straightening in Photoshop.)

I find that using the transparent U.S. Precision Multi-Gauge to be very useful since it has different measurement templates to match against for different design sizes and the Kiusalas perforation gauge on it is also helpful.

I think the mentioned Multi-Gauge isn't exact, too. I checked it with some industry calibrated rulers, especially the template for rotary vs. flat is wrong. -- But anyway I didn't use any ruler or multi-gauge above, I just compared with the eyes and as in the image in a scan. The differences are obvious and no need for a gauge here :).

Actually, we do know. The size of the rotary press design did not change. I did a quick search of the archives of the "US Specialist" on the United States Stamp Society site and found nothing. I have the Micarelli book handy, but I don't recall seeing any reference to changes to the size of Fourth Bureau rotary press stamp designs. The only reference I know of is an unexplained difference in the height of a pair of 613 compared to the general population. The comparison would be helped by sticking to like denominations. The lower right 3 cent stamp is out of place and looks almost like a Scott 600 coil with perforations added top and bottom. It would be necessary to carefully compare design widths in addition to design height.

I am not a fan of making up new "facts" without research or evidence to back up the result.

Try pinging Ken Lawrence on the other SCF board. I am not sure if he monitors this board.

Thank you again, also for your research. Of course it's not me the expert and I don't want to proclaim any discovery, but only some observations.

I must be a big coincidence if I took even twice a coil with perforation added :). I did not search long for a stamp which could help my idea, but just took the first I saw in my album. So I don't think the perf 10 3c and 1.5c I showed above were coils, as they just have the normal size for rotary (22.5mm). The interesting stamps are those which are taller (22.75mm+, nearly 23mm), like the 1.5c in the middle which appears generally large.

But here I show another 3c and a 14c as other examples. Of course we can also concentrate on one denomination, then I would suggest the 1.5c. Perhaps you can give me a hint which stamp(s) would be helpful to scan and compare. Or you or others can have a look at their own 1.5c perf 10 and perf 11x10.5 and additionally as comparison on the 3c.

About the resources: I only have the 6th Micarelli edition and there the size (height) is different for the stamps of this issue before 1930 (=22.5mm height) and after (=22.75mm height). Only exception is the 632 (22.75) and 693 (22.5). But these differences in the Micarelli book seem to be distributed by chance there, as I didn't find a taller 696 for example in my album, but a 633 which should have 22.5 (see above) and so on. For the two stamps I show here in this post, they are correct with Micarelli.