Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I had these stamps for the last 17 years and just now decided to look at them. I have to measure the other 3 that I have. I hope these are measured right.
Login to Like
this post
Determining the dimensions of a Washington/Franklin stamp design is the last step and only serves to verify the other steps that you might have a rarer variety.
Gauging the stamp perforations, determining if the stamp was printed as a flat plate or rotary is far more critical. And if you do get to the last step, put the calipers away; they will not help you. Make a template from another known rotary stamp as shown here
http://www.stampsmarter.com/learning/Manuf_printingmethods.html
Comparing to another, known stamp (as a template) is much easier and more accurate.
Trying to measure a Washington/Franklin is almost impossible for two reasons. First, the dimensions given in various catalogs are rounded off estimates, the margin of error is greater than what they publish. Second, physically measuring the design accurately is very difficult and 'user error' is very common.
Identifying the Washington/Franklin are challenging because you really have to learn about the production of these stamp during this era. For example, the stamps in your image are highly likely #632s. They are the bright green color was only used during the later period (after 1927).
To verify, gauge the perorations and check that they are 11 x 10.5
Don
Edit: Also always start with the assumption that you have the most common varieties.
http://www.stampsmarter.com/1847usa/1922identifier.html
Login to Like
this post
It looks like you're too tight with the measuring. It needs to be on the outside of the frame, not on it.
Login to Like
this post
Michael,
That's confirmation bias. Folks see the rare stamps with the measurements and then go measure their stamps. More times than not, we end up 'matching' the dimension of the rare stamps. This is why every Washington/Franklin expert tell folks to do NOT try to measure. Make a template.
(Not to mention the color clearly makes it a 632.)
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I know Don will probably bristle at this, but here goes.
In distinguishing Flat Plate from Rotary Press printings, you can look at the ratio of measurements of height vs width as a RELATIVE measure rather than trying to determine ABSOLUTE measurements, which are fraught with variation.
If you can blow up the stamp image so that you're measuring dimensions in the range of 4 inches instead of 1 inch, that will greatly reduce error.
Here's what I have found, after subjecting several hundred stamps to this methodology:
The ratio of height vs width of Flat Plate print images will be in the range of 1.16 to 1.19.
The ratio of height vs width of a horizontal Rotary Press print image will be less than 1.16, typically 1.13 or less.
The ratio of height vs width of a vertical Rotary Press print image will be more than 1.19, typically 1.21 or more.
All that said, I most emphatically endorse Don's method for templating.
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
Hi Paul,
One of the biggest reasons to avoid recommending ‘measuring’ (aside from all the previous reasons listed) is that less experienced folks latch on to it as evidence that they have a rare stamp. They avoid trying to gauge the perfs, they avoid trying to understand any watermarks, they avoid learning about the production (flat plate, rotary, offset) of the Washington/Franklins, and they avoid common sense of finding a common stamp vs an rare stamp. They whip out a caliper, thinking it is the quickest and easiest way to ID their stamps.
People take the dimensions in the catalogs as gospel and this is totally wrong. Allow me to repeat this one more time, the margin of error is too great to ID any Washington/Franklin stamp design using the dimensions in any catalog or on any website (including mine). The dimensions are the last step and are best used to only verify all the other pieces of the puzzle. They should never, ever be used as the only method for identifying a Washington/Franklin.
I have seen hundreds of threads which on this, and frankly I feel it is a disservice to our hobby to encourage people to measure a Washington/Franklin designs. Spending countless hours trying to communicate the proper way to identify the tricky Washington/Franklins gets very old after a while. But I do not bristle, I only get weary of the misinformation and leading less experienced people astray.
Lastly making and using a template is not my method, it is the recommended method by every Washington/Franklin expert I know. I know of no Washington/Franklin expert that recommends hand measuring the designs.
Don
Login to Like
this post
For me, the watermark can be hard to see since only a small portion may be on the stamp.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Al,
Agreed, thankfully only a few Washington/Franklin stamps have watermarks (the original poster's stamp does not have one of course).
I think that every hobby has some challenging things about it; whether it is trying to sink a 6 foot putt, trying to compose a great photograph, or trying to knit a sweater. For US stamp collectors, it is trying to ID the 1908-1922 Washington/Franklins.
It would be great to have a simple, single way to identify some of these Washington/Franklins stamps; but there isn’t. But it is possible, with some learning and background, to become proficient at detecting the varieties by putting together all the pieces to the puzzle.
Don
Login to Like
this post
I agree, Don.
My point is simply that the issue of error in measurement can be offset to a large degree (but not completely) by:
a) enlarging an image of the stamp so that measurement error as a proportion of the actual measurement is reduced and,
b) using ratios to make relative commparisons of the dimensions. Cutpoints applied to the ratio also greatly reduces reliance on absolute dimensions, which as you point out, are fraught.
I would never advocate ignoring careful classification based on all the other things you mention. Measuring the stamp image is only a last resort.
Suffice to say that this technique has allowed me to determine that the vast majority of stamps offered as rotary press printings on eBay are misrepresented.
'nuf said. To each his own.
I agree with angore that watermarks can be tough. Is that the end of a "U", or is that just a paper inclusion or a cancel bleed-thru?
For me, another great stamp identification dilemma is grills. The differences are often very slight between catalog values that are orders of magnitude different.
Yesterday, I was just looking at a stamp purported to be a #83 ("points up" grill), which obviously (under transillumination and magnification) had a "points down" grill. After counting the rows a dozen times, it was most definitely 14x17 points. Not 15x17 (D grill), not 12x17 (F grill), not a Z grill, so it had to be the E grill, #88. Bummer. I paid 1/10 of its value as #83, but found it to catalog at 1/10 of what I paid! Seller immediately promised a full refund.
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
Hi Paul,
I agree that your use of a ‘relative ratio’ has merit; but it also comes with some caveats which are important to understand.
First and most obvious, using a photograph (as opposed to a scan) is going to be problematic. Any skew or angle in the image will cause issues with trying to do the measurements you outline. While it is possible to have a rig which puts a camera at exactly 90 degrees over a stamp, few hobbyist will have this. A scanned image will always have the correct perspective so any scanned image would be acceptable.
Second, please be aware that the paper used for the Washington/Franklins have a ‘grain’. The paper used can be either horizontal mesh or vertical mesh paper (mesh = grain). For example, flat plate booklet pane stamps were printed on the horizontal mesh because this allowed for better accuracy for cutting them into the panes. So the booklet stamps are slightly wider and typically shorter than the flat plate sheet stamps.
There is one definitive, easy way to determine flat plate vs rotary press coils stamps. The Washington/Franklin flat plate coils were perforated by a different kind of perforator than rotary press coils. All perforation 12 and perforation 8.5 coils are flat plate and there are no perforation 11 coils. Only perforation 10 coils are both flat plate and rotary press. So for perf 10 coils, it is possible to use a Kiusalas gauge to determine if a stamp is flat plate or rotary (Kiusalas 10-79 for flat plate and Kiusalas 10-80 for rotary press coils).
Don
Login to Like
this post
Thanks, Don,
I have to admit that understanding perfs at that level is still beyond my comprehension.
That said, I have been collecting some very interesting perf variations. Here are a couple from my DWI collection:
Top row are both Scott #24, perf 13. Bottom row are both Scott #18, perf 13. But, look at the huge difference in the execution of the perforations, left column vs right!
I have seen these raggedy perfs on counterfeit stamps, but these are all genuine. Different perforating machines, for sure.
By the way, did anyone notice that ALL 4 stamps have inverted frames? That's kinda special for the 4 cent stamps, quadrupling their value. And, did anyone notice that the stamp in the upper right has the straight-tail 2 (in the "1902")? That's a minor variation adding about 10% to its value.
I just snagged the one in the upper left last week for $12 including postage. Have never seen that 'raggedy' perf style on this stamp before.
Login to Like
this post
02:54:51pm
I had these stamps for the last 17 years and just now decided to look at them. I have to measure the other 3 that I have. I hope these are measured right.
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps IDs
Determining the dimensions of a Washington/Franklin stamp design is the last step and only serves to verify the other steps that you might have a rarer variety.
Gauging the stamp perforations, determining if the stamp was printed as a flat plate or rotary is far more critical. And if you do get to the last step, put the calipers away; they will not help you. Make a template from another known rotary stamp as shown here
http://www.stampsmarter.com/learning/Manuf_printingmethods.html
Comparing to another, known stamp (as a template) is much easier and more accurate.
Trying to measure a Washington/Franklin is almost impossible for two reasons. First, the dimensions given in various catalogs are rounded off estimates, the margin of error is greater than what they publish. Second, physically measuring the design accurately is very difficult and 'user error' is very common.
Identifying the Washington/Franklin are challenging because you really have to learn about the production of these stamp during this era. For example, the stamps in your image are highly likely #632s. They are the bright green color was only used during the later period (after 1927).
To verify, gauge the perorations and check that they are 11 x 10.5
Don
Edit: Also always start with the assumption that you have the most common varieties.
http://www.stampsmarter.com/1847usa/1922identifier.html
Login to Like
this post
03:16:44pm
re: Stamps IDs
It looks like you're too tight with the measuring. It needs to be on the outside of the frame, not on it.
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps IDs
Michael,
That's confirmation bias. Folks see the rare stamps with the measurements and then go measure their stamps. More times than not, we end up 'matching' the dimension of the rare stamps. This is why every Washington/Franklin expert tell folks to do NOT try to measure. Make a template.
(Not to mention the color clearly makes it a 632.)
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:45:09am
re: Stamps IDs
I know Don will probably bristle at this, but here goes.
In distinguishing Flat Plate from Rotary Press printings, you can look at the ratio of measurements of height vs width as a RELATIVE measure rather than trying to determine ABSOLUTE measurements, which are fraught with variation.
If you can blow up the stamp image so that you're measuring dimensions in the range of 4 inches instead of 1 inch, that will greatly reduce error.
Here's what I have found, after subjecting several hundred stamps to this methodology:
The ratio of height vs width of Flat Plate print images will be in the range of 1.16 to 1.19.
The ratio of height vs width of a horizontal Rotary Press print image will be less than 1.16, typically 1.13 or less.
The ratio of height vs width of a vertical Rotary Press print image will be more than 1.19, typically 1.21 or more.
All that said, I most emphatically endorse Don's method for templating.
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps IDs
Hi Paul,
One of the biggest reasons to avoid recommending ‘measuring’ (aside from all the previous reasons listed) is that less experienced folks latch on to it as evidence that they have a rare stamp. They avoid trying to gauge the perfs, they avoid trying to understand any watermarks, they avoid learning about the production (flat plate, rotary, offset) of the Washington/Franklins, and they avoid common sense of finding a common stamp vs an rare stamp. They whip out a caliper, thinking it is the quickest and easiest way to ID their stamps.
People take the dimensions in the catalogs as gospel and this is totally wrong. Allow me to repeat this one more time, the margin of error is too great to ID any Washington/Franklin stamp design using the dimensions in any catalog or on any website (including mine). The dimensions are the last step and are best used to only verify all the other pieces of the puzzle. They should never, ever be used as the only method for identifying a Washington/Franklin.
I have seen hundreds of threads which on this, and frankly I feel it is a disservice to our hobby to encourage people to measure a Washington/Franklin designs. Spending countless hours trying to communicate the proper way to identify the tricky Washington/Franklins gets very old after a while. But I do not bristle, I only get weary of the misinformation and leading less experienced people astray.
Lastly making and using a template is not my method, it is the recommended method by every Washington/Franklin expert I know. I know of no Washington/Franklin expert that recommends hand measuring the designs.
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps IDs
For me, the watermark can be hard to see since only a small portion may be on the stamp.
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps IDs
Hi Al,
Agreed, thankfully only a few Washington/Franklin stamps have watermarks (the original poster's stamp does not have one of course).
I think that every hobby has some challenging things about it; whether it is trying to sink a 6 foot putt, trying to compose a great photograph, or trying to knit a sweater. For US stamp collectors, it is trying to ID the 1908-1922 Washington/Franklins.
It would be great to have a simple, single way to identify some of these Washington/Franklins stamps; but there isn’t. But it is possible, with some learning and background, to become proficient at detecting the varieties by putting together all the pieces to the puzzle.
Don
Login to Like
this post
09:30:22am
re: Stamps IDs
I agree, Don.
My point is simply that the issue of error in measurement can be offset to a large degree (but not completely) by:
a) enlarging an image of the stamp so that measurement error as a proportion of the actual measurement is reduced and,
b) using ratios to make relative commparisons of the dimensions. Cutpoints applied to the ratio also greatly reduces reliance on absolute dimensions, which as you point out, are fraught.
I would never advocate ignoring careful classification based on all the other things you mention. Measuring the stamp image is only a last resort.
Suffice to say that this technique has allowed me to determine that the vast majority of stamps offered as rotary press printings on eBay are misrepresented.
'nuf said. To each his own.
I agree with angore that watermarks can be tough. Is that the end of a "U", or is that just a paper inclusion or a cancel bleed-thru?
For me, another great stamp identification dilemma is grills. The differences are often very slight between catalog values that are orders of magnitude different.
Yesterday, I was just looking at a stamp purported to be a #83 ("points up" grill), which obviously (under transillumination and magnification) had a "points down" grill. After counting the rows a dozen times, it was most definitely 14x17 points. Not 15x17 (D grill), not 12x17 (F grill), not a Z grill, so it had to be the E grill, #88. Bummer. I paid 1/10 of its value as #83, but found it to catalog at 1/10 of what I paid! Seller immediately promised a full refund.
-Paul
Login to Like
this post
re: Stamps IDs
Hi Paul,
I agree that your use of a ‘relative ratio’ has merit; but it also comes with some caveats which are important to understand.
First and most obvious, using a photograph (as opposed to a scan) is going to be problematic. Any skew or angle in the image will cause issues with trying to do the measurements you outline. While it is possible to have a rig which puts a camera at exactly 90 degrees over a stamp, few hobbyist will have this. A scanned image will always have the correct perspective so any scanned image would be acceptable.
Second, please be aware that the paper used for the Washington/Franklins have a ‘grain’. The paper used can be either horizontal mesh or vertical mesh paper (mesh = grain). For example, flat plate booklet pane stamps were printed on the horizontal mesh because this allowed for better accuracy for cutting them into the panes. So the booklet stamps are slightly wider and typically shorter than the flat plate sheet stamps.
There is one definitive, easy way to determine flat plate vs rotary press coils stamps. The Washington/Franklin flat plate coils were perforated by a different kind of perforator than rotary press coils. All perforation 12 and perforation 8.5 coils are flat plate and there are no perforation 11 coils. Only perforation 10 coils are both flat plate and rotary press. So for perf 10 coils, it is possible to use a Kiusalas gauge to determine if a stamp is flat plate or rotary (Kiusalas 10-79 for flat plate and Kiusalas 10-80 for rotary press coils).
Don
Login to Like
this post
04:33:58pm
re: Stamps IDs
Thanks, Don,
I have to admit that understanding perfs at that level is still beyond my comprehension.
That said, I have been collecting some very interesting perf variations. Here are a couple from my DWI collection:
Top row are both Scott #24, perf 13. Bottom row are both Scott #18, perf 13. But, look at the huge difference in the execution of the perforations, left column vs right!
I have seen these raggedy perfs on counterfeit stamps, but these are all genuine. Different perforating machines, for sure.
By the way, did anyone notice that ALL 4 stamps have inverted frames? That's kinda special for the 4 cent stamps, quadrupling their value. And, did anyone notice that the stamp in the upper right has the straight-tail 2 (in the "1902")? That's a minor variation adding about 10% to its value.
I just snagged the one in the upper left last week for $12 including postage. Have never seen that 'raggedy' perf style on this stamp before.
Login to Like
this post