Must Perfs Top Row Compared To Bottom Row On Pre 1960 US Stamps Line Up Perfectly?

Reaching out for some help here...I was checking perfs with a perf gauge and everything was correct. When I sent a jpeg of that to an expert at the APS he informed me that the stamp had been reperfed. His reasoning was that the top and bottom perfs didn't match up with each other, and he stated they should because the perforation side-by side wheels are always aligned to be in total sync with each other. Is that true? I took a common Q1 stamp and using photoshop did a test. To me the perfs are not even close to lining up top and bottom, although I used rulers to get as close to comparing the top and bottom, and the two sides.

What pre-1960 stamp photo did you send to the APS?

Edit: To add these links https://goscf.com/t/56242 https://postalmuseum.si.edu/collect...tion-machine

I sent a jpg of an 8 cent 11x10 Franklin...it's a stamp that probably may not exist...I can't find it in Scott, at least
Scotty

Two things:

1. The perforations on the photoshopped Q1 do not match-up perfectly top to bottom or left to right, but that appears to be due to the three images being slightly stretched or condensed very slightly compared to each other. Thus the image has no real value. Sorry to be blunt about this.

2. A hi-resolution scan of the actual stamp submitted is needed here for any meaningful response. Yes, some Scott numbers will have perforations which will line up in one direction or the other, but it depends on each Scott number and how each was made. "Pre-1960" is far too vague.

John,
Thanks for your comment "The perforations on the photoshopped Q1 do not match-up perfectly top to bottom or left to right, but that appears to be due to the three images being slightly stretched or condensed very slightly compared to each other. Thus the image has no real value. Sorry to be blunt about this.
Blunt means I am learning things I wasn't ever aware of. I created the original image using the photoshop program and basically just cut and pasted the perf composites, not realizing that the three images could be either "stretched or condensed" in relation to each other.Too bad that photoshop has that issue. I had used the rulers in photoshop to line up all three images as close as my aging eyes allowed. Doing that lining up from stamp design to stamp design, I never realized what you pointed out.
Again, thank you for your input.
Richard...a newby here, ready to learn from the experts.

As a relative newby, I am still confused here about how to best compare perfs from top of stamp to those on the bottom of the same stamp. I was told that the perfs top and bottom should line up, if otherwise it indicates a reperfing. I used a cheap stand from the Parcel Post series, figuring no one would have bothered reperfing this little sought after copy.
I tried another experiment here using Adobe Photoshop. I still get the same results, top and bottom do not match up looking at the perfs.What do the expert's do that I am not doing here?
Thanks...Scotty19

I want to be very clear in what I said, so I will repeat it with an image. I believed there was stretching or shrinkage during the image manipulation process. NOT with the stamp itself.

Specifically, I added lines at left connecting 2 pairs of perf tips. Similarly along the top connecting a hole with a tip. I think the difference in slope between the two pairs is due to software. I contend the image generation process is faulty somehow, thus no valid conclusions can be drawn from it.


Regardless, why are we talking about this? Where is an image of the 8 cent Franklin stamp which seemed to be the real question?

The wheels are aligned to run parallel to each not necessarily hole by hole if that makes sense. Below is an image from a PF certified Q1. Notice the perf holes on the top are "staggered" a bit relative to the bottom row. But, the line created by the holes should always be parallel.

I would expect the GAUGING of the perfs to be the same top-to-bottom and left-to-right, but not necessarily to line up perfectly vertically or horizontally, perf-to-perf.

I know people have been itching about reperfing at top or bottom of the 8c PP. For me, the left side looks a bit funkulous. I am talking about perf and perf-hole shapes, not any alignment issues. As always, YMMV.

Canyoneer...
Great explantion and thanks for the added lines to explain your point. Point is well taken. What program are you using to do the scans and the add ons?
Scotty19

I use Paint (comes with Windows 10).