Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Gauging Perforations: Stanley Gibbons Vs Scott

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 13 / Views: 520Next Topic  
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
437 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   12:19 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add EMaxim to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
My copy of Stanley Gibbons, Commonwealth and British Empire, says that perforations quoted in that catalogue are rounded to the nearest half. For example, perf 13 is rounded up to 13 , perf between 13 and 13 is also quoted as 13 , and perf 13 is rounded up to 14. Does Scott do the same? If not, won't these two catalogues sometimes disagree on perforations? What, for instance, does Scott do with a perf 13 ? I've searched this forum and haven't found the answer so far.
Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
2838 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   1:01 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add John Becker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Whatever code you are using (for fractions?) displays on my monitor as a "z" with different dashes and curves above it. It fails to communicate your message.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Canada
129 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   1:53 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add j2186 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi,

I can read the fractions in the original post.

I could not find a statement in Scott about rounding. Most examples seem to be given to the nearest half perforation, but I did run across some examples given to the nearest quarter perforation (for example, Canada 2464).

It would be useful if they made their policy clear.

Jan
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
4096 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   2:49 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add redwoodrandy to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
zzzzzz
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Bedrock Of The Community
Learn More...
Australia
29766 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   3:17 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rod222 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Canada
57 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   3:27 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add PMStamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
All I see is z with an umlaut over it.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
437 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   4:34 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add EMaxim to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Sorry all. Clearly a problem with the way that some printed characters are transmitted and reproduced. I should have used decimals. I'll try again:

My copy of Stanley Gibbons, Commonwealth and British Empire, says that perforations quoted in that catalogue are rounded to the nearest half. For example, perf 13.25 is rounded up to 13.5, perf between 13.25 and 13.75 is also quoted as 13.5, and perf 13.75 is rounded up to 14. Does Scott do the same? If not, won't these two catalogues sometimes disagree on perforations? What, for instance, does Scott do with a perf 13.75? I've searched this forum and haven't found the answer so far.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
3291 Posts
Posted 05/22/2020   9:47 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jogil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
For Canada Scott/Unitrade 178-183 and 205-207, they gauge 8.75 vertically but Scott/Unitrade has them as gauging 8.5 vertically.

For Canada Scott/Unitrade 162-167, 169, 191, 192, 195-197, they gauge 11.25 x 10.94 but Scott/Unitrade has them as gauging 11.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by jogil - 05/22/2020 9:54 pm
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
437 Posts
Posted 05/23/2020   1:00 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add EMaxim to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
So, if Scott/Unitrade 178-183 and 205-7 gauge vertically 8.75, Stanley Gibbons would round up to 9, where Scott/Unitrade say 8.5? And if Scott/Unitrade 162-7 etc. gauge horizontally 11.25, Stanley Gibbons would again round up to 11.5, where Scott/Unitrade round down to 11? As if proper ID weren't already hard enough! Is this a real problem, or am I missing something?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
256 Posts
Posted 05/23/2020   1:52 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add NSK to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The gauge 11 1/4 tends to be a rounded number, already. Both gauges 11.3 and 11.2 rounded to the nearest quarter would give 11 1/4. However, rounded to the nearest half, the first will be 11 1/2. The other will be 11.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
437 Posts
Posted 05/23/2020   5:01 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add EMaxim to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
That is the way Gibbons does it. Does Scott do the same? Didn't seem so from jogil's post above.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
437 Posts
Posted 05/23/2020   5:03 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add EMaxim to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Seems that with 11.25 Gibbons rounds up to 11.5, whereas Scott goes down to 11.0. Doesn't that cause confusion?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
345 Posts
Posted 05/27/2020   5:18 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ekbustad to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Seems that with 11.25 Gibbons rounds up to 11.5, whereas Scott goes down to 11.0. Doesn't that cause confusion?
Of course it does!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
437 Posts
Posted 05/28/2020   1:20 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add EMaxim to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Damn! Nevertheless, I'm glad to know that this is a problem and something to which I'll have to pay more attention, since I rely on SG's Instanta gauge. Better than wandering about in the confusion without realizing it. So, thanks, I guess.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous TopicReplies: 13 / Views: 520Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2020 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2020 Stamp Community Forums
It took 29.44 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05