Scott 1260-1263 – New Perforation Measurements

I was going through a lot of stamps checking accuracy of perforations with reference to Unitrade and LAC....I have about 75 Scott 1260-1263 Stamps to measure.

1 - LAC have assigned perforations of 13.5 x 13.5
2 - Unitrade have assigned perforations of 13.3 x 13.3
3 - My accurate measurements are 13.4 x 13.4 on every single stamp.

Also I took a few Newfoundland Cabot mint stamps and did a perforation accuracy measurement and found these Scott 62 – N.S.S.C. 53 were not accurate on perforation readings. They were assigned a perf. of 12 x 12, but a more accurate reading is 11.9 x 12 on all 3 stamps.

The world of stamp collecting has had accurate information on stamp size (mm), colour, gum type, etc, but not 100% accuracy when it comes to perforations.

I believe stamp catalouges, books, stamp study groups should take ownership to step up to the plate to insure all collectors are getting all and accurate information with reguards to accurate perforation readings.

I believe that the perforation guru like Jogil would agree with bringing accurate perforations to articles and such can only improve the stamp collector knowledge.

Robert

1. I thought you were going to run these "discoveries" past the Unitrade folks first?

2. For your Newfoundland stamp, "12x12" is accurate. It is rounded but accurate. If they had said "12.0x12.0", then they would be inaccurate. There are rules for rounding and reporting significant digits. 12x12 and 12.0x12.0 are not the same thing.

3. How do we know that your measurements are "accurate"? Have your gauging devices been calibrated against a known standard?

Thank you for agreeing with me John..Rounded off is NOT accurate by any means...I believe accuracy has not been important in collecting circles and should be.

I will continue to bring to the stamp world that perforation accuracy is an important part of stamp collecting.

Robert

Robert:

You made at least two mistakes in your message.

The most important one is that the four Canadian "Second World War - 1939" stamps issued November 10, 1989 (Scott 1260-1263) are perf 13.3333 (repeating) on all four sides.

The Unitrade catalogue rounds to the nearest tenth, making this Perf 13.3 ... as noted in the catalogue.

These are not perf 13.4 as you state. As I have mentioned to you before, time for a new perf gauge?

--
Are there some incorrect perf measurements noted in the Unitrade catalogue? Quite likely, but as each mistake is reported (usually directly to me by concerned collectors) they are corrected for the next edition of the catalogue (by the way, the 2021 edition is completed and is in the process of being sent to the printer).


Robin Harris
Editor, Unitrade Specialized Catalogue of Canadian Stamps

Hi Robin



I read these stamps at 13.3 all 75 and 13.4 was accurate to me...I realize that helping collectors is a good thing, but continually beating me every time I try to help with a post, is getting me down...I am by no means a stamp expert like others, all I am trying to do is bring to the attention of collectors parts that need to be looked at and as John says there are a lot of rounded off perforations...Accuracy may be needed..

Robin my friend it is your catalogue and you are the entitled to add/remove anything from Unitrade as you see fix..Good job though.

Robert

Here are a few more..Just saying...No more comments because negativity towards some one trying to bring attention to accurate perforations...Good luck every one...On to the next project.

Robert:

Regarding your recent chart showing your so-called "actual" perf measurement...

First, the Unitrade catalogue only shows perfs to the tenth for comb-perf stamps. In your chart, I believe all of those that you refer to are correct in the Unitrade and wrong for your "actual".

Second, for line-perfed stamps, the Unitrade simply says "Perf 12", unless a stamp issue exists with specific different perfs. So, in your chart, the Unitrade will not be changing the "12" measurement.

Third, as John (in this thread) has pointed out, showing "Perf 12" is much different than saying "Perf 12.0". The latter shows an implied accuracy to the number (to a tenth); the former does not.

In another thread, some months ago, in answer to your same kind of in-accurate perf measurements, I showed the most accurate method of perfing a stamp ... using a mathematical formula. You and I have had this discussion privately and you ignore it. As I have said in the past directly to you, when in doubt use the formula for determining a comb-perfed stamp measurement. You will find that your "actual" in your most recent chart (for all of the comb-perfed stamps) are wrong.

As you have said, this is about accuracy. Please do not present your "actual" as accurate when they are not. Please try a different perf gauge.

Robin

Sorry Robin

No more comments on my post my friend..Have a good day and be safe.

Robert

Wow. What a "hobby" this is. Thank you for engendering conversation, Robert. I appreciate it.

Reading through this thread response to a collector who is trying to progress discourse on philately leads to comments such as:

- Buy a new gauge
- "so called" actual perf measurements
- your same kind of in-accurate perf measurements
- etc

Much of this is personal between Robert and Robin, but as a "new" enthusiast/researcher, I find the angst directed towards Wert to be a bit distasteful, even with Mr Harris being an editor.

I believe I am educated enough to take Robert's observations and peer review them, myself. If I disagree, I will politely let him know.

Personally, I use Roberts enthusiasm as a way to open my eyes that catalogues are not the be all/ end all. Thanks to him for that.

Anyways, back into my box.

Chris

At first I wasn't going to comment on here but when someone
writes stuff like this I have to.





Wert, once you start a thread then anyone can comment on it,
good or bad as long as it's civil.
Seems like you only want comments when members agree with you.

Robin Harris is not beating you down as you claim he is.
You are the one constantly criticizing his catalogue and he
is just trying to clarify the issues you have with the catalogue.
The Unitrade catalogue is his work and bread & butter and I for
one appreciate that he comes on here and joins in on the discussions.

Hi lithograving
Have not heard from you for a while..Nice to see you back.



I apologize to Mr.Harris that it sounds that way..Did not mean it to come across like that...Was trying to help, believe it or not posting possible differences..That's all...If I am wrong, then I am wrong and apologize..

Stay safe lithograving

Robert

Maybe this is a good question to ask here - for modern comb perfs, is there some merit to just expressing perfs as the count (per stamp, expressed as horiz x vertical) rather than gauging per 2 cm? It would eliminate the "splitting hairs" that happens frequently.

I certainly hope my tone didn't come across as mean-spirited towards Robert. I certainly appreciate his philatelic endeavours. If it came across a different way, then I apologize to Robert and those who are reading this thread.

My intent was to show that, at least for the items Robert listed, the Unitrade catalogue is correct in how the perf notations are shown.

Yes, having accurate information in any catalogue is important. I am the first to get mad at myself when a mistake is pointed out to me. Some of the mistakes that are noted (particularly with the perfs) are those that have been around since my first edition as editor - the 2006 edition. That edition saw literally tens of thousands of new pieces of information presented in the catalogue for the first time. Did mistakes occur? Certainly (most due to copy/paste). Do I like it. Certainly not.

I have put my e-mail address in the introduction of the Unitrade catalogue in every edition I have edited in the hopes that collectors would contact me directly with new finds, suggestions, and (darn it all anyway) corrections. I prefer the direct contact with collectors.

Re: this is "my bread and butter" (as noted by 'lithograving')
My work with Unitrade Associates, as editor of their various publications, is not my 'full time' job. At certain times of the year (particularly April through mid-August) it seems to be. I wear several philatelic "hats" in Canadian philately, but my self-employment business as a computer consultant has been my "bread and butter" for the last 35 or so years.


Robin Harris
Editor, Unitrade Specialized Catalogue of Canadian Stamps

No mean spiriting Robin..We have always had constructive talks....I appreciate his diligence as the Editor...He has done a great job after he took over.

Robert