Re: Scott 552 Frame Height Variance?

Salute all,

I could not post on past topic Scott 552 Frame Height Variance? I was asked to add pictures, the pictures here now are for the booklet stamps against a flat and a rotary stamp, I will add the ones of the other stamp and I will put here what I wrote to Clarkphilatelics asking him for more information. Looking for more responses.

Salute All, Clarkphilatelics,

I did read your explanations, yes, other factors are also important, I am asking for sizes for now, and I have some questions, parts of your explanations:

Flat plate stamps shrink after printing across the paper grain. Low denomination Bureau flat plate stamps were printed on 400-subject plates. Variable shrinkage in the horizontal direction should be expected. Flat plate booklet pane singles were printed on "special paper" with horizontal grain to minimize errors when cutting sheets into booklet panes. Except for AEF booklet pane stamps, all booklet pane stamps have one side or one side and the bottom imperforate. Booklet pane singles are noticeably wider or shorter than sheet stamps. Comparison with a reference stamp is faster and more effective than attempting to measure in millimeters.
The most notable is use of "special paper" to print higher denomination Fourth Bureau (1922 issue) flat plate stamps after booklet pane production transitioned to rotary presses.
For a limited period of time in 1928 the Bureau of Engraving and Printing produced eleven stamps on "special" booklet paper, being sheets of paper specifically ordered and purchased for booklet pane production. A significant inventory of this paper remained when the BEP stopped printing booklets on the flat plate press and began printing all booklets on rotary presses. The "special" booklet paper had the grain running horizontally rather than the vertical grain paper normally used for sheet stamps. After being produced on moistened paper, stamps shrank four times more across the grain than with the grain.

1- In earlier posts I did show a single booklet pane 1c Franklin which measure 22.06V and 19.57H which I did measure digitally. I followed your instructions and compare them to examples I have 552 and rotary ones. Like you said it is noticeably wider but the list you mentioned of the 11 stamps printed on special paper does not include the 1c Franklin, is it from the exceptions that was occurring that some 1c Franklin booklet was rotary printed on the remaining special paper stock or not, or something else, and why it wasn't denominated differently.

2- I have also a 1c franklin which measure 22.36V and 19.30H which also I did measure digitally and did compare with 552 and rotary ones. It is like shorter half line vertically than the rotary ones and bigger half line from the 552. Horizontally it is wider kind of a line than the 552 and kind of similar match to the rotary. Also, what is the explanation of that, is it like TaylorHealey mentioned from coil issues.

The, well one, moderator locked the topic.

Let us forget paper for a moment.

A flat plate when curved for the rotary press, expands the design in one direction as the semicircle now has a longer dimension. Two half circle plates are joined to make one full cylinder for the rotary press. Thus flat versus rotary press introduces stamp dimension difference BEFORE any paper related size difference are considered.

Salute all, Parcelpostguy,

From your explanation also it is more rotary printed cause of the wider size. Is it from the special paper or not and how could we know. What denomination should I give it. Stamp Smarter gives it 552a but it is for flat plate printed.

It's a booklet pair. You should check the perfs carefully. If it is 11x11, then it's a 552a. Period. Despite the very minor size difference which is within normal production. All this repeating blather will not change anything.

Salute all, Revcollector,

Yes, it is 11x11. For 3 months I was asking about this booklet, I have nothing to do if others have different explanations than yours. Agree with them, If I knew the answers I would not be asking.

@Jayce:

"Special paper" refers to sheets of paper with horizontal grain for printing 1 and 2 cent flat plate booklet panes, Fourth Bureau Scott numbers 552a and 554c. When the 1 and 2 cent rotary press booklet panes, Scott 632a and 634d replaced them, the remaining "special paper" was used to print higher denomination sheet stamps during 1928. Lower denomination, 1 cent through 10 cent, sheet stamps had already been converted to rotary press production. The Stickney printed and gummed stamps on rolls of paper that were then rewound and perforated offline.

Except for some First issue booklet panes, issued in 1900, all flat plate booklet panes including C10a were printed on paper with horizontal grain. In 1902, some regular issue 1 and 2 cent sheet stamps were printed on paper with horizontal grain. That was the year that the Bureau started printing booklet panes on sheets of horizontal grain paper.

You have the answer, several times. They are booklet stamps. They were produced slightly differently then sheet stamps. The measurements are slightly different. It's normal. You don't want to believe it. So you keep posting, waiting for someone to tell you that they are rare, and need a separate catalog listing. They are COMMON!!!! NORMAL!!!!

Salute Clarkphilatelics and thank you for the information.

The width comparison I made above was with a flat and a rotary stamp. Does it meet your requirements, should I make also for the length. I have several rotary Scott numbers; do you want me to compare with a particular one. Does the comparisons I made, and the difference shown is within the normal production.

They are not rare and do have a separate listing as booklet stamps to go along with sheet and coil stamps. However, booklet stamps are usually listed as full panes or as complete booklets. Single or pairs from a booklet pane don't warrant a listing in that era.

All 1 cent designs you have shown have been each produced by the millions.

That they are common was also in the post you copied, I don't know why you left it out.