Scott 1189A Booklet Tagging - Scott 1184 Stamp

Here is a Scott 1189a booklet with a Scott 1184 stamp {1 cent } in it that is supposed to be "untagged"....But has tagging on the left side and some tagging on the perfs. on the right side.

The Scott 1189 { 39 cent } supposed to have a GT4 tagging, which it has.

Have sent it to Mirko the editor of the Adminware Data Base {which is not listed} to see what he thinks...I will get back as soon as I get an answer.

OR AM I MISSING SOME THING

Robert

What you show is an overly generous block of tagging for the stamp (39 cent) intended to be tagged. Now this block will over lap onto the other stamps as shown. Remember the one cent with the vertical strip of tagging is adjacent to the 39 cent tagged stamp on the booklet pane to the left on the printed press sheet. The gutter is cut to form the pane rather than perforated.

The real question is: Does the small areas of tagging on the low denomination stamps, not intended to be tagged, trigger the facer-canceler to think proper postage has been paid. If yes, then it is a production problem (error), if no, then it is within the intended production goal.

Hi parcelpostguy
Interesting replies.



Was thinking if that was the case for the 1 cent, then it should have been applied to the two 5cent stamps also for proper postage paid.

I looked every where before posting, cause usually some one can find some information on this..Found nothing.

Waiting for a reply from the tagging guru..Then I will know for sure if it is normal, or a possible tagging error.

Robert

Sometime ago low vale stamps for the US and Canada stopped being tagged. The idea being you could not buy a five cent modern stamp and use just that to fool the machines into thinking you paid full postage. If tagging not found by machines, the letters should be kicked out for human observation.

Of course we being stamp collectors we can get old lower denominations which were tagged back when the lower denomination actually paid for an ounce of letter mail.

wert,
Stamp # 1184 was issue untagged but the application in the printing process of the tagging on the 1189 (pane 1189a-1189c) and on the 1190 (pane 1190a) easily overflows on the 1184 like parcelpostguy mentionned.
I have more than fifteen of these panels, booklets: BK111, BK111A and BK123. Most of them have tagging on the left side on the 1184 stamp, so personnaly I think this is a very common error.

The width of the tagging on the left side of the stamp versus the width on the right side supports Parcelpostguy's explanation as the missing right side width appears on the one cent stamp.

Thanks for the information guys.

Robert

wert,

I once asked the same question of the former editor (Ken Rose) and he told me that the untagged version of the stamp is the exception.

Hi - sorry about the delay, it's been busy...

The tagging frame on the 39c stamp in this booklet (as with several others like Bk88) is larger than the dimensions of the stamp, which means it can 'overflow' to an adjacent stamp like the 1c in this case. Most of my booklets show this to various degrees - in order not to, the pane has to be cut at left quite closely to the stamps.

It is not an error - just a production inaccuracy.

Thanks ModCanSpecialist and 3Dadeofor the updates..Appreciated.
Robert