Is A Stamp With Incorrect Perf Size A Big Deal?

I have an 8c Grant that I thought would be Sc640 except for one thing...the perfs aren't right.

The side perfs are 10 1/2, the bottom perfs are 11 (good so far), but the top perfs ARE NOT 11--they're 11 1/2.

My Question is...is this no big deal, or am I holding the most valuable US stamp in history?

You may not like the answer, but my first guess is pilot error. Can you post a scan? How are you measuring the perfs?

How? Why, I'm just eyeballing it, of course! Isn't that what everyone does?

Actually, I'm doing what everyone does...using a perf guage. The bottom perfs line up w/ 11 just fine...spin and no such joy w/ the top perfs. Slide it up to 11 1/2...BINGO.

Please post a scan of this stamp. Thanks.

Reperforated at top.

Huh? First of all, that doesn't make any sense...well, for lots of reasons...but mainly because that can't make the perfs SMALLER, only larger. Also, why reperf when that would decrease the margin at the top of what would have been a perfectly centered stamp? Besides these stamps aren't known for large real estate in the margins. I don't buy it.

Here are the bottom perfs digitally compared to the top perfs.



Don

Yeah...the reperfing is now so clear!

Seriously, the problem seems to be that the measure is somewhere in between 11 & 11 1/2 for both top and bottom. I'm just gonna call it a 640 and be done w/ it. Thanks for input.

"irst of all, that doesn't make any sense...well, for lots of reasons...but mainly because that can't make the perfs SMALLER, only larger. Also, why reperf when that would decrease the margin at the top of what would have been a perfectly centered stamp"?

I suggest you do some research into what reperforating actually means. Perf holes can be smaller or larger based on the machine that creates them. And if the stamp was a top margin example it might well have enough margin to be reperforated. And some reperfs actually measure correctly and are still reperfs. The shapes are funny and they do not appear to line up correctly.

As Don's demo indicated, your stamp is perforated at the same gauge on both top & bottom. There are two likely culprits. The first is, as rlsny pointed out, user error. I have frequently made errors in perf measurements myself. The cure is to measure several times … and then measure again. The second is the Scott catalogue's listed perf gauge for this issue … 11x10.5. Scott is notorious for rounding perf measurements when convenient. I would guess that you likely used an old gauge that gives measurements in increments of 0.25 or 0.5. While adequate for most perf measurements, modern "variable" gauges can give more accurate results. I measured my 640 with such a gauge and came up with 11.2x10.5. On an old gauge, whether 11.2 would be more closely mirrored by an 11 or 11.5 comparison is at best a guess.

Gallejois if there are exactly the same number of perfs top and botton, the gauge is exactly the same.

Gallejois...with the image & replies so far, unable to convince myself your stamp has been *reperfed* at this stage. More convincing evidence wouldn't go astray.(imo) I learn from many mistakes !.

For this rotary press issue, the perforations gauge 11.25 x 10.50 but stamp catalogues like Scott round it down to 11 for 11.25 The Kiusalas U.S. specialist gauge has this as 0.070" (11-70) between perforations which is 11.25

revcollector,

You were one who stated ...




Do you still maintain this opinion? If so, please enlighten us on the definitive features you see which bring you to this conclusion since this is not obvious to some including me.

I would also interested in learning about this. In my eyes the holes at the top are not really round, but a bit square, and they are not aligned at all horizontally. But the last thing could also happen with genuine holes, like if the pins are bent. But the general shape of the holes at the top is different from the other three sides. But I am not sure what would be the defining factor here.