441 Flat Plate With 11 Horizontal Perforation?

Why is this a poll? What is the yes-no question?

Since your perforation measurement appears to be done correctly at the top I would conclude that this stamp is either a trimmed flat plate 498 or 525 if indeed it is a flat plate printing. If a rotary printing the choices for trimmed stamps would be 544 and 545. Not likely that somebody trimmed a coil waste stamp so that rules out 544. I suppose it could have been created from an imperf stamp as well but why?

Kevbud,
Please show scans of both the front and back of the stamp without the gauge. If this is a flat plate printing, it may be a 498 with trimmed right and left perfs, or a 408 or 481 with top and bottom perfs added. Have you checked for a watermark?

There are experts on this forum who can assist you. I don't consider myself one of them. But I would suggest that, if you can, provide a scan of both the front & the back of the stamp. This would enable others to verify whether the stamp is truly a flat plate and make an ID much easier.

There are no perf. 11 W/F coils known to have been legitimately issued. Below is a pair on a cover that I have used in 1930. They are probably trimmer 498s, as is probably the case with yours. I've no clue why they would have been trimmed by someone since they were not issued as such. Unless something comes to light after 100 yrs. to prove otherwise, they aren't legit.

Down the rabbit hole we go.

kevbud I would also venture to guess that it is a 498 however you cannot rely on the perforation gauge as the single method for identifying the Washington's and Franklins. There are several other things to do also.
1) Check for a watermark use a good watermark fluid or zippo lighter fluid. If it is a 498 it will not have one.
2) If the stamp has some if not all of the original gum. The 498 is a flat plate press printing therefore will not have gripper cracks in the gum. If the gum shows gripper cracks then it will be a rotary press issue.
3) Then you need to measure the stamp design.
4) Get yourself a copy of The Scott Identification Guide to U.S. Stamps for the regular issues 1847-1934.
There are other methods and resources to use. I'm sure that others will chime in. Good luck I hope that my input has helped.

Gripper cracks form over slots cut in the edges of the engraved plates curved to fit the rotary press cylinders at the spot where the clamps held the plates to the cylinders. I am not aware of gripper cracks in gum (stamps are gummed after printing).




Do not measure the stamp design, it is not going to tell you anything. The tolerances are far too small to be measured accurately and this is the least likely approach to return meaningful identification information.

There are countless online, free resources that offer hours of reading/learning on Washington/Franklin issues.

As others have mentioned, post an image of the stamp back and/or look for yourself to see if there is setoff. More on IDing printing methods can be learned here (includes template method and images of setoff).
https://stampsmarter.org/learning/M...methods.html

It is also important to understand how W/F stamps may be altered, you can learn more here
https://stampsmarter.org/1847usa/WFFakes.html

Don

It is hard to tell from the photo because of the perf gage being so close, but the perfs look fake to me. They just don't look 'right'. A scan without the 'busy' perf gage would make things clearer.

Wow! Many thanks for ALL the help in this. I will do my studying. Thanks again to all.

Flat plate coils were perforated by a wheel perforators. For perforation 10 gauge, it is Kiusalas 10-79 = 9.97
The perforations across from each other mostly and usually do not match in their positions across from each other.
-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-
--. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--

Rotary press coils were perforated by a bar perforator. For perforation 10 gauge, it is Kiusalas 10-80 = 9.84
The perforations across from each other mostly and usually do match in their positions across from each other.
-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-
-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-
.

Do flat plate printed stamps ever measure 19x22 1/2 perf 11?

Ok this is the rabbit hole I'm referring to. As Don has said to rebuke my post in reference to measuring the design as it pertains the Washingtons and Franklins. While most individuals don't take up the challenge to identify these stamps. I will say that the difference of 1mm lets not forget to mention the the difference of .75 mm or .25mm to the unaided or untrained eye is almost an impossible feat without the aid of accurate instrumentation i:e a gage, or a good ruler with an excellent source of light. Bright ambient light is best. If you don't believe me ask a machinist or a gunsmith.

Sorry, IDing these has little to do with accurate instrumentation. You can search this forum for endless numbers of threads and posts where hobbyists have been misled by 'measuring'. It is, by far and away, the worse thing that we can tell folks to use when trying to ID the printing process. At best, it is only used as a final step to verify the rest of the discovery.

Catalog publishers and website (including mine) list the dimensions knowing that the tolerances are far too tight to be useful for the majority of hobbyists. The best approach is to learn how to ID the printing process through a number of other ways and make/use a template of from known stamps. Leading folks into the 'measuring rabbit hole' results in literally hundreds of thread (just in this community alone) where people claim to have rare varieties.

To be honest, this issue is probably the number one frustration with US stamps. It is such an issue that one of our community members (Christopher J. Palermo) wrote this excellent article "The United States Washington-Franklin Rotary Press Rarities"
https://stampsmarter.org/learning/I...arities.html
Don

Okay Don, I read the article you have referred to https://stampsmarter.org/learning/I...arities.html and suggest others to refer to.

After I read the article I read the references I have on hand and the article supports the literature I have. I must say that the article is very well written and informative and supports what we are both saying to a point. The author has taken the time to try and simplify the process of identification and deserves a lot of accolades for his effort to create a systematic process for identifying the fabled unicorn known as the Washingtons and Franklins. My hat is off to him. Thanks you.

Jeremy