#570 Scott 50c Arlington Amphitheater , Need Help With Perf Again :-)

Hope someone can simplify a little for me.

When I read about # 570 it is perf 11. Can't find anything else ... Then I wonder about something, there are different writing methods / designations of perf of different brands, editions etc ??

You do not use perf 1 and perf 2 as standard?

Because I cant find theory around perf at this stamp, mine is 11.3 * 10.5, and then a beginner becomes uncertain, looking for theory and has spent 2,5 hours just on it, I have some dark red 20 cents, som dark purple30 cents etc.

On these 50 c I have perf 11.3 on the side and 10.5 on top / bottom. Then I get insecure, try to find info but get tired of reading a total of 4 - 5 hours for every stamp I start check, I am 150 years before I finish:-)

And as I have learned earlier, perf is important, size come later. So here's not all perf important?

I see they are featured in Scott as a booklet pane, mine do NOT have ink, is it coil ? 1922/23?

Some info can lead me to fin out :-)

You are moving in the right direction. Take a look at Scott 570 versus 701.

thanks , I just fix some wrong writing I headtext, the number on perf was wrong, read tomorrow, tired, dark period in the north :-)

one last question , I find some #300 1 cent Franklin dark green issue 1903, I think . 1 straight edge, perf 12, cancelled stamp as this wawing lines.

But on the backside I find some strange things, lot of text/some kind of big stamp over the all, my first thought was of course leftovers paper/letter ...but then I used a good magnifying glass, this text its in the sheet, no other way..even some stamp and the ink has gone in ore its been there all the time, rare ore ordinary ? I can reed some of it, it says CENTS and other line is AND CANADA. and the last thing I read was UNITED S..

i dont know if stamp on backside are normal, cant be watermarks ? :-)

300: It sounds like your stamp has been peeled from a postcard and the instructional text about rates from the back of the card is stuck to the stamp gum. Here are examples from c1910.

yes, you totaly right :-)
so gum residue is so thin that it resembles the back and when I use magnification it looks like the paper itself