Just Confirming I Have Scott 1055A Large Hole

Quote:
The new perforators associated with the Huck press used smaller pins resulting in holes measuring a nominal 0.037 inch in diameter. The holes are quite clean and are found on Huck press (dry printed) products. The old perforators associated with the Stickney press used larger pins resulting in holes measuring about 0.043 inch. The initial printings from the Huck press were configured to be compatible with the Stickney perforators resulting in large hole dry printing varieties. The wet printed coils from the Stickney press generally, but not always have large holes. Ken Lawrence discovered a Scott 496 strip of 5 with small holes measuring about 0.038 inch in diameter. Initially it was believed that the 3 cent small hole 1057c wet printing variety was somehow created using the Huck coiling equipment, but the discovery of the 1917 small hole 5 cent 496 variety has led to speculation that another perforator with smaller pins was available, but infrequently used. Now that the small hole 2 cent 1055d wet printing variety and a small hole 842 strip (not listed) have been certified, it is expected that other examples may be found. The most common so far is the Scott 496 small hole variety (not listed) where in excess of ten pairs have been found. The upper limit for wet printing small hole is 0.039 inch diameter which must measure top to bottom and match the curve of a round 0.038 inch target. Because of the paper and technology of the time, wet printing small holes are not as cleanly punched as the new small holes. Additional unpublished information may someday be published by Liberty Issue specialists.

Oddly enough, some early Washington/Franklin coils have larger holes, on the order of 0.045 inch in diameter. Because documentation is sketchy, the explanation for the few wet printing small hole varieties found so far is incomplete. It is not sufficient to postulate "pin wear" because the small hole pins are on the order of 25% smaller in area than the large hole pins. Ken Lawrence published an article a few years ago in the Scott Stamps Monthly magazine. It is still the best introduction. You are correct in noting that the paper between the holes is wider than the holes if small hole and not wider otherwise. Although 1 millimeter can be used as a go/no go criterion, measuring to the nearest 0.1 mm is not precise enough.

Quote:
Trying to measure actual sizes in fraction of a millimeter is not a activity with certainty in philately.