Compound Perforations And Control Perfin On Schermack/Scott #392

Just won this funny little stamp on ebay. It was part of a 7-stamp Schermack perfin lot. This stamp has not only the Schermack Type III punches but also what appear to be government 8.5 gauge perforations. Maybe fake, or maybe a missing link with the perforates 12.3 compound perforated Schermack Type III examples.

If real, then either the Type III punches were applied to a roll of Scott #392, or as an experiment they were applied to part-perforated sheet(s) provided by the Bureau to Mailometer. It's interesting to note that this stamp would have been used just after Mailometer prepared its Type III perforation "that would work in its machines and be produced by the Bureau of the Post Office (Belasco)". Thoughts?

For one, have you measured the gauge using a US specialist gauge (Kiusalas, SIL)? That's the first test.

The lines of perfs should be parallel and they don't appear to be.

Roughly punched overall with the holes looking to be too small from the scan. Looks like a bad attempt to clean out unpunched perfs after the stamp was cancelled. I don't think this is real, but the proper specialist gauge should tell us that.

Combination US 8.5 and Schermack III makes no sense whatsoever. If you examine the overall W/F timeline, the P.O. likely ended up at 8.5 because the coils (not to mention sheet stamps) were falling apart at the seams with finer perfs, and the W/F strips still do. An intended combination like this would take everything back to square one, maybe producing even weaker rolls than with perf 12.

It is either very fake or very exciting, I lean towards the former but not positive.

I was intrigued by this stamp as well, but not as much as some. The first thing to check when you get this stamp is the watermark. I suspect it will be a single line watermark. If that is the case, that will be unique in itself. Only 9 Scott 383s with control perfin 45689 were reported in my 2014 census.

When printed all stamps were stored in the imperf state. From there they awaited perforating orders or shipments of imperforate sheets to post offices for the vending and affixing machine companies. They obviously perfoated more than one sheet at a time. Sheets with incomplete perorations must have went back to stock.

I suspect the sheet that your stamp came from was send to the perforator for an order to produce Scott 392 coils. It went back to the store room and was next summoned for a shipment of imperforate sheets that eventually ended up at a Schermack perforator.

This stamp wouldn't really be considered a combination perf. It's more of an anomaly. I have a 344 control perfin that shows a complete line of blind perf 12s the length of the stamp.

If you would be interested to discuss Schermack control perfins please feel free to contact me.

kcarmat, I like your scenario of how this could have been legitimately produced. Note the bottom edge is characteristic of a Schermack stripper edge, but not the top. The top edge could be from the top of the sheet where the selvage was trimmed off as the first step in coiling. Would you happen to have an image of your blind perf 12 example?

Here's the scan. Notice they run almost down the center of the stamp.


The latest information I have for a 45689 on cover is 9/13/1910. That data is based on 2 cent stamps. One cent 45689s were sent as circular mail and only were stamped with the year. Earliest know 383 Schermack is 2/8/1911. As I mentioned there are some known 45689s on a Scott 383, just no know covers.

Earliest known 392 is Dec 16, 1910. Not sure what all means. The fact that Schermacks were perforated in 3 different locations and an individual customer's on hand stamp inventory would come into play, we can only speculate how this might have occurred.

If the stamp turns out to be a double line watermark, then things get real interesting.

http://stampsmarter.com/features/ConPerfHome.html
Don

kcarmat, I'll have to keep an eye out for that variety.

Don, I did go to the Stampsmarter site, found that the cancel on this stamp matches the geometry of the cover illustrated in the perfin census. Thanks!

kcarmat, I finally received the lot this week. Been working late night so haven't had time to post until now. As far as a watermark - I honestly can't find one! Of course it is watermarked, so I'll have to default to single line since they are typically the hardest to see as sometimes only parts of letters are located at the periphery. However, your similar stamp is a #344 so I can't ignore the possibility mine's got a double-line watermark hidden somewhere.

I don't see anything remotely suspicious about the stamp. The perforations gauge 8.5. Some of the chads are folded underneath, and the cancellation clearly post-dates the stress and tearing of the perforating attempt. I'm convinced the perforations started out as completely blind, and can see how such a sheet could be sent out as an imperforate sheet for private perforating and coiling, either by accident or as an intentional usage of waste.

Everyone needs to check their Schermack stamps of the 1910-12 era for even the slightest hint of blind perforations. This is one of those things that you won't find if you're not looking for specifically. Look how light they appear in kcarmat's 11/24 post.

I got the stamp back from the PF today. Their opinion is that it is a genuine Scott #383 Schermack coil with perfin control and "privately-applied 8.5 gauge (approximate) perforations" on the left side. Of course, the 8.5 gauge perforations are on both sides, mostly visible on the right side, so I consider that a typo.

The perforations are in fact slightly farther apart than government 8.5, about a third of a hole out of alignment across an entire side, so I can see why the PF would not declare these to be blind government perforations. I suspect, however, that they are; but given the perf pins only dented the surface in most areas there was some slippage in the perforating machine as the sheet was pulled through that would probably account for that anomaly. Weighing the possibilities between being blind government perfs and being genuine, private perfs (perhaps heretofore unknown as 8.5 gauge?), I'm leaning towards the simpler explanation.

Thank You for the update.

Congratulations !!

Great story! Cool to see things still being discovered and explained (well almost).

Nice one Tipzi!
Very interesting stamp.

Hi

After reading this thread I had to take a closer look at my collection. I have to ask the forum if these types of stamps are common?





I reviewed the Stampsmarter page referenced in the thread and concluded this was the 4,5,7,8 variety. Also referenced in the thread were stamps used on cover by Wanamaker. One of the covers in my collection is a Wanamaker cover without Perfin cancels postmarked a month after a cover on the Stampsmarter site with Perfin cancels. I am wondering if the Perfin cancels were used for a limited amount of time by Wanamaker? Perhaps Schermack stamps with and without Perfin cancels used simultaneously?

Your stamp is not a 4578.

Control perfins are numbered left to right, top to bottom. The basic pattern is for 9 holes. The missing pins become the description. Your stamp is missing 5689. That is a John Wanamaker pattern. The last known cover for 5689 is 10/1/1910.

The control die was removed from the Schermack machine at some point between 10/1/1910 and your cover 11/5/1910.

kc

Thank you. I appreciate your help.