Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
It's somewhat hard to see in this picture, but I have a 2 cent GW and the top perf is a little bigger then 11.5 but noticeably smaller then 11 so I was wondering if anyone could help with identifying. The stamp seems to look most like a scott 634 but the top perf is definitely off.
Login to Like
this post
11:39:05pm
It sounds like a rounding off problem. Possibly Scott chooses to list a stamp less than 11¾ as 11½ and more than 11¾ as 12. What are the parameters in the introduction section of the catalog you are using.
A specialized catalog may well use a more precise measurement.
Login to Like
this post
As an aside, in the future, when posting perf measurements, align the tips of the perfs with the tips on the gauge in the other orientation (in your case with the stamp above the gauge line of interest). That is, we should be able to see the gauge lines as well, and the intersection of the stamp and gauge line should create little circles between the perfs. Its way easier to see whether the measurement is correct.
I recommend doing this all the time, because its easier.
Login to Like
this post
HungaryForStamps, thanks for the advice, hopefully these images are easier to see sorry i don't have a better way of sending them. As you can probably tell I'm pretty new at the whole stamp collecting thing.
Login to Like
this post
08:12:30am
To see exactly what perforation you are dealing with I'd break out my Gobbons Instanta gauge;
As can be seen, on the right it shows the perf to the nearest tenth and it is easy to decide if a given stamp is; 10¾, 11, 11¼, 11½, 11¾, or 12.
While some catalogs state the perf to the nearest "½" perf with dynamic certainty, specialists often classify some issues to the nearest "¼" perf.
The Gibbons Instanta makes this easy if you have patience and either good eyesight or a clean magnifier.
Linn's also produced a similar gauge;
It has similar capabilities, but the plastic seems more flimsy, so I us the Gibbons gauge for close measurements.
Login to Like
this post
I agree with Charlie that a guage like the clear ones shown make life and identification easier. And, i agree, that a magnifier or other aid is essential when folks of his age (and mine) are dealing in fractions of fractions.
Watching me work with these guages is rather like watching an animated Rube Golderg as he flips his glasses up, reaches for a lense, moves the guage over the stamp, grabs the tongs to better keep the stamp in place (no, he won't admit to using his fingers, but we all know...), then
he's exhausted just describing it.
David
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks amsd and and cdj1122,
The Linn's gauge looks really helpful and I'll look into it. In the mean time I'll assume this stamp is a scott 634 since there doesn't seem to be another option.
Login to Like
this post
I use the exact same simply metal gauge that OffaPerry is using for relatively simple cases like this stamp. This stamp can only be perf 11 or perf 10 at the top. Its not perf 10 as can be easily seen, so its perf 11.
However, the better gauges are necessary in some cases, e.g., Swiss stamps where 1/4 measurements really matter.
The new images posted of the measurements suffer from alignment problems. The first image measuring against 11 1/2 gauge is properly aligned at the second perf hole from the left (not the first). No big deal. But the stamp is slightly skewed to the gauge and that matters.
However, in the second image, the one that should show better alignment, is way off to start with (and slightly skewed).
I understand its hard to take a picture of the situation, but measure by hand you should be able to properly align the stamp to the gauge. You will see the stamp is closer to 11 than 11 1/2.
Login to Like
this post
06:00:55pm
It's somewhat hard to see in this picture, but I have a 2 cent GW and the top perf is a little bigger then 11.5 but noticeably smaller then 11 so I was wondering if anyone could help with identifying. The stamp seems to look most like a scott 634 but the top perf is definitely off.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
18 Oct 2015
11:39:05pm
re: 2 Cent George Washington Question
It sounds like a rounding off problem. Possibly Scott chooses to list a stamp less than 11¾ as 11½ and more than 11¾ as 12. What are the parameters in the introduction section of the catalog you are using.
A specialized catalog may well use a more precise measurement.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2 Cent George Washington Question
As an aside, in the future, when posting perf measurements, align the tips of the perfs with the tips on the gauge in the other orientation (in your case with the stamp above the gauge line of interest). That is, we should be able to see the gauge lines as well, and the intersection of the stamp and gauge line should create little circles between the perfs. Its way easier to see whether the measurement is correct.
I recommend doing this all the time, because its easier.
Login to Like
this post
06:08:18pm
re: 2 Cent George Washington Question
HungaryForStamps, thanks for the advice, hopefully these images are easier to see sorry i don't have a better way of sending them. As you can probably tell I'm pretty new at the whole stamp collecting thing.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
20 Oct 2015
08:12:30am
re: 2 Cent George Washington Question
To see exactly what perforation you are dealing with I'd break out my Gobbons Instanta gauge;
As can be seen, on the right it shows the perf to the nearest tenth and it is easy to decide if a given stamp is; 10¾, 11, 11¼, 11½, 11¾, or 12.
While some catalogs state the perf to the nearest "½" perf with dynamic certainty, specialists often classify some issues to the nearest "¼" perf.
The Gibbons Instanta makes this easy if you have patience and either good eyesight or a clean magnifier.
Linn's also produced a similar gauge;
It has similar capabilities, but the plastic seems more flimsy, so I us the Gibbons gauge for close measurements.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2 Cent George Washington Question
I agree with Charlie that a guage like the clear ones shown make life and identification easier. And, i agree, that a magnifier or other aid is essential when folks of his age (and mine) are dealing in fractions of fractions.
Watching me work with these guages is rather like watching an animated Rube Golderg as he flips his glasses up, reaches for a lense, moves the guage over the stamp, grabs the tongs to better keep the stamp in place (no, he won't admit to using his fingers, but we all know...), then
he's exhausted just describing it.
David
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
07:38:14pm
re: 2 Cent George Washington Question
Thanks amsd and and cdj1122,
The Linn's gauge looks really helpful and I'll look into it. In the mean time I'll assume this stamp is a scott 634 since there doesn't seem to be another option.
Login to Like
this post
re: 2 Cent George Washington Question
I use the exact same simply metal gauge that OffaPerry is using for relatively simple cases like this stamp. This stamp can only be perf 11 or perf 10 at the top. Its not perf 10 as can be easily seen, so its perf 11.
However, the better gauges are necessary in some cases, e.g., Swiss stamps where 1/4 measurements really matter.
The new images posted of the measurements suffer from alignment problems. The first image measuring against 11 1/2 gauge is properly aligned at the second perf hole from the left (not the first). No big deal. But the stamp is slightly skewed to the gauge and that matters.
However, in the second image, the one that should show better alignment, is way off to start with (and slightly skewed).
I understand its hard to take a picture of the situation, but measure by hand you should be able to properly align the stamp to the gauge. You will see the stamp is closer to 11 than 11 1/2.
Login to Like
this post