Scott 552 Frame Height Variance?

So I have 2 perf 11 1 cent franklins.

I have measured them, had others measure them, had AI measure them, and they always come out to 19x22.25mm

I have ~20ish other 552s and those definitely come out at 19x22mm

Is there any variability on the height of these stamps or is there something else that could explain it?

Paper shrinkage I feel like would effect both dimensions. It just isn't making any sense to me.

Unless I am missing something?

Thanks!!

Are you sure they are all perf 11?

Not necessarily. Paper tends to have a direction in which it was produced. Also, If the stamp is not scanned perfectly flat, AI will not measure correctly.

Yes there are 100% perf 11-73 or 11-72.5 all the way around.

Stamps are very flat. Difficult to pick up with tongs without a ledge.

To provide an accurate response, clarify on the following aspects:

1- Measurement Methodology
How was the design size determined?
What specific measurement protocol was applied?
What were the resolution and calibration parameters of the scanner and software?

2- Boundary Definition Approach
Was the measurement based on the outer envelope of the design?
Was the method sensitive to fringe pixels (peripheral low intensity pixels)?
Or was it anchored to strong, well defined segments (edge detection or contour based anchoring)?

3- Perforation
What was the measurement precision and which gauge?
How were values rounded or truncated?

4- Artificial Intelligence
Which model or algorithm was relied upon?
Was the system supervised, semi supervised, or rule based?

I'm not interested in going down an AI parameter rabbit hole with you on this because it was not the determining factor in deciding the measurement

Stamps were measured by hand by 3 different people with a Sonic Labs multi-gauge that has a millimeter ruler on it that is accurate to a quarter mm. As far as measuring process, I'm confident that it is correct as I have other 552s that clearly come out to 22 mm. These specific two stamps do not.

Perforations were measured on the Sonic Labs multi-gauge as well as several other gauges that I have access to.

I will be attending a biweekly meeting for a local APS-affilated group on Thursday and will bring the stamps there. I'll let y'all know what explanations they come up with as well.

Measuring is not usually used anyway, because it's far too easy to be inaccurate. Direct comparisons with the various stamps involved is the way to check, along with checking the perfs, of course. A 594 design is an exact match to 581, and 596 design is an exact match to the 597 design.

TaylorHealey,

Just the fact that, by using a Sonic Labs Multi Gauge without even entering into the deeper technical aspects you raised a flag and requested an explanation already reflects a commendably precise and detail oriented approach. Very good!

You will likely encounter a range of standard responses, such as: comparisons should be made with previously documented stamps; the Scott Catalogue should serve as the primary reference; only recognized expertizing bodies possess the requisite knowledge and instrumentation; design size is not typically employed as a diagnostic criterion; stamps are subject to atmospheric and environmental influences over time…. and similar arguments which unfortunately all are abiding with.

However, the central question if you seek a genuinely scientific response is more focused. Materials science and paper studies demonstrate that design size of stamps produced by a flat plate printing press will ultimately measure smaller than the original die, why have these findings published in multiple scientific studies by established researchers, including project managers from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing not been formally incorporated into prevailing expert standards? Specifically, why are various 1c Franklin issues, such as the example you referenced, still consistently assigned to the 552 reference classification despite these documented findings?

I look forward to your response following your meeting……

Did you know that the newest Sonic gauges changed materials because the old ones degraded over time and would shrink with age and temperature. Measuring these designs with a simple gauge is a folly now and always has been a folly.

A quarter millimeter is tough to measure accurately by hand.

Daily changes in ink composition, fluidity, and moisture content in the paper can cause the inked lines to swell ever so slightly.

A kiss print can cause the stamp image to appear slightly bigger than normal.

Looking forward to seeing your 1200 dpi scans, front and back.

It's very simple. Perf 11x11 flat plate one cent green Franklin stamps are listed as catalog number 552. Billions were printed, approximately 100 years ago.There are going to be some minor variations in size just based on the grain direction of the paper when printed, as well as by any number of environmental factors as well as how they have been preserved all these years. It's fine to have an interest in collecting with these changes in mind, but the average collector would think of this as a type of "flyspecking". If you enjoy it, by all means continue to do so, but you should not expect to reinvent the wheel simply because current technology makes reading exact sizes of 100 year old technology a bit easier. I am sure that this could be done to almost large scale quantity issue from before 1940; they would all show some variations. I can only imagine the minor size differentials in the three cent Prexie.

@revcollector

Look at the previous posts of Am_Teck. Those threads were closed for a reason. You might be wasting your time.

The info might prove useful to others in the future, so it's all right.

Revcollector:

"There are going to be some minor variations in size just based on the grain direction of the paper when printed, as well as by any number of environmental factors as well as how they have been preserved all these years.'

This is information I was looking for. Thank you.

Rodgcam: luckily mine is brand new.

Zebraman: Unsure of what DPI my scanner is capable of but I'll give it a shot for you.


Just to add, all measurements were done under magnification.

And let's be honest the only reason these things get questioned is due to the coil waste varieties values.

NSK, Revcollector,

Sad! Obviously you are part of those who abid on the information you've been given.

I will respond to you in a separate thread, we should respect the present. In the meantime, I encourage you to review the archive as an example but not limited to Clark Frazier for what he was communicating.

We had a had a few of those threads from you already. The moderators closed them for a reason. There is no need for another thread with that same content.