Admiral Missing Perforation And Possible Flaw

Good afternoon,

I did a curve from South African world, back to Canada in the 1910s-1920s without plane or time machine !!

First part : missing perforation

I found 2 stamps with perforation missing on Admiral set, on different places of the stamp. I didn't found which kind or perforator was used, do someone know about it? Was it a line or a single/multiple comb?


back of stamp : no punch hole

The down side of the stamps looks damaged too, but it seems to be bad work of the perforator :

Also, notice that there is 2 missing teeth around the supposed 3rd hole down right, which is the counterpart of the next missing perforation, missing 3rd hole top right:


back of stamp : no punch hole



sadly, the green 1c is quite heavily damaged in the middle of right side, but I will keep it for the 2nd part...

My question here : is that common on Admiral serie to see missing perfs? I see lot of flaws, but I didn't saw missing perf yet as picture.

Second part : flaw - broken relief down left numeral box.

The 2nd reason why the 1c (looking like something good for recycling) is interesting. It seems there is a broken relief down right the frame line (see previous picture for original) :

Normal

Broken relief?


I did put a strong filter to highlight it, I think it is a known flaw but I didn't found it as it is shown here. Can someone help here?

Third part : another small size stamp!

I noticed a brown 2c narrower than usual ones. It is from wet printing, compared to a dry printing, but difference still to important to my eye. The unperforated side tells me that one is from a booklet (the small, clean cut) and the standard is from a sheet pane (rough cut). I don't have other of that type coming from a booklet.
Same hieght

One is narrower :

The difference on the left side looks to be the shrinking result, the difference on right side doesn't looks normal.


Can someone tells me if the difference of size would be from the booklet version? The small one is much darker too.


In overall, can someone tells me if it worth the detour? I don't mean if it worth enough money to pay the 7-8 hours spent on it, but if I will always find small differences on 2 similar old stamps of that era, or if eventually, I get some real duplicates??? I feel it is easier to find diffferences than to conclude they are the same... I know how human is made, we see what we want to see, I try to stay objective with not hypothesis that they are the same, but well... Is that like fingerprints, some looks same but all are different?

Thanks and have a nice day!

Marc

Nart, piece of advice. If you post several questions on one post answering gets difficult! I will try though.
On your first stamp, yes, one of the perforator pins was missing - most likely broken.
The secon stamp you show is most likely not a broken line, but under-inking. Looks like the ink was running low on this pass of the press.


Peter

Thank you Peter for the answer, indeed, for the 2nd part, the rest of the details seems to be lighter print so you must be right.

Thanks for the advice about resuming post in 1 question, I am always open to constructive comments! I was trying to put them all together to not spam the forum, but I agree with you, one thing at a time!

Marc

The difference in height and width are noted for vertical and horizontal grain of the paper. Vertical grain paper will shrink taller and narrower. Horizontal grain paper shrinks squatter and wider. The same plate is used regardless the damp paper dries and shrinks after printing. If the stamps are dry printing this does not happen to such a degree.

Here is a link to previous post concerning stamp sheets wet printing shrinkage: https://goscf.com/t/77589