Guidance Request For A Specification Report Of A Stamp

Am Teck what you show is within normal production specifications for the base stamp. Additionally, your measurements are too focused on a small difference which can caused by normal paper shrinkage variance during production and post production shrinkage that can be creased with post production chemical alteration.

Your stamp will never get a new Scott listing as it falls in with the accepted range of production and Catalog listing requirements for the already determined listings.

With detailed enough measurements all produced stamps, even from the same sheet will be different. Now one you find a scientific company to pay for the information you want, the stamps will not be listed and if listed, it will be the same value as the other, yet you will be out 100s or 1000s paying for unneeded scientific study. My recommendation is for you to contact your nearest Uviversity's enginnering depart to learn about who can make your required specification list.

May I suggest your next stamp for study:

Parcelpostguy - subtly funny

Am Teck,

You 100% completely still absolutely miss the entire point. We have zero idea of what you are talking about.

What stamp do you think you have? Why do you think it doesn't match Scott listed varieties? What are the differences? You are talking about atomic level DNA differences and we have no idea of even what animal you are looking at.

Suggest you start over from the very beginning and describe the situation as we never had the entire discussion......or don't and we can get back to working on other stamps. I am organizing a bunch of my liquor strips as an example.

NSK provided the topic link below where we went around in endless circles until it was locked. Three pages of word salad to be exact. Now we are picking up where that thread left off.

https://goscf.com/t/89707&whichpage=3

This is so simple.

To the original poster, Am Teck, I offer this. If you think that you have a $10,000 or $200,000 stamp, send it to the Philatelic Foundation along with payment for an opinion. Everything else other than that is just a lot of noise. Without a certificate you will have nothing anyway. If you think that you are going to have some sort of technical report created by a pool of experts, think again. The people that could do such a thing will be at the Philatelic Foundation. Scott is NOT going to take a report from M.I.T. or wherever and include the stamp in the catalog. You need a certificate. AGAIN, it is that simple.

Sorry (I think) for my bluntness.

I agree and will add to rodgcam's suggestion. If you believe that you have a "unique" stamp, then you need to submit with some convincing information. StateRevs earlier gave you a suggestion:




Unfortunately, you didn't actually answer this query. Instead you got close and gave us this:


So I'd like to add that if/when you send it in for a certification, you have to clearly state what you think you have, what research you have done to come to that conclusion, and ask them for a certification. Having read through this topic and the other one that has been linked, I still have no idea what you think you have. I think by reading the previous topic, you believe that you have a unique style of Scott 594 or 596. Scott 594 and Scott 596 are perf 11 on all sides (and I believe we all understand that perf 11 is perf +/- 11). What do you think you have?

Answer 1: I have a Scott 594
Answer 2: I have a Scott 596
Answer 3: I have a Scott 594 with perf 10.8 on all sides
Answer 4: I have a Scott 596 with perf 10.8 on all sides
Answer 5: <Put in what you think you have>

The last topic was locked because we weren't getting anywhere. This thread may soon be locked for the very same reason. Can you at least, in the very fewest words possible and without supplying any mathematical / CAD analysis, state what you believe you have?

Hello Partime,

I am aware that my threads for the 11-73 perforating scale has long been the subject of contradictory opinions, as well as of your concerns in your capacity as moderator.

First, I will respond briefly to your important note regarding the ±11 perforation. Personally, I am among those who consider perforation to be the primary determination of a stamp, since it represents the final physical operation in the printing process. Although the approach differs between flatbed-printed and rotary-printed stamps, calculating perforation tolerances is essential, taking into account manufacturing inconsistencies, mechanical wear, paper shrinkage, and press alignment….
For the Instanta-type gauge, where measurements are taken to the nearest 0.1, the theoretical standard tolerance for a nominal 11 holes per 2 cm is typically ±0.05 to ±0.10 holes per 2 cm (10.90 to 11.10). For decimal refinements, however, the tolerance is considerably tighter, generally within ±0.01 to ±0.02, where the use of a software is required.
BEP specs aimed for about ±0.05 per gauge, but actual output varied ±0.1

The situation I am facing—one that others encounter as well and that will continue to arise in the future—is that stamp expertizing organizations typically issue certificates of opinion (Ref Scott catalogue) rather than comprehensive technical reports. I am reaching out to organizations, experts to request a second opinion. Regrettably, all the experts I used to trust have passed away...

Informative Summary Specs:

Scott Number: Undermined
Perforation:
-Top-Bottom: 11-73, Distance of teeth: 1.85mm, Perforation per 20mm: 10.80
-Sides: 11-72, Distance of teeth: 1.82mm
Design Size: 19.25mm x 22.32mm
Top / Bottom perforation holes are aligned
Primary color is green, with some slightly darker areas
The design is poorly centered
Back: no mirror image, no ink pattern, thinning in lower portion leading to partial transparency.

I am available to answer any questions and to provide further details regarding the specificities and the techniques I used. My intention is to keep this discussion purely technical and informational, and I kindly expect the same approach from others.

There is really no technical opinion to be given. A stamp is compared to known examples when necessary. The perfs are checked, usually on a specialist gauge. The stamp is dipped,and both sides are carefully examined. Depending on the specific stamp, this process might take anywhere from a few minutes to some weeks, although that long is very unusual.

Hello Revcolletor,

Please find below,

I'm sorry, but you forgot to answer my rather simple request:


So, sorry to be annoying, but what do you think you have?

And, also sorry to tell you, but no "comprehensive technical reports" are going to come to you by people in this forum, or any of the expertizing organizations. And, as you are probably aware by now from the lack of information, no one on this forum knows of any organization that has done a study, nor will help you with your request.

So, again, what do you think you have? What other advise can we give you before we also lock this thread?

Hello Partime,

Not annoying at all. I am not able to determine the Scott number due to the stamp varieties, where the documented values differ. Two references mention this issue: one, related to Richards Kiusalas, states that a batch of the 1¢ Benjamin Franklin was perforated on 11-73 with the Stickney perforator. Another source indicates that the BEP experimented stamps with different pin configurations along the 11-73 before settling on a standard one.

Hello Partime,

As you know, I take my work very seriously. I will ensure that you are the first to be informed of the results once they are available. The missing stamp has now been found, serving as proof of Kiusala's work.

You may proceed to lock it...

Since I have no idea about that gauge, I have no idea of it's accuracy. So you are still in the same position, either send it to an expertising group with a specific number or keep writing these posts over and over.

So, we all agree now??? On what, I have no idea.

* * * Topic locked by moderator pending pertinent information * * *