1c Benjamin Franklin Perforation Top Bottom 11-73, Sides 11-72.

Hello,

Where there is not much information available on this issue rather than that all the 594 and 596 found suggest that they are perforated on 11-72, little information suggest that in the 60th Richard Kuisalas assumed that a batch of rotary press sheet stamps were perforated on the (10-80) 11-73 with the Stickney perforator, and that till now not much evidence were found to support that: I do appreciate if someone could give me more details or references about this issue and wether a stamp was found and how to procced if.

Thank you parcelpostguy, in fact I tried to contact Mr. Michael Hynes who wrote this article in order to have more informations but could not reach him. I am new registered, could you pls guide me or maybe possible for you to email me being pillar in the community, I have a lot of questions regarding this issue. thank you

Sorry, but emails to new members are not possible until 50 quality posts have been made. Keep going, you'll get there soon enough.

Thank you partime, sorry if my responses are late we have zone difference.
I have a situation regarding this issue, I am seeking for an expert opinion, appreciate if you could help me threw or recommend me to whom to address to.

Am Teck, Reading between the lines of your detailed post, it would seem that you have a stamp in-hand which you are trying to confirm/deny. It would be helpful to the participants here to have the fullest information available to be able to respond in the fullest. In other words, please show us an image or elaborate on why this is just a theoretical exercise. Thanks.

Thank you John Becker, indeed yes. The 11-73 top bottom and the 11-72 on the sides are confirmed by software, layover and independant experts. At this right moment, permit me not to be able to share pictures, I will keep this post open and elaborate all details soonest it will be possible to do so.
Where theire is not much documented information and could not find any study case, I need experts names not only to re-confirm the mesures, more important to have all the knowledge backround data with related documents who proves the mention of Richard Kuisalas that a batch of 1c was perforated on the Stickney perforator. I do not know why some professionals are reluctant on this subject.
Being pillar in the community, I do not know if you are able to email me, myself I am not.
Thank you again.

Until you get 50 posts, you can neither receive nor send emails through the system.


Some of it has to do with this thread. We know nothing about you or your level of expertise, etc. Nor have you showed the stamp in question. Some will be silent at the coyness of this partial disclosure chooice. Indeed, I have nothing to add other than my recommendation to send your stamp off to an extertising group. At least they will be able to have the full information we lack here. Sorry to be blunt, but just saying....

with John. There are a lot of people that have come here with many questions but little context or explanation on their part as to why they were asking what they were asking. Later we find out that an item is listed for sale with information added that is highly selectively edited from posts on this forum.

Not saying that you are one of those, just explaining why, at least for me, you need to bring more to the table about motivations or if you have a particular stamp to share than share it.

Transparency my friend will win you a lot of input.

Not blunt at all and not the professionals on this forum and the informations here are often more accurate than abroad. In fact, I am seeking for answers and informations from the professionals on this forum.
I have been all the way, ways........

Thank you

Rogdcam, I take this opportunity to really thank you for all the valuable detailled informations along with cfrphoto, boths of you gave me the opportunity to evalute my stamp.

Today I am in an advanced situation due to the 11-73, where I need more detailed informations to be able to defend the uncertainty I am getting.

Best Regards,

I agree with the various posts that it is extremely difficult and somewhat inappropriate to offer advice without more information. And, as it has been said so many times on this forum, we need pictures (scans). I, for one, would like to see how the physical and computer analysis came up with the slight perforation differences that seem to be the root cause of this discussion.

Otherwise, please send it in for expert opinion and remember to report back with their findings.

Partime, I am responding from my mobile at the moment. On my return, I will post cropped necessary picture part and software mesures just to prove. Please do understand that this is the optimum that I can do at the moment.

Thank you.

AM Teck,

I'm in whole hearted agreement with Partime and all of the others with whom have given up some free very sound advice here.

One should take any opinion rendered here on this forum or any other as just that. An opinion is subject to human error. More to the point not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and this holds equally true for expertising services. It is humans behind the certificate and expert opinion rendered.

Now I like others have mentioned in previous posts know very little about your level of philatelic experience and the computer program you mention using as your proof that your stamp is what is?

I'll go out on a short tree limb here and guess that you're an advanced collector of sorts otherwise you wouldn't be asking such a detail driven question in your OP. Now would you? If you are an advanced collector then you should be very aware that asking for an expert opinion on a public forum isn't the brightest idea in the world to start with. If you haven't noticed the posts in response to your OP have been very reluctant answers to begin with and for very good reason.

Almost everyone who routinely posts on this forum are advanced to very advanced collectors and are not in the business of expertising anything. I for one don't and won't take on that liability. Because there is just too much risk involved. Here is the bottom line even if you convince the members of this forum your stamp is what you think it is? You would still be advised to send it in to an expertise servicer. Then it is still a panel of three that make that opinion.

Now you have my two cents. Let's see your stamp now.

Jeremy

Could you perhaps add a scan of the complete stamp? In a scan you can perfectly compare the sides in photoshop or gimp.

The computer measurements as shown in your second image are not correct sometimes, which software is this?

You probably use the US Specialty Multi Gauge? If you are interested in Kiusala, you can search for those old metal gauges to see what he meant. I once bought one and made my own Kiusala gauges by scan + print on transparent foil. (double checked everything...) Also made many other perforation gauges by this method, including several specialists' gauges.

I found the Multi Gauge not that accurate in comparison to others I own or made myself.