Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stan
Login to Like
this post
Without a clear image, possibly photographed with a good perforation gauge, and without precise measurements of the image, it difficult-to-impossible tell which stamp it is. However, I did some image manipulating and came up with this:
The perfs at the bottom of the stamp (and presumably the top) are clearly different than those on the sides. I'm guessing that it's Scott #579, perf. 11X10. Scott #597 is perf. 11 all around. Design measurements are identical on both stamps — 19.75mm X 22.25mm.
Bob
P.S. I didn't change the size of the original image at all. I just cropped it to the bottom part of the stamp, rotated it 90 degrees to the left, and pasted it over the original image.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I'm not sure either, but the single was attached to the bottom of this block of 6. I have submitted to the APS for a quick id. But here is the scan of the 6. Thanks again as always Bob.
Stan
Login to Like
this post
Further to my last post in this thread, the stamp could be Scott #634 (Type I), which measures perf 11 X 10.5. Or it could be Scott #634A (Type II). Likely 634, which is worth .15 cents in my old Scott U.S. specialized catalogue, as opposed to $300 for Type II.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I was hopeful, and still am since the aforementioned high value stamp would pay for a set of Zepps which is my holy grail for my collection. As always, SOR members are as helpful as any in philately. Thanks again Bob. I enjoy your history lessons as well as the help you give with id'ing stamps.
Stan
Login to Like
this post
02:58:42am
A little further playing with Bob's scan
Assuming that the width of the image is about 19.25, 2 centimeters would be just a tad more. So I put thin lines where I think 2 cm would be.
There are slightly more than 10 and 3/4 perfs at the end of the image so a bit wider image would give us a rough 2mm scale despite the possible distortion. So, perf 11 across the bottom.
Looking at the imaginary line that might run across the space at the top of Bob's scan and counting the perf's to what I believe would be the 2cm mark, I get 10 1/2 perfs.
Digging into my Scott's specialized for the first time in years I see that #595 is perf 11 so something that is perf 11x10 1/2 cannot be #595.
Of course if the stamp is one of the Rotary printings (Less than 19mm wide) that might toss the calculations off a bit, but still would give us a compound perf with a difference of about a half perf between adjacent sides.
Does that not make sense, or have I over complicated it ?
It will be a lot easier with an accurate perf count.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks Charlie. The Washingtons and Franklins will drive me to drink I do suspect. I'm going to do some accurate measuring later this morning and will report my findings.
Why does it feel like with this group of stamps that you have to have and advanced degree in Analytical Calculus and Philately? 
Thanks again.
Stan
Login to Like
this post
"The Washingtons and Franklins will drive me to drink I do suspect."
That's why someone once typified philately as "a fine madness." If you think the Washington/Franklin series is an obsessive dream (or nightmare), check out the Machins.
Login to Like
this post
Stan, I have bad news for you. That stamp is not from the Washington/Franklins! You'd better start stocking up on the booze!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks. I've done some more precise measurements of this particular stamp and it indeed is a 11 perf on the top and a 10 1/2 perf down the two sides. So indeed it is not a Scott #595.
Now Michael, there is the Washington/Franklin Series, and then I guess there are other Washington/Franklins that are just part of regular postage definitives? But, it all seems sheer madness trying to figure out the correct number of any of the so many different variations of each. And, since it is Sunday in the Southeastern US and my particular county, there will be no booze to be had today. 
So I will just drown my sorrows by going to the Stamp Show again and be content to pick up stamps to fill in some of the holes in my albums.
I do feel like what Doug says about
"someone once typifying philately as "a fine madness.""
I passed Advanced Calculus in college, but I've not used it in 25 years. I guess I need to break out those books again, and bone up on some of the advanced theories again. I may even break out my quantum physics book so that I can grasp the theories of relativity and atomic measurements.
Thanks to everyone who has helped me solve the riddle of what this stamp is not. Now I believe as Spock would be to tell Captain Kirk - "It's not logical."
Login to Like
this post
Doug Perry said, "If you think the Washington/Franklin series is an obsessive dream (or nightmare), check out the Machins."
Oh my yes! I wouldn't even think of it! My bugaboo is Canada's Admirals, picturing King George V in uniform(s). The wet and dry printings are bad enough, but the myriad re-entries, paper types, and constant plate varieties pale in comparison to the shades. I once saw a collage made up at least 150 samples of the 2-cent red stamp. It was in the shape of a long spiral, with each stamp slightly darker than the previous one. The first stamp was pink, and the last one in the centre was dark blood red.
I spent several hours over several days trying to ID the Admirals I had, and gave up. And even though they were all decent copies, I had the Devil's own time trying to sell them at my stamp club's monthly auction. Most of our members don't collect Canada, or if they do they're no more interested in trying to ID Admirals than I was!
Bob
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I was at a stamp show today, and I showed this stamp to the dealer and after all the measurements and studying the perks which was an 11. We think it's a 595, but I value the opinion of this group. Thanks in advance.
Stan
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott #595?
Without a clear image, possibly photographed with a good perforation gauge, and without precise measurements of the image, it difficult-to-impossible tell which stamp it is. However, I did some image manipulating and came up with this:
The perfs at the bottom of the stamp (and presumably the top) are clearly different than those on the sides. I'm guessing that it's Scott #579, perf. 11X10. Scott #597 is perf. 11 all around. Design measurements are identical on both stamps — 19.75mm X 22.25mm.
Bob
P.S. I didn't change the size of the original image at all. I just cropped it to the bottom part of the stamp, rotated it 90 degrees to the left, and pasted it over the original image.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #595?
I'm not sure either, but the single was attached to the bottom of this block of 6. I have submitted to the APS for a quick id. But here is the scan of the 6. Thanks again as always Bob.
Stan
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott #595?
Further to my last post in this thread, the stamp could be Scott #634 (Type I), which measures perf 11 X 10.5. Or it could be Scott #634A (Type II). Likely 634, which is worth .15 cents in my old Scott U.S. specialized catalogue, as opposed to $300 for Type II.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #595?
I was hopeful, and still am since the aforementioned high value stamp would pay for a set of Zepps which is my holy grail for my collection. As always, SOR members are as helpful as any in philately. Thanks again Bob. I enjoy your history lessons as well as the help you give with id'ing stamps.
Stan
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
12 Oct 2014
02:58:42am
re: Scott #595?
A little further playing with Bob's scan
Assuming that the width of the image is about 19.25, 2 centimeters would be just a tad more. So I put thin lines where I think 2 cm would be.
There are slightly more than 10 and 3/4 perfs at the end of the image so a bit wider image would give us a rough 2mm scale despite the possible distortion. So, perf 11 across the bottom.
Looking at the imaginary line that might run across the space at the top of Bob's scan and counting the perf's to what I believe would be the 2cm mark, I get 10 1/2 perfs.
Digging into my Scott's specialized for the first time in years I see that #595 is perf 11 so something that is perf 11x10 1/2 cannot be #595.
Of course if the stamp is one of the Rotary printings (Less than 19mm wide) that might toss the calculations off a bit, but still would give us a compound perf with a difference of about a half perf between adjacent sides.
Does that not make sense, or have I over complicated it ?
It will be a lot easier with an accurate perf count.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #595?
Thanks Charlie. The Washingtons and Franklins will drive me to drink I do suspect. I'm going to do some accurate measuring later this morning and will report my findings.
Why does it feel like with this group of stamps that you have to have and advanced degree in Analytical Calculus and Philately?
Thanks again.
Stan
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott #595?
"The Washingtons and Franklins will drive me to drink I do suspect."
That's why someone once typified philately as "a fine madness." If you think the Washington/Franklin series is an obsessive dream (or nightmare), check out the Machins.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott #595?
Stan, I have bad news for you. That stamp is not from the Washington/Franklins! You'd better start stocking up on the booze!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott #595?
Thanks. I've done some more precise measurements of this particular stamp and it indeed is a 11 perf on the top and a 10 1/2 perf down the two sides. So indeed it is not a Scott #595.
Now Michael, there is the Washington/Franklin Series, and then I guess there are other Washington/Franklins that are just part of regular postage definitives? But, it all seems sheer madness trying to figure out the correct number of any of the so many different variations of each. And, since it is Sunday in the Southeastern US and my particular county, there will be no booze to be had today. So I will just drown my sorrows by going to the Stamp Show again and be content to pick up stamps to fill in some of the holes in my albums.
I do feel like what Doug says about
"someone once typifying philately as "a fine madness.""
I passed Advanced Calculus in college, but I've not used it in 25 years. I guess I need to break out those books again, and bone up on some of the advanced theories again. I may even break out my quantum physics book so that I can grasp the theories of relativity and atomic measurements.
Thanks to everyone who has helped me solve the riddle of what this stamp is not. Now I believe as Spock would be to tell Captain Kirk - "It's not logical."
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott #595?
Doug Perry said, "If you think the Washington/Franklin series is an obsessive dream (or nightmare), check out the Machins."
Oh my yes! I wouldn't even think of it! My bugaboo is Canada's Admirals, picturing King George V in uniform(s). The wet and dry printings are bad enough, but the myriad re-entries, paper types, and constant plate varieties pale in comparison to the shades. I once saw a collage made up at least 150 samples of the 2-cent red stamp. It was in the shape of a long spiral, with each stamp slightly darker than the previous one. The first stamp was pink, and the last one in the centre was dark blood red.
I spent several hours over several days trying to ID the Admirals I had, and gave up. And even though they were all decent copies, I had the Devil's own time trying to sell them at my stamp club's monthly auction. Most of our members don't collect Canada, or if they do they're no more interested in trying to ID Admirals than I was!
Bob
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.