Scott 351 – Possible New Found Plate..?

I was going through blocks, checking for perforation measurement adjustments and got to a couple of my Scott 351 plate blocks No.4....After doing a software measurement and a Unitrade Associates Perfect Gauge measurements....Some thing did not seem right with both the Upper Right and Upper Left plate blocks.

Perforations assigned...(Upper left block)
Catalouge measurements – 12.0 x 12.0
Library and Archives Canada measurements – 12.0 x 12.0
Actual measurements – 12.0 x 12.0

Perforations assigned...(Upper right block)
Catalouge measurements – 12.0 x 12.0
Library and Archives Canada measurements – 12.0 x 12.0
Actual measurement – 11.9 x 12.0

Catalogues recognize plates 1-5
The plate blocks here are from Plate No.4
There are too many discrepancies with both these blocks, that more investigations was needed.

If I am correct after finishing my investigations, there was an additional plate burned.

There were a total of 313,525,000 Scott 351 stamps printed...The 5 stamps before this were a total of 278,515,600 and the next 5 stamps after the Scott 351 totaled 152,650,000...This stamp had massive printing and could very well have needed a new plate because of wear.

Even if they burned another plate they would still call in Plate No.4
With the differences, I would have thought they might call the original Plate No.4-1 and the new plate with the perforation change, called Plate No.4-2


You will see what I came across looking at the pictures below to lead me to believe there were actually two plates used in this issue of Scott 351.

Below is the 2 Plate Blocks No.4 I am referring to...
The left block No.4 measures 12.0 x 12.0....The right block No.4 measures 11.9 x 12.0









Hope someone else out there with the same plate blocks can verify my find..??

Robert

Robert, could it be some 'play' in the perforation and cutting processes ?

Peter

Wert, I am no expert in Canada, but I perceive you are confusing many things and running them together rather than analyzing each as a separate manufacturing process. Specifically printing, perforating, and pane trimming.

You could be right John.

Or it could have been taken from this mini sheet of Scott 351 and Scott O39 "G" overprint. O39 were plate 3 and 4.




There were 2 plate 4's...Full sheet and mini sheet of 8 Scott 351 and 8 Scott O39 "G" overprint...That may explain the 12.0 x 12.0 and the measured 11.9 x 12.0.

Robert

And here is the LR plate from plate block No.1
Perforation measurement 11.9 x 12.0 also.


LL and LR plate block No.4 measurement 12.0 x 12.0

wert:

These stamps were all line perforated rather than comb perforated which means that the perforation holes cross each other unevenly.

Also, it looks like the perforation gauge that you are using is the new Stanley Gibbons "Instanta" perforation gauge which may be slightly off rather than the Unitrade perforation gauge which appears to be more accurate.

So far, these stamps are known with perforation 11.94 (holes less straight, smaller, clogged, oval) for printing plates 1-4 and perforation 11.85 (holes straighter, larger, cleaner, round) for printing plates 3-5 with printing plates 3-4 having both perforations.

Jogil

The Stanley Gibbons "Instanta" perforation gauge used is probably the software gauge I use...But I always do take another measurement with the Unitrade perforation gauge.

Glad to know that I recognized the 11.9 measurement,(Your 11.94 is more accurate)...So I was on to something...Thanks for the verification...On to another.

Robert

Here is another perforation measurement adjustment concern.
Here is my Scott 192-192i block.
Measurements taken with Unitrade Associates perfect gauge

Catalouge - 11.0 x 11.0
Library and Archives Canada - 11.0 x 11.0
Actual measurement - 11.25 x 11.0





Courtesy and property Library and Archives Canada


Robert

BABN Stickney web fed rotary press printed stamps gauge 11 1/4 x 11 whereas BABN sheet fed flat plate printed stamps gauge 11 x 11

Wow jogil...I was finally right about the true perforation measurement for a change...haha.

Thanks for the reply.

Robert