Scott 973 - Wrong Perforation In Catalouge..??

Rod222
I use a Unitrade Associates "perfect gauge"

Interesting to find out one way or another.
Does anyone have information...???

Robert

Trying to use a clear perf gauge overlaid on with a stamp on a scanner platen is a very daunting task.

Correct me if I am wrong Robert, I thought that you sometimes post a 'digital' overlay where you take a transparent perf gauge image and use software to overlay it on to stamp image. These are the blue colored perf gauges? Like this


But in this thread, Robert's images appear to be camera photos using the transparent Unitrade gauge (and nice work on the images, even with a camera it is hard to get a perf gauge aligned properly on the stamp and snap a shot).
Don

Yes I have Don a few times...I do camera pictures, which is much easier to align a gauge over a stamp...It is much easier {for me anyways} because lining up a stamp and placing the gauge on top on a scanner would situate the gauge behind a stamp...I would rather have the gauge over a stamp.{in front}.

Robert

But still waiting for the question to be answered...Is Unitrade Gauge accurate or not..??..I have not had any problems and I searched about 3 stamp forums and every one said they were satisfied with it's performance.



B7 measured at 13.0 with Ideal gauge and perfect gauge at 13.4

I know I must be missing the point here entirely. But the above post is a good example. Who actually cares what the perforation is? 13.0 or 13.4.
The only time it is pertinent is if there was a perforation change. There have been VERY FEW of these changes in the past decades.
There was no change in the Olympic stamp above. I assure you that I never laid a gauge on my copy. So leave poor Robin alone and let him put a nice close approximation that I can verify mostly by eye that my copy's not 8.5 perf.
Any perf changes can easily be spotted with any of those commercial gauges. Just use the same one each time!

Look a little closer sak..it is not suggesting a 8.5 perf....look to the left and right of the stamp...You will see 12.5 and 13.5...That means the stamp perfs are measured at 13.0.

Wanted to show it was not a 13.0 but a 13.4 perforation.
At the beginning of next week I might contact a person working for LAC {Library and Archives Canada} that has gone out of her way to pull boxes and supply me with paperwork and information on some of my requests.

She searched the Archive paperwork on my green Scott 929 stamp to see if a trial colour was used..Now I am not sure if she is supposed to go that far, but I thank her.

If I contact her again I will ask if say the B7 for instance has had paperwork showing a double print or a perforation change...If I find out anything,i will post here.

Robert

I agree with sak on this.

One of the few times I checked for perforations was
the 1988 - 90 mid size mammals definitives.
That was interesting I admit.

Same with a French stamp, the 20F definitive first issued in 1929.
4 types were issued, one was 13 1/2 X 13, two were perf 13 and one
was perf 11.
In the 2018 Spink/Maury the first 3 are valued at 40 euro used.
The perf 11 is 440 euro used.

I'm not a perforation expert as some are here but even with
my old eyes I could see that from my 3 copies none were perf 11.

Still I got the old gauge out and checked anyway.

The Unitrade Catalogue since 2006 when Robin Harris took over
is far superior to any previous editions and in fact probably
one of the best country specialized anywhere.
I bought the 1993 Unitrade edition when it came out and truthfully hardly ever used it.
Total waste of money.

Over the years I bought The Lyman's Standard Catalogue,
The Canada Specialized, The Scott Canada Specialized,
Darnell Stamps of Canada etc.
Some were ok but that's all there was.

When the 2006 Harris edition came out I said to myself
WOW, now this is a specialized catalogue.
I couldn't put it down.

Perhaps a poor decision to do so, but I feel I should respond in more detail as the one who posted to the thread:




I learned in a college ROTC Organization and Leadership class to "praise in public and criticize in private". I know I am not perfect at that. Two points which went into my thinking, the first being that posting on a thread (consider it a third-party, if you will), that another party in wrong is a poor way to resolve a difference. Direct communication is best. If one finds a possible error, then bring it privately, quietly, and directly to the attention of the author/editor, who may be able to explain their reasoning or base of knowledge, etc. Following my own advice, I probably should have sent this directly to Robert and not posted it. I get that.

The second being tone - the new measurements were presented in this thread with the label "actual perforation", which implies that the measurements published elsewhere are incorrect and these were the new indisputable "facts". This was done without any documentation of checking the accuracy of the gauge against a known standard, vetting by anyone else to check the data, no indication of attempted communications with the two publishers of the other data, etc. Thus the initial phrasing "actual perforation" came off (to me) far too strong and resulted in needing a stronger response from one of the original data publishers. What if the new "actual perforation" data are incorrect?

Instead, how about an email sent directly to Unitrade: "Hey Robin, I was gauging my Unitrade #### the other day and found mine to be perf YYxZZ, while the catalog states perf QQxRR, can you re-check this?" It opens the conversation politely and privately rather than starting it out in public. In the world of "ends and means", there are better "means" to get to the "ends" of an accurate catalog, which we all desire.

Along this line, several years ago I found an error in the listings of several related stamps in the Scott US Specialized catalog. (I won't say here what they were.) I made up a packet of information to document what I thought the correct information should be and gave it to them at the APS Omaha show last summer. I am curious to see what changes are made, if any. I have not had any feedback from them.

Thank you Don,
that answered my question nicely.
So I do not to start using the other guage.

Okay, okay guys I get it....I will stop posting anything to do with perforations.

Have a good day guys...Be safe.

Robert

I am a little confused as to what is going on here. Is the accuracy of the Unitrade "Perfect" perforation gauge be questioned on here?

John, maybe you are reading too much into the words...'Actual" to me is meant to say those measurements as I did them were as accurate as I can do...I did NOT mean my measurements were better than Unitrade's.

BTW john as your reply about contacting Unitrade, it was done.I had already sent 3 of them to the editor.

jogil my friend, there is a reply by rod222 that he heard Unitrade Associates "perfect gauge" was not accurate...Waiting for proof, one way or the other.

Robert

As quoted from a post by SCF member gportch:
"Hello all: I measured my Unitrade gauge using the VSC6000 at the Greene Foundation. The measurements were done under high magnification. All readings were accurate to 1/100 of a millimeter which indicates to me that, for all practical purposes, the Unitrade gauge is as accurate as is needed for the hobby. GJP" (Garfield J. Portch, FRPSC, Chairman/President Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation) https://goscf.com/t/23150&whichpage=2

Excellent jogil..Now we can put that question to rest.

I have to give koddos to Mr.Harris...Since he took over Unitrade, I have not seen any mistakes with reference to perforations..

Robert

Robert:

The perforation mistakes highlighted earlier by myself in this thread are my mistakes; all of the entries for the comb-perforated stamps in the 2006 Unitrade (my first edition) had new perforation entries recorded.

I suspect that nearly all of these mistakes are due to the 'ol "copy/paste" syndrome.

Here is a link to the current 2020 Unitrade errata; I have added the list of known entries where the perforation has been listed wrong for the last 14 years; all are corrected for the 2021 edition:

https://adminware.ca/unitrade2020/errata.htm

Robin Harris
Editor, Unitrade catalogue

Wert, Word choice is very important. Your measurements would have been better labeled as "my measurements" or something less authoritative-sounding. The word "actual" creates a perception of truth for some readers. It created that perception in my mind, which can't be debated.

For general work, no problem, but for exacting detail, then yes, I am questioning each and every gauge of every brand. Specifically, some plastics will change dimensions slightly with time and adverse storage conditions. Clearly, the Unitrade gauge is one of the best, but if I use the one I've kept on the dash of my car for 3 summers and winters so I don't forget to have one at a show, then I should re-check it.