Scott 157 Jackson Size Difference

Any idea why this stamp is so large? both perf 12

The perforating wheels were often set a bit wider/taller around the edge of the press sheets. Most jumbo-graded stamps would come from such corners.

Not a 157 most likely 183

Love the imprint capture on cover.

Very nice... Is this considered as an error too? (as in coins)

No. It's more a fortuitous mis-perf. Note the opposite end of the stamp, perforated into the design.

the terminology is different - in stamps this is considered a freak

Thank you both for the explanations.

Stallzer I like that imprint cover also, I think it's The Continental Bank Note Co. Thanks everyone else for your information.. I get it now.

I would not be afraid to actually identify the stamp as a Continental printed #178.

I agree sinclair2010 that it is a Continental #178

Not in this case. As John Becker said above, the perfing machine was set to allow extra margins all around the outside of the printed area on both panes. As a sheet came into position for perfing, it was natural that some of the marginal printed material would be "captured" along with the stamp design. The nature of the perfing process allowed for the sheet to "float" within the range of the perfing wheels, so the amount of capture varied from one sheet to another. It is nice to observe this, but it was not due to any malfunction. Captures of various kinds are a kind of sub-specialty for some Banknote specialists.

Quite a few years ago Jack Reinhard wrote an article on this subject and had it published in the old journal Strictly US.

While the wider setting did increase the likelyhood of a capture, it didn't happen all the time and was hardly intended, so I still consider it a freak.