Scott 1204 - Does This Perforation Exist..??

Robert, please read John Becker's last response. I believe he is not disagreeing with your obsession with older stamp perforations. Just that on the newer stamps ( and more modern printing technology ) there is not much reason to be picky about perforation.
Of course, this has all changed with the introduction of the die cut perforations and their oddities

Peter

Hi Peter

I did and I understand John's idea that newer stamps may not need perforation checks...and yes at face value, I agree.

Just that {cause I am not an American stamp exert, and Canada to..haha}
There are some stamps {at least in Canada} have perforation discrepancies as late as 2011....

Ok my friend, back to Canada..haha
Have a good and safe day guys.

Robert

" the question is if the majority of hobbyists would like to see catalogs and albums explode in size and scope"

For US stamps listing the gauge more precisely will not lead to a proliferation of listings.

There is no perfect answer. If you list the gauge as 10 and someone measures it as 9.8 they think they have something different. If you list it as 9.8, you will get people who measure it as 9.7 or 9.9 because it is really difficult to measure that accurately.

I would prefer Scott list to 1/4 rather than 1/2. I can easily measure to 1/4, but my 1/10 measurements are probably only good to +/- 1/10.

What bugs me is Scott and Gibbons do not always agree. Also I will find I get 12 3/4 and I am presented with a catalog choice between 12 1/2 or 13. Is it really 12.7 which rounds to 12 1/2 or is it 12.8 which rounds to 13?

Let me ask a question to my American friends....

Who believes it is ok or better to round off perforations as accurate enough..???

I am interested on your theory of perforation accuracy.

Robert

In my opinion accuracy is not the question, for me gauging perforations is about the lowest common dominator. In other words, make it as easy as possible for hobbyists to differentiate one stamp variety from another.

We already have a hard enough time to get many new hobbyists to use a simple perf gauge correctly. Anyone who has invested time in helping the less experienced hobbyists knows this; folks can simply search through the 'Have You inherited Some Stamps? Start Here' category and see the scope of this issue and how members like John invest significant amounts of time in helping new hobbyists.

To be honest, I rarely even pull out a perf gauge for US stamps anymore, I can eyeball the perfs most of the time and if I have doubts I simple grab another stamp to compare against.

Fly speccing perforations is no different in my mind that other types of fly speccing; some folks enjoy dealing with minutia and more power to them. It has its place, I think it is fine if someone want to publish a specialized book, develop a web site, or make posts in communities like this. But requiring the rest of the hobby to share a fly speccing perspective is not something that I support. Basic catalogs, albums, and equipment (perf gauges) should be kept simple so new hobbyists can learn quickly. There is plenty of time later for those hobbyists who wish to moved into advanced studies to do so.
Don

Are fly specks the opposite of constant varieties?

Like virtually every philatelic term there is no standard accepted definition for fly speccing.
In my mind, a constant plate variety is different than an inking anomaly. A compound perforation variety is different than ghost perfs or a bent perf pin. Yet a fly speccer would notice and call out all of these.

In terms of perforations and/or perf pin diameters, where do you draw the line (in terms of decimal points)? Hundredths? Thousandths? Ten thousandths? As computer and digital tools use has become more popular, being able to detect even the smallest deltas becomes feasible. In general term we only need enough information to be able to understand how to ID our stamps.

But in my opinion, using the lowest common dominator for general or basic catalogs and catalog numbering is the best approach; I do not think it wise for the hobby to require entering hobbyists to use calipers or specialized perf gauges (as opposed to a simple perf gauges).

And the same applies to paper thickness. It is very difficult to measure paper thickness even with the proper equipment. In my QA experience and having worked with several dozen employees, I found a large amount of subjectiveness when using a high quality caliper to measure paper thicknesses for inspections.

Stamp colors have already introduced a large amount of subjectiveness into catalogs and albums. What is next? requiring hobbyists to taste gum to find gum varieties? Or require some kind of chemistry kit to analyze gum?

Catalogs already fail in the most simple aspect, providing a person with an understanding of the value of a stamp. 'Special knowledge' is typically required just to translate a catalog value to a actual market value. "This country is about X% of catalog value...except for stamp after 1940 which are Y%.... but revenue stamps are Z%." Yikes

Adding more complexity to basic or standard catalog is not helping our hobby. Even Robert has previously mentioned how hard the US Washington/Franklins can be, and he knows how to use a perf gauge.

I have collected Canada since the 1970s and have a hingeless Lighthouse album for them. I do not consider myself a specialist in Canada. I have a Walsh/Butt Newfoundland Specialized catalog and my eyes cross when I go through it; a great reference but far beyond my simple collection. I do not think that I have touched that catalog in several years. And I do not recommend that kind of catalog or that level of details for newcomers.

For me, much of my time is spent trying to assist our hobby by introducing it to newcomers. I leave it for others to expand our knowledgebase on highly specialized details. I hope there is common ground. I recognize that specialization is important to the hobby and hope that specialists will understand the need to address the issues facing newcomers.
Don

Good point Jogil...Fly specking leads to constant and non constant varieties.



That is another sore spot with me Don...In Canada anyways, the value of stamps in catalouges is driven by stamp dealers..I have never been acceptable with that process...I believe value/rarity is the only acceptable for value process...But I can not change that attitude in the stamp world.



And Don, you are so right..And you do a good job..kudos.

Robert

Speaking of specialization and how it can perhaps become intimidatingly "over-specialized", it's interesting how different collector communities focus on different specialized aspects.

My Sassone Italian specialized goes into great, almost excruciating detail, about all the overprint shifts & variations to be potentially found for early Italian issues, assigning a value to each one, while not spending nearly as much time on perforation variations, paper types, etc. An interesting window into what I presume what be an important focus for Italian area collectors. It does make the catalogue at least twice the length than otherwise, and at first glance, can be a little overwhelming for the new collector of Italian issues.

Greg

eyeonthewall: I agree with you wanting Scott to list perforations in 1/4's instead of 1/2's. I have been trying to get this done by Scott and Unitrade for all Canada BABN printed sheet and booklet stamps from 1930-1934 due to the fact that 11 x 11 gauge = flat plate printed stamps and 11.25 x 11 gauge = rotary press printed stamps. Also, rotary press printed Canada BABN coil stamps from 1930-1933 gauge 8.75 vertically instead of 8.5 (or 9).

I agree with Jogil that at least get Catalogues closer to a more accurate perforation...This should also include American catalouges.

Jogil has always been on the front line of more perforation accuracy.

And new collectors have a better idea of perforations and other perforations associated with stamps.

Robert

Don - I understand about not overwhelming beginners, but for US stamps listing perf gauges more accurately isn't going to lead to an expansion of catalog listings as they just don't come in a bunch of unlisted variations (certainly not like the the kind of proliferation that exists from Newfie stamps).

Correct eyeonwall..It just means say, the original perforation was {theoretical} was maybe 10.0 x 11.5 in any catalouge, and changing it to say a more accurate 11.0 x 11.75 takes up no more space.

Sorry I come across as a perforation fanatic, knowing a lot of collectors here do not care about minuscule perforation accuracy.

Robert

Hi eye - Perhaps, but note the title of the thread. It is about a 4 cent #1204 it being 10.8 vs. 11 and being rounded off in the catalog. We already have newcomers unable to gauge perforations in the round number they use now. How is adding "accuracy" going to help a newcomer make this ID easier or better?

Robert already brought up this same topic a few months and was told about how the US catalog rounds the perf numbers off. I assume that he is revisiting this topic again because he feels strongly that this is important for catalog to be changed.

I see nothing wrong with publishing more detailed info in a specialized reference work, on a web site, or in this community. If folks want to promote adding more complexity (and some might say needless complexity) to a basic or general catalog and album, then why not also offer suggestions or solutions on how to better help newcomers deal with what they are recommending?

It is easy to say 'lets add more information' or 'more information is always good'. It is a lot harder to deal with the extra overhead/cost/downside that ALWAYS comes with additional information.

I deal with this issue every day in the form of databases. For example, the default perspective is 'a database should include as much information as possible'. Makes perfect sense since you can always filter out a subset of data if needed; something you cannot do if your database does not have it to begin with. But one of the downside is the cost of things like data entry (takes a lot longer), cost of extra storage, cost of added complexities, etc.

So I am sure that many would say 'sure, add some extra perf info' if framed only in the 'accuracy' context. But ask the question differently like, 'are you willing to pay an extra $5 for next years catalogs so they can update stamps like the #1204 from 11 to 10.8' and the support might not be the same. The cost of Scott going into FrameMaker and updating 4000+ stamps is NOT trivial. I am pretty good with FrameMaker and it would take me at least 150 man hours to update 4000+ stamps. Amos would take longer. And this does not count to time/cost of doing the re-gauging of all the stamps. It is safe to assume that they would seek to recover this cost.
Don

Or Don...Or Don

Maybe these stamp Catalouge companies could cut their printing costs to maybe half by turning them into a DVD format...Cheaper and can load the DVD to make it a truly SPECIALIZED Catalouge.

Just a thought.
Robert