Scott 973 - Wrong Perforation In Catalouge..??

Chris, that is correct...Organizations do not seem interested and now I am just saying ok....No need to continue.

But hey..I have been given 2 stamp gauges by the perforation guru, jogil...We talked and he is ok with me/him sharing these gauges with the stamp forum.

The gauge is for earlier stamps that were line perforated and not later stamps that were comb perforated.

Here is what jogil has shared with me below...If you would like a copy of these gauges to print on paper/plastic, then send me an e-mail and I will gladly share it with other stamp collectors.

Thanks again jogil very much
Robert

Hello Robert (and Jogil) - thank you for the data.

If perfs are based on a 20 mm unit, then why would the era change the perforation measurement??

I know I am probably opening a can of worms by asking that. In all of the journals and online pubs I have been reading, this dichotomy is not discussed.

Is there a generally accepted date that the different perf gauges would be used?

Chris

The gauge is clearly marked as copyrighted. Do you have written permission from the copyright holder to distribute it?

Yes I do John.
And have permission for others to receive and use it.



Chris..A couple of months ago I started an investigation to find out why perforations were not as exact as they should be..I have had no interest from publications, so I just did my own thing.


Robert

From:
Robin Harris
Editor, Unitrade Specialized Catalogue of Canadian Stamps

Time to set the record straight regarding some of the comments presented in this thread.

Firstly, I apologize for any and all mistakes that appear in the Unitrade catalogue. As soon as a mistake is reported it is immediately corrected so that the next edition will have accurate information. To imply that any incorrect data that appears in the catalogue is done on purpose is the farthest thing from the truth. I take great pride in the catalogue and the information that is presented therein and take any kind of mistake very seriously.

I was offered the editorship of the Unitrade catalogue in November of 2004. My first edition was the 2006 edition which had to be ready to go the printer by June of 2005. I had many ambitions for my first catalogue, with dozens of new features added. Many of these new features required gathering thousands of pieces of data that had not previously appeared in the catalogue. That is no excuse for mistakes, but some did happen.

Here is an illustration of a stamp listing from the 2005 Unitrade (prior to my time) and the 2006 Unitrade (my first) which shows just a bit of what was new and therefore required gathering data:



The entire catalogue was laid out from scratch using Adobe InDesign (previous versions were done in Corel Ventura). Did some mistakes make it into the catalogue? Of course. Was I happy with that? Of course not.

The perforation mistakes that Robert (wert) has pointed out in this thread have been around since that 2006 edition, some 14 years ago. It is interesting that these mistakes have not been spotted before.

Before we look at the specific items that have been reported in this thread, firstly, how does one determine the perforation of a stamp? The quickest method of course, and the one used by most people is via a perforation gauge. However, the most accurate method is to use the mathematical formula:



The formula method though, requires counting all of the perforations and then do some mathematical calculations; a very time consuming process.

Here is a chart showing the stamps of concern found in this thread. I have shown the perforation noted in the 2006 through 2020 Unitrade catalogues, Robert's determination of the perforation, and the perforation that will appear in the 2021 Unitrade (using the mathematical formula shown above).

I have highlighted the cells in red where a mistake has been made, and green where the corrected perforation is given.



What is the bottom line from the perforation data presented in the thread here on The Stamp Community Forum?

All of the comb-perf stamp measurements presented by Robert are incorrect. The 2006 through 2020 Unitrade catalogues do have four out of the ten issues showing and incorrect perf measurement; all four have been corrected for the 2021 edition.

What about the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) perforation that has been referred to as a comparison to Unitrade?

I believe that the data presented by LAC is that found in the product announcement brochures produced by Canada Post. These were originally called PS14s; they are now called Details magazines. Canada Post has never given the exact perforation measurements of stamps in their announcements that I am aware of - only an approximation.

Any use of LAC perforation data for comparison purposes should never be done!

As noted by some in this thread: why not contact the editor directly? Good question and one I shake my head at when I see misinformation about the Unitrade catalogue being presented in online forums such as this one.

I look forward to receiving e-mails directly from other collectors. My e-mail is given in my introduction of every Unitrade catalogue - I wish more collectors read the introduction!

Please, if you spot a mistake in the Unitrade catalogue, contact me directly. It will be corrected immediately and appear in the next edition. As an aside, the 2021 Unitrade will be completed by the end of June 2020, just two months away.

Robin Harris
unitrade@adminware.ca

Note: SCF typically does not allow email addresses in posts but in this case we will make an exception to make sure folks know the best procedure for Unitrade communications.
Don

Hi Robin

First off a huge thank you for taking the time to inform us of your perspective on the concerns that we raise with our hobby. Nothing is meant to be a personal affront, and on my part if I have offended, I am very, very sorry (honestly).

"As noted by some in this thread: why not contact the editor directly? Good question and one I shake my head at when I see misinformation about the Unitrade catalogue being presented in online forums such as this one."

I am a little put out that you feel our discussions, hypotheses, speculations, ruminations and general wonderings are considered 'misinformation'. We are searching for information, and that (used to, at least) makes the hobby fun.

Please don't take questions personally.

I really have noticed as I try to learn more, ask questions, offer opinions, that philatelists "seem" to have thin skins. Rigorous discourse and study is the lifeblood of this hobby (as seen when reading the journals of 70 years ago).

Anyways, conversations like this are a little hard to take. I see people like Robert (Wert) getting questioned about his motives when he is just trying to make this hobby better, and I find it pretty galling.

Anywho - back to learning. Again, thank you for your efforts and taking the time to address concerns. Hope you are staying well.

Very respectfully

Chris Larsen
Auburn, Nova Scotia

Gracious of Mr. Harris to post on the SCF board, thank you for the most detailed response. All info posted on chatboards, not peer reviewed, should be verified by the reader and not taken as fact.

I'm pleased to see the rate for line perforations will be stated to two significant digits. Gauging to the nearest 1/4 perf should suffice to ID virtually all Canada stamps.

Please give examples of this.
Don

Perforation differences are important when they help to distinguish between different printings. For British American Bank Note Company (BABNC) printed Canada Stamps (1930-1934), flate plate printed stamps gauge 11 (10.94) x 11 (10.94) while rotary press printed stamps gauge 11 1/4 (11.25) x 11 (10.94). This information would be very helpful in the Canada catalogue. This is something very helpful that I would like to see included in Canada stamp catalogues hopefully very soon.

Probably the only good way of distinguishing.




I agree.

There is much investigating stamp characteristics like...

1 - Colour - Much investigation
2 - Gum - Much investigation
3 - Varieties - Much investigation
4 - oddities - Much investigation
5 - etc. etc.
6 - Perforations - ??? - (Unless you are jogil)

Read jogil's reply above

Robert

Hello Don

I found Mr Harris' response to be a little accusatory:

" I shake my head at when I see misinformation about the Unitrade catalogue being presented in online forums such as this one."

I guess that is all I will say about that.

I apologize to all, crappy day yesterday and it tarnished my post. I will go back to just asking specific philately-related questions and reading to learn more about this pastime.

Sun is shining - it is going to be a wonderful day.

Hi Lars,
Understood.

I cringed a bit when I first read that sentence in Robin's post since the word 'misinformation' often implies intention.

But after rereading the post yesterday, I think that Robin meant it 'misinformation' simply in the sense of 'inaccurate' and not that anyone, or this community, was attempting to intentionally smear Unitrade.
Don

I was not implying that any of my findings working with perforations were law...Just like when I (or others) post a possible variety, it is NOT confirmed until others come across the same item...It should not be presumed that any new perforation measurement is just that, until other collectors confirm a find..That's all I was doing..Trying to help other collectors with possible new finds, etc.



BTW...Unitrade is and always will be a great catalouge as long as Mr. Harris remained editor.

Have a good days guys...I think we have kicked a dead horse enough...haha

And STAY SAFE everyone....Robert

One thing I would like cleared up, is the "see through" digital perforation guage used by Robert.
I thought I read some time ago, some discrepancies were found using this model? and Robert agreed not to use it.
Is that correct? is the guage in fact accurate?
I have it, and had creased using it.