US #68 Are These Perforations Suspect?

I recently acquired this stamp identified as #68. I agree with that, but I'm a bit puzzled as to how narrow this stamp seems when it comes to the margins. It seems like the right side was re-perforated. Most other examples I see of the #68 have much more total margin space (left side plus right side). Thoughts?

That right side does look a bit wonky. I agree with reperf, and a bad example at that.

Thank you both. I'll be sending it back, hopefully swapping for a #24 that I need.

I try not to buy from sellers that don't disclose problems or unable to.... unless the price is right. I also try to steer clear of selling to buyers who get their purchases expertised on the SCF!

While it is possible that the stamp is reperforated, I have my doubts that the right side perforations are the bad ones.

I posted about this stamp (and a couple others) for learning purposes, i.e. ideas of what kinds of things to look for in addition to hearing from those much more experienced in the area of analyzing potential faults, etc. My initial concern was the total margin size of the left plus the right. It seemed just not correct (too little) compared to virtually all other #68 images I could find. In the end, the look of the stamp in person just didn't feel right. It's quite difficult to analyze a stamp from a couple pictures. This was my first purchase, 3 stamps, and so I'm learning what to look for and question, even before I decide to purchase.

Well you are correct in that small margins can indicate a reperf but it isn't a sure thing by any means.

This is how sheets were perforated in the old days:

The line perforator is driven by a belt from a wheel on the ceiling (those wheels were driven by a steam engine in the basement of the old BEP building).

The woman on the left places a sheet onto the table (notice the center mark on the pin wheel). The pin-wheel and the counter "hole-wheel" below the pin-wheel pull the sheet through the perforator. The woman at right removes the (partially) perforated sheet from the table onto a stack. The stack is rotated by 90 degress and the sheets go through the perforator once again. Notice how the women protect their hair from all the paper dust thrown into the air.

The pull strength was quite high. This means that the sheet pulling direction is somewhat "imprinted" into the perforation holes. The holes are not perfectly round, but slightly stretched in the pulling direction. Both row (column) holes are stretched in the same way as they are perforated in the same pass through the perforator..

On your 10c stamp, the vertical left perf holes are mainly stretched upwards, but also some are round. The vertical right perf holes are mainly round, but some are stretched up or down. So something isn't quite right on both vertical sides.

The stretching may also cause tiny rims at the front edge of the holes where the wheel pins "grab" the paper. That requires very close-up inspection but usually can't be seen on scans, as this is a really minute effect (I don't see anything here).

It may well be that your copy is a right side (or wide) margin copy where someone (re-)perforated the entire right side, and also "prettyfied" some of the other perf holes. But I'm not betting on my ideas, there are people who are way better in detecting reperfs.

The spacing of the perfs on the right side match that of the left except for the top two. But the shape of many of the perf holes on that side simply don't look right. The spacing of the top perfs matches the bottom, but generally speaking, something seems off about them.

It's a common enough (and inexpensive enough) stamp that you shouldn't have much trouble finding a better example that doesn't cast doubt in your mind.

Here's another learning question. Shouldn't the perforation holes be opposite each other? (left and right sides) This clearly isn't the case for this stamp.

Good question for the Classics experts. I also look forward to the replies.

I straightened* your image in Photoshop, blacked out the background so it wouldn't be distracting (no stamp pixels were harmed in the process) and added parallel lines spanning each row of perfs. It's quite clear that the holes and "stubs" are not aligned. Should they be? I don't know. I'm just doing analysis.


* [rotated, not skewed or otherwise distorted]

Since nobody else has addressed this, I'll give you the short answer. Whether the perforation holes line-up on both sides depends on the perforating machine that was used. For US stamps of this era the printer used a rotary perforation machine and perforations do not line-up on both sides (except by chance). Other equipment used in other countries will cause the perforations to line-up.

On U.S. stamps this holds true even into the early to mid 20th century.

Yes, but even when the perf holes don't line up exactly in parallel, shouldn't they at least be spaced apart consistently?

Assuming the blue lines are evenly spaced, some of the lines perfectly bisect the perf hole on the right, and some of them are askew, so the perf holes are not evenly spaced. Except for the occasional bent pin, shouldn't the holes be more evenly spaced and better aligned?

The blue lines are exactly parallel, but I made no attempt to evenly space them. I centered each one individually on the left perf tips, and where they ended up on the right is where they ended up. Perhaps one of two of the lines is a tiny bit off from center, but I think it's close enough to show the horizontal alignment (or lack thereof) of the perfs on the left and the right.