Canada # 351 Plate # 5

What is interesting about 351 plate 5 is that it is an anomaly in that all other plates (except postage dues like J16B) would have had the order number not printed anymore (removed) on the LL plate block when the inscriptions were moved further up on the plate block corners around 1958 to make post office field stock with trimmed off inscriptions more easier to do. This doesn't apply to plate 5 of this. Plate 5 came out around mid 1966 and ended in early 1967 which was not a long time. Canada # 351 with plates 1 and 2 were first issued in 1955

Interesting jogil

Most posts..Please
Robert

learn a lot from your posts, Jogil. Thanks!

All # 351 with plate 5 have 11.85 gauge perforations.
All # 351 with plates 1 and 2 have 11.94 gauge perforations.
Most # 351 with plates 3 and 4 have 11.94 gauge perforations
and some # 351 with plates 3 and 4 have 11.85 gauge perforations.

Jogil has always got me interested in perforation.
Now tell me I am wrong here with this perf. difference.

Here is a block of 876a "Military Aircraft<' stamps.
Unitrade assigns a perf. of 13.3.
I took a measurement {Mint stamps} and got a perf. measurement of 13.0 on bottom right stamp.

Also jogil I looked at just 2 blocks of plate 4 and did come up with perf.11.94 also.

See pictures below..Jogil, am I wrong..??

Robert

wert: It is interesting how Unitrade does go into decimals for gauging modern perforations. You are right, your perforations do appear to be more like 13.0 rather than 13.3 and Canada Post says 13+ in brochures. It may have to do with the perforations being comb and harrow rather than line. I have been trying to get them to get into their catalogue for BABN (1930-1934) issues as 11.25 x 11 for rotary press printings and 11 x 11 for flat plate printings.

Jogil

I am going to spend some time doing perforations on comb and line perforations to see what I can find.

An listen to what jogil has once said..Do perf. measurements on MINT stamps only..NOT on water affected single stamps.

Robert

So Robert (and Jogil) - you don't perf-classify used stamps?

Lars714: Mint stamps are preferred when possible but used stamps are also OK.

Lars714

Jogil is correct..
Now jogil might not agree with my next statement, but to me even measuring stamps on cover, can possibly be a little misleading as to the glue drying and possibly changing the original stamp size, which can affect an accurate measurement.

Robert
Jogil..When you get a chance..PM me..Got an important question for you.

Jogil made me check one more stamp..Scott 891 for an example...It has been assigned a perf. of 13.3....When measuring it, I came back with a perf. of 13.4..This has got me thinking now..Maybe I should start a new post calling it,"Stamp perforation adjustments."

See picture below...

Correct jogil..Here is a plate 4 - O39 "G" overprint with the 11.94 perforation.

Robert