Wash/Frank Imperforate Stamps.

Probably a dumb question but are the Wash/Frank perfed by the private companies (Schermack etc.) still considered imperforate? Finally got around to trying to watermark a few stamps and see if I can fill a few holes. The process is actually going better than I expected. Thanks for any possible help.

No, the Shermacks are perforated. They were imperforated when they left the printer's but as soon as the company perforated them they became perforated.

Peter

Good question; all US stamps of that era started life as imperforates until they got perforated. The private perf stamp simply took a while longer to receive their perforations.

In my opinion private perforated stamps are considered perforated.
Don

So to fill a empty space in my album the stamp should still be imperforate if that is what the empty space is calling for? Scott 343 for example.

They are called Vending and Affixing Machine Perforations, and are in that section of the Scott Specialized catalog.

davef,
Yes, to fill the space for the 343 you should not use a private perforated stamp.
Don

Imperforate stamps are just that. No perforations of any kind.
In fact people sometimes take 534B examples with Shermack perfs and trim them trying to create a regular 538B. Doing so is just like fraudulently trimming any other perforated stamp.

Thank you for all your help. Looks like I'll have a few more spaces to fill. I probably should have paid more attention to this series many moons ago. I just kept throwing them in a box and unless the watermarks stood out like a beacon just kept avoiding them.

There seems to be two different answers to this question. If copies of the stamp are available without the private perforations then they are considered perforated. If all know copies private perforations, then they are considered imperf.



http://www.theswedishtiger.com/314A-scotts.html

or



http://www.theswedishtiger.com/482A-scotts.html

If you look at the listing in the Scott Catalog, they are both referred to as "imperf" too.

Any stamp not perforated by the Bureau is an imperforate. Regardless of the private perfs applied, Scott uses the imperforate catalog number.

Dave, now you are as confused as the rest of us. I have a suggestion. Take a privately perforated stamp and try to sell it as an imperforate.

Peter

If it has perforations it is not perforated. Let common sense prevail. It started without perforations. It was then perforated. It is now a perforated stamp because it has perforations. When I purchase it I am not purchasing a imperf stamp with perforations. I am purchasing a perforated stamp with perforations.

Agreed. If Scott calls a privately perforated stamp anything but perforated they need common sense pills. After all, the Post Office Department sold the rolls of stamps to the private companies specifically to be perforated for use in dispensers.

Peter

I think I remember now why I put this off 40 years ago. I have most of the used stamps from present back to the Wash/Franks time and decided to try in fill in some blank spaces with extras I have picked up.

I confess I was putting Schermarks in those spots. I guess the next project will be pulling those out and looking for the correct ones.

What started this was I purchased a few on the stampwants web site that were to be inperforate and I received several of the Schermarks.

davef,

Careful. There are a lot of altered (fake) imperforated Washington Franklins out there. And coils too.

Jack Kelley

There is no right or wrong way to do this; if you want to use imperforate stamps with private perforations to fill your empty spaces in your collection, and YOU are comfortable with that, then do so.

If you feel it is absolutely necessary to have stamps which were never perforated in any way, shape or fashion, and YOU are comfortable with that, then do so.

This is one of the great things about stamp collecting - your collection belongs to YOU and YOU get to decide what goes in it!

Some people seem to lose sight of that, every once in a while....