I Found A 1923 Franklin 1 Cent; Perfs 9.5 X 9.75

REV

Thank you for your post

Ai came back with a ton of info after I fed it with a large amount of data using multiple LLP inputs allowing Chat GPT to dig deeper when responding

One reply that piqued my interest was the one Ai response that said a 1923 one cent Franklin with 9.5 x 9.75 perfs is unique

There are several posts on AI replies to philatelic questions. They show that AI gets it wrong most of the time. Frequently, it makes up stamps that never existed.

I can't imagine why anyone would use AI on something like this, when there are people here with 50 and 60 and 70 years of experience collecting and examining stamps who have given opinions. AI proves nothing, it is just taking a lot of data with no context and mashing it together, and if it does not find something it makes a silly statement such as this one: "a 1923 one cent Franklin with 9.5 x 9.75 perfs is unique". It has no understanding of manufacturing tolerances when billions of stamps are involved. FYI-there were 55 plates used for printing this stamp.

Why AI creates problems,not solve them, it is incorrect and cannot be trusted without checking everything it says.




NO YOU DID NOT FIND ONE PRODUCED THAT WAY BY THE BEP. You are using the gauges wrong as can be seen in the photos. But when someone who thinks he's got what he's got, not amount of facts will stop him. By the way, you check 250 stamps of that design and then making your claim is the same as picking up one handful of sand and the declaring every about the entire beach. 250 out of many many millions is less than a rounding error.

See: Dunning–Kruger effect

The 5 Stages of Learning are:

1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious incompetence
3. Conscious competence
4. Unconscious competence
5. Reflective Competence

Posting for a friend:



Also you are unwilling to spend your own real money to send in your unicorn to an expertizing service which will use many,many words to say, "NOPE."

Now if you send it in for a good certificate and it is found to be as issued by the BEP in the manner you describe and Scott lists it, I will pay the cert fee back to you.

Did you read the SCF thread which discusses how to chemically shrink paper?
Or the joys of reperfing?

Hmm, I'm a bit confused. The OP, after some effort, was able to show us the pictures of stamps on paper that seem to be perfed slightly less than 10 (using two different perforation gages). As was explained, these were made at a perf 9.75 (rounded up to 10), which means they are normal ... nothing to see here.

However, I see some discussion went on about stamp shrinkage. What I am confused about is why are we talking about stamp shrinkage when the stamp is clearly still on paper? My suspicion is that stamps off paper could shrink due to handling, but stamps on paper can only shrink a very, very small fraction. Am I wrong?

The shrinkage was used to explain the gauge changing from 9 3/4 to 9 1/2 over time. That, however, is impossible. Shrinkage would make a 9 3/4 out of a 9 1/2, not a 9 1/2 out of a 9 3/4. The latter happens with expansion.

Since we have no idea what might have happened to this stamp over the last 100 years, and no idea as to what the perfs originally gauged at exactly, all of this is supposition except for the exact measurements today. Which are well within normal for this stamp.

Thanks to all the heavyweights who replied

I'm new at this game so your experienced input is taken seriously

I'll check with a Scott expert to see if this one with 9.5 x 9.75 perfs entitles it to be listed in their 2027 U.S. Specialized Stamp Edition

I'm sure they will need an expert's certified analysis and confirmation first before proceeding

Also, as we all know, Scott does list and cite that there are only 1 known to exist of a few worldwide issues. Somebody takes that step to get it recognized as such.

BTW, Ai is not the way to go since stamps need a human inspection, but it was ultra informative in providing output to consider

In the topic title you implied, and later you said


However, I went back through each reply and never saw any picture with a perf gauge purporting to show a 9.5, unless it was removed?


When you say "check with them", do you mean you are going to send it in with your money? Just talking with them over the phone won't get you anywhere, just as you've found with the discussion here so far. Be sure to report back with their comments. I'm sure it will be interesting. We may have to lock this topic while waiting for your answer, but I'll leave it open for now as more people may want to add their Smilies ...

There is a test we sometimes do here to show users that their perforations are not what they assume. In this case, we take a "clip" of the perforations on one side, then rotate that clip and compare it to the other sides. In your case, I took a scan that you have done earlier, trying to show that it did not compare to a 10 gage. I used this scan, and I agree that the bottom of the stamp does not exactly line up to the 10 gage. However, it is really, really close:

It's a little tough to see, but I clipped out the TOP of your stamp, then rotated it 90 degrees and pasted that onto both the left and right sides of your stamp. The red arrows on the right side show that it matches up almost perfectly. Hence, the perforations on the top and on the right side are exactly the same ... both are 9.75 rounded up to 10 by Scott:

I didn't add the arrows to the left side, but you see the same result there. So, bottom line is that you have a stamp with 10 perfs on all sides.

Partime


Thank you for your red arrow analysis, it really helps everyone see the same issue at question

Have you come across any articles confirming that there are 1923 one cent Franklins with 9.75 perfs on all 4 sides?

Or, if this is easier to find, does Scott have a policy allowing a verified 9.5 or 9.75 perf to be considered as a 10 perf?

Or, maybe even easier for you to find; does Scott
accept rounding? (i.e., a true 10.25 or 9.75 perf will be only listed as a 10 perf)

JLLebbert answered your question on page 2 of this thread: