Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Unenhanced color, unstraightened
Unenhanced, straightened
Enhanced for contrast, straightened
I got this Easter postcard at my stamp club Pick & Poke. Postmark is Ward Hill, Mass., April 16, 1924. Could it be a rare Scott 544 on cover?
It's Perf 11 according to my aluminum ruler. Image size is 19 x 22-1/2. Obviously I can't check for a watermark.
Might this worth expertizing?
Login to Like
this post
Of course there's a chance that it could be. Is it worth submitting for expertization? That's up to you.
But, have you positively eliminated all the other possibilities that the stamp could be by starting at the bottom and working up? Have you made sure that you read the perforations correctly? Have you properly measured the design? Have you determined whether the stamp is rotary press, flat plate or offset? These are the most common mistakes made by a collector when rushing to judgment of a stamp being the most valuable version. (Not saying that you rushed, just stating common mistakes for many when $$$$ cloud the eyes and mind.)
Potential catalogue numbers for this stamp, if it is perf 11 x 11: 498, 544, 545, 525. None are watermarked.
In your favor, 544 was issued in 1922, and 545 was issued in 1921. Cancel (if genuine) on the card is 1924. Yes, you have to consider that with a valuable stamp that forged covers probably exist too.
Not in your favor, gazillions of 498 and 525 were printed. They were, of course, valid for postage in 1924.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
For me, and going by an image on a computer screen is grossly insufficient, it looks more like the offset 525, than an engraved stamp.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:59:48am
I've asked this before and haven't got an answer. How can you authenticate a stamp on cover or piece if a watermark is needed. Do they, with your permission, I hope, remove the stamp and then reattach it? Is there a way to detect the watermark while the stamp is on paper?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Expertisers will remove the stamp to check for a watermark, if necessary. They will reposition the stamp as it was when the investigation is complete.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks, guys.
I don't expect this to be a rarity, but want to make sure before sending the card off to someone's junk pile or, worse, to a dealer who'll sell it for thousands. 
It feels engraved to me, using the unscientific fingertip test. I do notice the smoothness of my 525. I used a Scott Multi-Gauge which has perfs in tenths and quarters.
I'll also do more comparisons with 498 and 545, both of which I have.
I'm NOT tempted to remove the stamp from the card and I've never heard of a watermark detector, electronic or otherwise, that can read through postcard stock.
Gee, I hope it's not a forged Easter card... for Beatrice's sake!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
earwaves,
If you do ratios on the dimension numbers shown in Scott, you get these ranges:
Flat Plate: Between 1.13 and 1.21
Rotary: less than 1.13 or greater than 1.21
I took measurements off the screen for your stamp images. First, there's very little paralax in your scans - the dimensions of the design, top vs bottom and side vs side, are nearly the same. (57mm wide by 67mm tall).
When I did a ratio of the two dimensions of the stamp design, it came out to 1.175.
Thus, I would judge the stamp to be a flat plate printing.
I like this method, because on an truly flat scan that is magnified, your error in measurement becomes a smaller proportion of the total measurement.
For what it's worth,
-Paul
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks, Paul.
Lifelong learning on ratios! Interesting that there's such a range on rotary printings.
Upon remeasuring, I got exactly 19x22, which would be within the flat plate range.
Joe
Login to Like
this post
Hi earwaves, Your original posting 19 Nov 21, 11:27:43AM you wrote "It's Perf 11 according to my aluminum ruler.". May I ask what ruler you are referring to? Would you scan an image so I could see it. Also any background information on this ruler.
I'm very interested in learning about your ruler, especially how it is made. Is it printed or etched measurments?
Thank you
Login to Like
this post
I agree with Michael, if you have copies of 498 and 545, compare it with them, 525 is a different animal, printing process wise I mean.
There's a huge difference even to the naked eye between an engraved stamp and an offset printed one.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Well, at least I got to have a haircut in the Penny Lane barber shop.
19 Nov 2021
11:27:43am
Unenhanced color, unstraightened
Unenhanced, straightened
Enhanced for contrast, straightened
I got this Easter postcard at my stamp club Pick & Poke. Postmark is Ward Hill, Mass., April 16, 1924. Could it be a rare Scott 544 on cover?
It's Perf 11 according to my aluminum ruler. Image size is 19 x 22-1/2. Obviously I can't check for a watermark.
Might this worth expertizing?
Login to Like
this post
01:55:09pm
re: Unlikely 544?
Of course there's a chance that it could be. Is it worth submitting for expertization? That's up to you.
But, have you positively eliminated all the other possibilities that the stamp could be by starting at the bottom and working up? Have you made sure that you read the perforations correctly? Have you properly measured the design? Have you determined whether the stamp is rotary press, flat plate or offset? These are the most common mistakes made by a collector when rushing to judgment of a stamp being the most valuable version. (Not saying that you rushed, just stating common mistakes for many when $$$$ cloud the eyes and mind.)
Potential catalogue numbers for this stamp, if it is perf 11 x 11: 498, 544, 545, 525. None are watermarked.
In your favor, 544 was issued in 1922, and 545 was issued in 1921. Cancel (if genuine) on the card is 1924. Yes, you have to consider that with a valuable stamp that forged covers probably exist too.
Not in your favor, gazillions of 498 and 525 were printed. They were, of course, valid for postage in 1924.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
02:09:12pm
re: Unlikely 544?
For me, and going by an image on a computer screen is grossly insufficient, it looks more like the offset 525, than an engraved stamp.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
20 Nov 2021
10:59:48am
re: Unlikely 544?
I've asked this before and haven't got an answer. How can you authenticate a stamp on cover or piece if a watermark is needed. Do they, with your permission, I hope, remove the stamp and then reattach it? Is there a way to detect the watermark while the stamp is on paper?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
02:21:57pm
re: Unlikely 544?
Expertisers will remove the stamp to check for a watermark, if necessary. They will reposition the stamp as it was when the investigation is complete.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Well, at least I got to have a haircut in the Penny Lane barber shop.
20 Nov 2021
02:43:53pm
re: Unlikely 544?
Thanks, guys.
I don't expect this to be a rarity, but want to make sure before sending the card off to someone's junk pile or, worse, to a dealer who'll sell it for thousands.
It feels engraved to me, using the unscientific fingertip test. I do notice the smoothness of my 525. I used a Scott Multi-Gauge which has perfs in tenths and quarters.
I'll also do more comparisons with 498 and 545, both of which I have.
I'm NOT tempted to remove the stamp from the card and I've never heard of a watermark detector, electronic or otherwise, that can read through postcard stock.
Gee, I hope it's not a forged Easter card... for Beatrice's sake!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:32:42am
re: Unlikely 544?
earwaves,
If you do ratios on the dimension numbers shown in Scott, you get these ranges:
Flat Plate: Between 1.13 and 1.21
Rotary: less than 1.13 or greater than 1.21
I took measurements off the screen for your stamp images. First, there's very little paralax in your scans - the dimensions of the design, top vs bottom and side vs side, are nearly the same. (57mm wide by 67mm tall).
When I did a ratio of the two dimensions of the stamp design, it came out to 1.175.
Thus, I would judge the stamp to be a flat plate printing.
I like this method, because on an truly flat scan that is magnified, your error in measurement becomes a smaller proportion of the total measurement.
For what it's worth,
-Paul
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Well, at least I got to have a haircut in the Penny Lane barber shop.
22 Nov 2021
12:51:56pm
re: Unlikely 544?
Thanks, Paul.
Lifelong learning on ratios! Interesting that there's such a range on rotary printings.
Upon remeasuring, I got exactly 19x22, which would be within the flat plate range.
Joe
Login to Like
this post
09:53:40pm
re: Unlikely 544?
Hi earwaves, Your original posting 19 Nov 21, 11:27:43AM you wrote "It's Perf 11 according to my aluminum ruler.". May I ask what ruler you are referring to? Would you scan an image so I could see it. Also any background information on this ruler.
I'm very interested in learning about your ruler, especially how it is made. Is it printed or etched measurments?
Thank you
Login to Like
this post
re: Unlikely 544?
I agree with Michael, if you have copies of 498 and 545, compare it with them, 525 is a different animal, printing process wise I mean.
There's a huge difference even to the naked eye between an engraved stamp and an offset printed one.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.