Scott 973 - Wrong Perforation In Catalouge..??

Going through a few stamps, measuring perforations, I came across this Scott 973 ""Christmas - Creche Figures""

Robert

Book perforation
12.5 x 13.5

LAC perforation
13.5 x 13.5

Actual perforation
13.4 x 13.4

Below is book perforation

Wert, the image you show below is from the Unitrade catalogue
not Scott.
Same Scott numbering system but not from Scott catalog

Why not just contact the editors?

Here is one more perforation correction...Just passing on info correction for stamp collectors out there.

Scott 998
Book - 13.0 x 13.5
Actual -13.5 x 13.5

Robert

Most of these stamps come with only 1 perforation rate. I just don't understand why direct communication isn't the best remedy, but suit yourself.

Hi John..Correct

I was just informing collectors..That's all.

It is just like if a new stamp came out with some thing different, variety, etc. and if I found some thing, I would try to inform others collectors...The reason is catalouges would take a year for printed info for collectors....This way they can check their stamps and not sell or loose a potential nice find or a good variety.

That's all I was trying to do..Help

But obviously people are upset with me trying to help...Ok, will back off...Sorry John

Robert

Hey Robert,

Don't stop! Inconsistencies in the catalogues should be pointed out.
Otherwise, beginners (and others) after getting a different measurement might get all excited thinking they have a variety, only to be shot down when trying to sell the item for a premium. Or worse yet, managing to sell it to an unsuspecting buyer.

Peter

No, don't stop. The point being that I saw no indication at all in the original post that any attempt was being made to communicate the information to the two sources your cite. Or if you had done similarly in the past, what their responses have been.

(Also "Book" and "LAC" mean absolutely nothing to me.)

Book - Catalouge
LAC - Library and Archives Canada

Hmm, I think a newsletter like the Corgi Times (an Elizabethan BNAPS study group) would be happy to share in your perforation research. The editor of Unitrade is active in the group. I took Mr. Becker's comment as a suggestion to "cast a wider net", but I would not presume to speak for him.

There are many unreported perforations in modern Canada, and the only way to find them is to do the verification you're doing. The 1988-91 Mammals issue is a perfect example.

I've always found in the hobby that the more I study, the luckier I get. Thanks for sharing, we all enjoy the hunt.

Since these catalogs and listings have these modern perforations expressed in tenths, they should be expected to be more accurate when doing so. There is no point in listing perforations in tenths and not being closely accurate in doing so. Otherwise, they should just round to the nearest quarter. Thank you Wert for bringing this to our attention. Perhaps you could make a chart of your findings and get it published in a philatelic publication.

Hi Jogil

Yes, perforations are not as accurate as collectors deserve, but I really do not think it would published in a philatelic publication.

I have approached one of the largest philatelic publishers in Canada and they said they were not the least bit interested.

Here is a partial chart {and other information} that I have been working on...Oh well..I tried to bring it to the attention of collectors...They are happy with just what is presented to them as the norm.

Robert

I have been a casual collector of Canada for about 40 years. My collection is in a hingeless Lighthouse album. Here is the Scott catalog page for 973.


I have a Unitrade catalog around but rarely use it, I only needed enough perforation information to ID the 973-975 and get it mounted in the correct place in my album. I think that most catalogs target casual collectors and seek to keep things simple.

Doing detailed and specialized work is important for the hobby (and I support it heavily), but my opinion is that much of the work is beyond the interest of the majority of casual collectors.

Not much difference than pouring in thousands of man hours in building a website or moderating a forum. You carry on based upon your own intrinsic rewards. You can always control what goes on between your own ears but have little control over what goes on around you.
Don

Hi Don




Yes, I guess so...Meaning of intrinsic below....

""Doing a job because you love it is intrinsic; the motivation comes from within.""

I am getting older and my thought process is old school..boring, but I enjoy stamps so much, and get flack over this train of thought..I am by NO means a perforation expert and like anyone else, I make mistakes...It is some thing I enjoy...I will back off and give the community a rest from me..

Carry on stamp collecting guys..enjoy.

Robert

Early perforations were close approximations, as Jogil said. The only reason to go chasing after a decimal percentage's difference is if there is more than one perforation found. Like MacDonald's 1292d (mythical animals). Then some reason should be given as to why it was changed.

Robert - I very much appreciate your efforts, and believe strongly that catalogs should strive to print the correct numbers for a variety of reasons. If we don't know the correct perforation, then how do we 'discover' abnormalities?

Is there somewhere that your measurements can be offered for peer review?

If a catalog can print the price of a unique error (10,000$ for a paper fold?? - no wonder insider dealing happens!!), then surely the QA Manager of the publication should be striving for accuracy!

How difficult is it to do things right the first time (OMG - I'm becoming my father!)

Chris