Evidence Of Reperforation? US Parcel Posts

Multipart question on the subject of re-perforated stamps. Consider the attached photos of U.S. Parcel Post stamps for this discussion.

1) Can we expect to see uniform dimensions on stamps of the same issue, or is some variation inevitable? Note the $1 specimen in the set pictured below. To my eye, its vertical dimension seems shorter relative to the others, suggesting a re-perf of the top or bottom dimension.

2) The diameter of each perforation on the bottom edge of the $1 issue appear more "shallow" than those on the others. The holes seem less uniform. More evidence of a re-perf, or are these acceptable anomalies?

3) Does anyone think the 5c specimen's left border may be re-perfed?

I've already read the Philatelic Foundation's excellent article (http://www.philatelicfoundation.org...erforation/) plus a number of threads in this forum, so your replies here may reinforce my suppositions. Or not...




*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

A certain amount of variation in size is normal because of paper shrinkage. And no one would reperf the five cent and leave a straight edge.

In a similar vein as the previous post, would anyone reperf the bottom of the $1 and yet leave all that acreage on the left untouched?

if they were trying to replace some short/pulled perfs perhaps

Thanks for the replies, which actually beg new questions:

1) If paper shrinkage is a factor, wouldn't the shrinkage be apparent on both dimensions of a stamp? The $1 specimen appears "short" from top to bottom, yet appears to be wider than the others pictured with it.

2) No comments yet about the size and consistency of the perforation holes on the $1 stamp... To my eye, these holes display some irregularities of dimesion. Are these irregularities within normal bounds demonstrated by unaltered stamps?

Paper shrinkage of flat plate stamps occurred before the stamps were gummed and perforated. Parcel post stamps were perforated 12-66 (0.066" spacing). Perforations should match when comparing with another stamp in the series. To ensure accuracy, align perforations starting at one end of the stamp. If the alignment at the other end is significantly off, retry from the other end to verify. While a perforation may occasionally be out of alignment because of a bent pin, they will not be progressively out of alignment. The top comparison in the most recent image is better than the bottom comparison because the perforations are better aligned at the left.

The shape of the perforations at the top and bottom of the $1 Parcel Post should give anyone pause.

@cfrphoto: Exactly the kind of response I was looking for... thank you

Still, per JLLebbert, if the $1 stamp was altered on the top and or bottom, it's strange that the left margin would not be similarly trimmed...

Leaving it alone makes it far less likely that anyone would look too closely at the other perfs. Just as people here questioned it. I have seen stamps done the opposite way too, given an obvious reperf on one side in the hope that no one will look too closely at the rest of the stamp. Which in that particular case had been seriously repaired.

BFRomeos

I see what you mean about the irregular perf holes on your stamp. I compared your stamp to one in my collection and do not see the same issue.

@gettinold: Man, that's a beautiful stamp. Let me know if you want to trade...

Here is another Q12 for comparison.

BFRomeos

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. You should have seen it before I decided to scan it. I had it in a Vario page. It had a piece of selvage on the top margin. I grabbed it with the tongs by the piece of selvage and chit, wouldn't you know, it came apart.

Bottom perfs of the $1 in question look snaggle toothed in the middle - very suspicious.

My money would have been on the left side having been a straight edge and having perforations added.

Here's a guide I wrote ages ago on how to spot reperfed stamps from a scan. You could also scan your stamp and use the same method:

http://www.mostlyclassics.net/phila...perfJobs.pdf

Hope this helps!