Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
The stamp in question is either a Scott/Unitrade 37 or 41, or a version of them. Checking perfs with my recently acquired Clearvue Guage, I'm getting 12 1/4 x 12. However, there is no such in Unitrade. Any ideas, or is my gauging off?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
41a is 12 x 12.25
Alfred
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
While Canada 41a is 12 1/4x12, this scan certainly does not look even close to "rose carmine" in shade. I would speculate that not all numbers 41 are precisely 12x12 and 1/4 is not an unreasonable variation from the target to still fit within the catalogue classification. If this is too liberal an interpretation of Canada's early perforation process, I will be interested to learn and entertain an alternative explanation.
Login to Like
this post
04:50:58pm
" If this is too liberal an interpretation of Canada's early perforation process, I will be interested to learn and entertain an alternative explanation."
Nope, you are right on target.
It is a vermilion #41. The paper is the giveaway. Almost translucent newsprint quality of a c1895 printing. (See how the black of the perf guage shows through the paper.)
Roy
Login to Like
this post
04:54:28pm
Those damn small and large Queens could drive a teetotaler to drink!! But, they are fun to play around with!!
Login to Like
this post
Just an observation on the gauging of perfs. I always have the stamp face down, less distraction, and initially align the perf tips over the dots of the gauge. If unsure then I move the stamp slightly sideways to show the dots.
But each to their own, no one way suits everyone.
Login to Like
this post
Some of you folks make me sick you know so much. But, gee....isn't that why I came here? Thanks folks.
BTW...I recently "won" an auction full of queens, mostly small. I think they call this "death by an overdose of small queens". Just got the package today. Just glanced at the contents...I must be nuts. The first obvious mystery is 5 small used queens that appear to be imperforated....huh? I'll post a pic later.
Login to Like
this post
06:13:09pm
I don't collect them, but the imperforate ones could have been cut from postal cards, envelopes, wrappers, etc. Just a guess!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
They only are listed in Unitrade are for pairs.
Login to Like
this post
@bigcreekdad
This is my three cents worth about this mystery.
When your stamp was issued, was the guage for the perf. in thousands of an inch standard, or was the guage in MM?
The perf. guage you are using the Clearvue, is this MM standard guage?
So if the stamp perf. guage is thousands of an inch but you are using a guage in MM, won't this give you the wrong measurement?
What do you think?
Login to Like
this post
I no understand
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@bigcreekdad
OK, do you know how to determine when this stamp was issued, year?
Login to Like
this post
Surely the year of issue is irrelevant as you are measuring the number of perforations over 20mm (2cm) or it's equivalent in inches, and whichever is used, the number of perforations in that distance will be the same.
Otherwise you would need a gauge for the whatever measurement system a particular country used.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
bigcreekdad did not understand my post, so I was trying to back tract him to the year of issue in order to determine the right and proper way to determine the process of identification. So then the date of issue is paramount to this process. The number of perfs might or might not be the same, thus all this dependends on what year this stamp was issued.
The date of issue is very important.
Login to Like
this post
Sorry 1898 but the year of issue is not relevant, the number of holes per side is measured over 2cm, whatever the measuring system was when the stamps were designed or perforated.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
2sheepshanks
Ok, the year is not important, so dod not be concerned with year of issue. So what is the identification? You have the number of perfs. either MM or thousands of an inch. What is the cat. number, but do not use the year of issue or series.
Login to Like
this post
10:15:15pm
All of that is mentioned in the early parts of this posting! It's a Canada #41 - small Queen, 1888, Ottawa printing.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@Harvey, you are correct.
But I was pointing out it's paramount to know which standard perf. guage when the stamp was issued (year/series).
Sheepshanks stated the year of issue is not required to determine the right and proper identification.
Is the 41 the only stamp issued in all the years with the stated perf. guage. Using MM on thousands of an inch guage will maybe or maybe not be functional but lack being accurate. In stamp collecting it's paramount to be accurate, or perhaps collectors now think functional with being accurate is good enough!
Login to Like
this post
09:26:12am
"Sheepshanks stated the year of issue is not required to determine the right and proper identification."
No he didn't. He stated that the year of issue was not relevant to the measurement of the perforations, which is true.
For decades, philately worldwide has accepted the MEASUREMENT standard as being the number of perforations (holes) in a distance of 20mm (2 cm).
Your comments seem to indicate that you believe that knowledge of the perforating machines of the time has some relevance to the MEASUREMENT of the resulting perforations. At least, that is the gist I am getting out of your nearly indecipherable and cryptic posts. That is nonsense. If I am measuring a boat, I can report its length in meters, even if the builder used cubits.
" it's paramount to know which standard perf. guage"
If by "gauge", you mean "measurement" rather the device used to make the measurement, you are implying that there was a "standard" for a particular period of time, that would be useful in making an identification by at least assigning the stamp to a range of years. Might or might not be true, but totally unnecessary for this issue. If you actually mean "device", I repeat, that's nonsense. Their device might have been calibrated in cubits, but we now use "holes per 2cm".
The stamp, by its design, is either #37 or #41. The differences are multiple printings over a period of approximately 25 years. Different perforating machines were used, giving measurements of 11.5, 11.75, 12, 12.25 in various combinations, different ink mixtures giving various shades and notably, in the distinction between the Montreal (#37) and Ottawa (#41) printings, the quality of the paper.
Roy
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:39:13am
P.S. @bigcreekdad
There is a problem with the type of perf gauge that you are using that uses the dots you match up.
The measurement standard counts the number of holes per 2cm, however, says nothing about the size of the holes relative to the space between them (the "teeth"). This can vary, and the visual effect can throw you off with that kind of gauge. See the following image taken from my exhibit "GB Seahorses - a Short Tutorial" (see the Exhibits index page).
Both of these stamps are perf 11 x 12.
In my opinion, the only type of perf gauge worth using is one of these:
Roy
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Let's agree to disagre!
Using words such as "indecipherable", "cryptic", etc. really is not helpful.
Login to Like
this post
01:03:31pm
I was just looking through Scott's in the Canada section and just before the section on the Jubilee Issue is an article on Imperforates and Semi-Perforates of early Canada stamps. I'm not able to scan the article to include here but it talks about numbers of special stamps produced for various purposes from early sheets that the government had hanging around. They were distributed as gifts and for other purposes. No mention is given as to possible value. I suggest that whomever is interested should read the article. They are probably in the same category as Cinderellas but I'm just guessing!
John sent me a picture of the imperforates he has. I really hope he doesn't object to me posting it here!!
The thing that confuses me is that they are used! Maybe these the different from the ones mentioned in Scott's or maybe someone just decided they may as well use them. Does anyone have any idea of value? With the size of the margins these are not regular stamps with the perfs cut off!
I almost cancelled this post, I really should have cleared this with John first!!!
If these "stamps" were just manufactured from miscellaneous sheets lying around then they should be quite rare and worth a significant amount to someone who wants this sort of item. John might have a real find here - or not!?
Login to Like
this post
Bob thanks for the info.
Login to Like
this post
02:59:15pm
"With the size of the margins these are not regular stamps with the perfs cut off!"
I am afraid that is exactly what they are. All these stamps come as "jumbos". Note how there is always one smaller margin on the "imperfs".
These are on my desk right now. They are headed for my wife's "Victoria" collection.
To see more, do a search on ebay using "Small queen jumbo".
Roy
Login to Like
this post
03:27:51pm
Sorry Roy, I re-looked at my Queens and I have a couple like that as well. How in the heck can you absolutely be sure what these are? Is there a way to tell whether perfs have been cut off unless the person doing it messes up and leaves a bit of the perfs behind? I've seen that before!
Login to Like
this post
03:42:05pm
"Is there a way to tell whether perfs have been cut off"
No, but that's the point. That's why these are only catalogued as pairs or other multiples.
But do you really think that any of these imperf stamps that came from the archives (the "gifts" only started in 1927) were ever used?
The rule of thumb on this kind of stuff is that you don't give it the benefit of the doubt. If it CAN be created by mutilating a regular stamp, it WILL BE.
Another example. Never buy a Canada #133 (2c Admiral coil) without checking the width against a cheaper one of the set of perf 12 horiz. coils. This is the most commonly faked stamp of Canada (in my experience) made by trimming the perfs off a regular 2c Admiral. At a guess I would say that 90% of those in collections I have bought (and I have bought a lot of collections in 47 years of dealing) have been fake.
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
04:06:48pm
All great points and very true! You made me go back and check my #133, thankfully it looks fine. All coils should be very suspect if they seem too small and I guess that's why most are sold as pairs. Unless they are very expensive and then common sense has to be used! I guess with most imperforates you would have to be 100% sure they didn't result from regular stamps being trimmed. And the only sure way is to buy it as a pair! I'm sort of lucky with my BC #1 AND #3 since the sheets of stamps for all BC have the stamps very closely packed together. But obviously the small Queen jumbos (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) make these stamps a different story. Thanks for the great answer!!
Login to Like
this post
04:27:34pm
How do you like these two Canada #133 ? Scott catalogue value $75 each.
I made them just now.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
04:57:23pm
I don't know if it's my imagination or not but the cuts on the sides don't look right! Otherwise I can't figure out how you would tell. It's a bit late now to re-buy all my coils as pairs!!
Login to Like
this post
@roy
You mutilated two stamps! I think we must safe guard out stamps in our collections for future stamp collectors!
Login to Like
this post
06:12:48pm
The two stamps together were worth less than $1 in total. I think it was worth the money to prove a point. If I had those two stamps I'd mount them in my album to prove a point to future stamp collectors. Please make sure they are marked in ink!!
Edit: Would a well trained stamp certifier be able to tell an old cut from a new cut, especially if it were done by a device that would guarantee a perfectly straight line. If not, I'm not sure how most coils, if single stamps, could ever be given a certificate. Are all stamps of the same number the same distance from perf to perf? They should be quite close unless the perforating machine was readjusted. Just a thought!
Login to Like
this post
Harvey...I'm astonished you took the liberty of posting the pic I sent to your private email in confidence! I ave contacted both my attorney and certain Philatelic Worldwide Law Enforcement.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Harvey...hopefully you know I was pulling your leg. You saved me the trouble of posting the pic.
So, where the heck does that leave us. Just some small queen jumbos?
Login to Like
this post
06:30:41pm
Thank God both of these messages came in at the same time!!! Otherwise I'd be out applying for a name change! I did take a bit of a chance, it's highly likely that there are some people out there who would have been upset. I'm glad you're so easy going!!!
I have no idea now what to say in relation to those stamps. I really like them and think they would look great in any collection. But, I'm sorry to say, that as far as money goes, they probably have little or no real value. But, if I were you, I'd still give them a place of pride in my collection and imagine the best of them.
Login to Like
this post
06:56:21pm
"Please make sure they are marked in ink!!"
They are. That's my writing in ink on the back.
"were worth less than $1 in total."
Way less. Not even a nickel apiece. And beyond that, I started with straight-edge copies.
Those came out of this stockbook:
" It's a bit late now to re-buy all my coils as pairs!!"
That wouldn't help you. If I had a vertical pair or a block of 4 to split, I could have done the same to a pair. Good news is that this perf 12 horizontal set (131-4) is the only one to be wary of. And of those, #133 is the only one worth faking. Almost all other Canadian coils are perf 8 or perf 9.5. Coils are traditionally collected in pairs not for security against fakes (unlike imperfs), but because that highlights the nature of their issue .. i.e in coiled rolls of stamps.
"Would a well trained stamp certifier be able to tell an old cut from a new cut, "
Possibly, but who says the fake has to be newly made?
"Are all stamps of the same number the same distance from perf to perf? "
No, that's clear from the "jumbo" stamps shown earlier. Those stamps are physically significantly larger than the usual small queens. It is caused by increments that the perforating machine allowed do not exactly match the dimensions of the design and margins between, resulting in some narrow and some wide stamps. This is particularly apparent in the 1/2c small queen. If I can find my pair of narrow/wide stamps I'll show it. Might be in my wife's Victoria collection.
However, with coils, it's not perf to perf that counts. It's straight edge to straight edge. This is likely a more consistent width, but I cannot say that for sure. In any case, if a single, ostensibly coil, stamp is narrower than standard, known coil, it is not going to get a cert. That's the case with my, indelibly marked, fakes.
"I don't know if it's my imagination or not but the cuts on the sides don't look right! "
Now that's interesting. But I would lay a bet that it's the left side you think is wonky. If I am correct, I win a chuckle, because that side was a natural straight edge from the edge of the sheet! I only trimmed the right, in both cases.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
07:11:10pm
This has been a fantastic post, I've learned a lot today! Thanks to everyone who helped make it interesting!!
Edit: I finally figured how to upload a picture!!
Login to Like
this post
@roy
No offense intended, I'm trying to learn. The two stamps you mutilated, to appear like coil stamps, how would the real coils stamps be printed (flat plate or rotary plate)?
What did you use to mutilate them?
Login to Like
this post
I'm a small time "dealer"...no longer collect. I think I will list them all together and indicate they are very likely trimmed jumbo queens. Maybe ask $20 for the five. Seem reasonable?
Also, FWIW, I'm certainly not going to refer to them as "mutilated".
Login to Like
this post
09:24:55am
"Maybe ask $20 for the five. "
I doubt you will have any takers.
In my opinion, they are worthless, intentionally damaged stamps, just like my #133 fake. They are good for nothing more than a reference or an illustration for an article on "how not to get fooled".
Anybody who buys them is most likely doing so to foist them off on somebody less experienced.
Remember, the true imperforate copies that exist came from the postal archives. Do you really think there is a set of postally used singles in existence?
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:55:56am
I think it would be a great idea if catalogs like Unitrade gave the dimensions of coils from straight side to straight side. This would hopefully cut down on some of the cut perfs being sold. It wouldn't help for stamps like the cutbacks of the small Queen Jumbos but it might help with coils. If they could give sizes for things like rotary and flat plate printings then giving measurements for coils would not be a huge thing to do.
Login to Like
this post
11:04:16am
"The two stamps you mutilated, to appear like coil stamps, how would the real coils stamps be printed (flat plate or rotary plate)?"
Winthrop Boggs
The Postage Stamps and Postal History of British North America (1945)
Quarterman reprint 1975
"What did you use to mutilate them?"
Roy
Login to Like
this post
11:15:08am
"If they could give sizes for things like rotary and flat plate printings then giving measurements for coils would not be a huge thing to do."
But those quoted dimensions are for the sizes of printed designs, not the entire stamp, and paper sizes of many Canadian stamps (i.e. "jumbos" and "almost jumbos") vary due to the perforating machines as described earlier, right through the 1930s.
And again, it is only #131-134 that you have to worry about, because it is a perf 12 coil, as you can see from the Boggs quotation above, cut from partially perforated sheets and pasted into strips. And of those, only 133 has enough value to be concerned about.
No other Canadian coils of any value share the same attribute as the sheet stamp to allow the same sort of fakery (or at least to make it worthwhile)
Of course the problem is rampant with Washington-Franklin coils of the US, but that's a whole 'nother thread that i will leave up to somebody else.
Roy.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
So Roy
You are implying I should not sell them, even if I clearly identify them as NOT the real impetrate stamps, to prevent some bad person from duping a dumb person?
Seems a bit overboard in my humble opinion.
John
Login to Like
this post
02:16:58pm
Not for me to tell you what to do. The main elements of my post were that I didn't think you would get the $20 and my own opinion that they are worthless except for reference of alterations that can be made to stamps that might fool the unwary. i.e. an educational use.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
03:03:54pm
I'm not sure if I should say this or not, but I really like the look of these ALTERED WICKED stamps!! I joyfully paid the $20 and will display them proudly with the rest of my small queens. I have the complete set from #34 to #47 with many varieties and I think these 5 stamps will add to the value! I will mark the stamps on the back and add a proper description on the page where I display the stamps. We all collect our own way and I think material like this adds to my collection. Yes they were messed with, but IMHO they have character and I thank Bigcreekdad for allowing me to own them! SO THERE!!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
03:21:32pm
"SO THERE!!!"
Excellent! I guess I can't predict what price everybody might put on "educational reference", but I am very pleased that this is how they will be used.
Then you are going to be REALLY happy with the fake #133 I mailed to you an hour ago!
Roy
Login to Like
this post
03:38:30pm
I really mean no offence Roy, but we all collect differently! I find fakes, as long as they are marked in such a way as they are unsaleable as real, interesting and have a legitimate place in a collection. If you actually did send me a faked #133 I would mount it the same way, only in this case I could put the name of the faker with it!! Some one at one point liked these stamps enough to buy them and they should merit at least a small amount of appreciation. A friend of mine is into German Shepherd dog rescue. She has this nasty dog that everyone wanted to destroy but she gave it a home. In a very minor way I am doing the same thing to these five stamps. I know this might sound silly and stupid to some people but everything has some value that only we can determine. These cut back stamps have a value to me and $20 seemed reasonable to me. No one has the right to tell me I'm wrong, stupid maybe, but not wrong!!
Login to Like
this post
04:30:37pm
I've been looking in the sources I have available to me and can find no reference to these Jumbos. Is this something that only happened in the small Queen series or are they known elsewhere?
Login to Like
this post
04:59:07pm
In my experience, it is most notable in the small queens, with the largest variation in stamp size, however the variation continues into the 1920s and early 30s, but not nearly to the same extent.
Some stamps are more frequently seen as "jumbos".
By the time the 1935 Pictorial issue comes around ($1 Champlain Monument #227), the effect seems to have disappeared.
For example, this one. A normal stamp that had margins this big on any side would likely have "perfs touching" or nearly so, on the opposite side.
Note the centering on this block. Compare the right margins to the stamp above, then the left margins:
It's all a matter of how the perforating machine fit the design widths.
Here is another one. Notice the width of the margins of the right hand pair relative to the left hand pair. Note that the effect also happens vertically. Compare top pair to bottom pair.
This effect exists from the Jubilees to the Medallion issue. It's not nearly as dramatic as the Small Queens, but it does cause some interesting auction results.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
" or are they known elsewhere? "
I think they should be classified in the "errors, freaks and oddities" category. Here is a wide #65 and a normal one. They happen on all of the early issues along with double rows of perfs, straddle pane copies, etc.
Login to Like
this post
I am slow at typing
Login to Like
this post
11:22:51am
Roy, I got your faked #133 today. Honestly if I bought it as a #133 I wouldn't think twice about it, but I have a question. There seem to be threads on the cut edges that you don't normally see with coils that have been around for a while. My guess is that with usage they would break off. I wonder if that's something to look for if edges have been recently trimmed. Also with a particular coil how consistent would the distance from cut edge to cut edge be, give or take a certain amount. If I think about how coils are made each run should have the score lines, or cuts, the same distance apart. The problem is would the distance be the same for the next run? I did buy the lot of 5 cut back small Queen jumbos as an anomaly to jazz up that page a bit but I will mark them properly on both the back of the stamp and with them in the book. But if the width of coils for each particular stamp if fairly constant maybe that number should be available,just a thought!
Login to Like
this post
04:43:58pm
This cutting perfs off stamps seems to be done a lot!! I was checking through some misc. Russian stamps and came across an imperforate version of Scott #92. You really don't need to know what it looks like ( 
),but the imperforate version, 92a, lists at $1000. But mine is used, it only exists mint, and mine has very small margins. That means someone's been messing around!! Either that I just found a priceless stamp! I DON'T THINK SO!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
The stamp in question is either a Scott/Unitrade 37 or 41, or a version of them. Checking perfs with my recently acquired Clearvue Guage, I'm getting 12 1/4 x 12. However, there is no such in Unitrade. Any ideas, or is my gauging off?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
02:36:10pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
41a is 12 x 12.25
Alfred
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
04:31:30pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
While Canada 41a is 12 1/4x12, this scan certainly does not look even close to "rose carmine" in shade. I would speculate that not all numbers 41 are precisely 12x12 and 1/4 is not an unreasonable variation from the target to still fit within the catalogue classification. If this is too liberal an interpretation of Canada's early perforation process, I will be interested to learn and entertain an alternative explanation.
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
06 Feb 2023
04:50:58pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
" If this is too liberal an interpretation of Canada's early perforation process, I will be interested to learn and entertain an alternative explanation."
Nope, you are right on target.
It is a vermilion #41. The paper is the giveaway. Almost translucent newsprint quality of a c1895 printing. (See how the black of the perf guage shows through the paper.)
Roy
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
06 Feb 2023
04:54:28pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Those damn small and large Queens could drive a teetotaler to drink!! But, they are fun to play around with!!
Login to Like
this post
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Just an observation on the gauging of perfs. I always have the stamp face down, less distraction, and initially align the perf tips over the dots of the gauge. If unsure then I move the stamp slightly sideways to show the dots.
But each to their own, no one way suits everyone.
Login to Like
this post
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Some of you folks make me sick you know so much. But, gee....isn't that why I came here? Thanks folks.
BTW...I recently "won" an auction full of queens, mostly small. I think they call this "death by an overdose of small queens". Just got the package today. Just glanced at the contents...I must be nuts. The first obvious mystery is 5 small used queens that appear to be imperforated....huh? I'll post a pic later.
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
06 Feb 2023
06:13:09pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I don't collect them, but the imperforate ones could have been cut from postal cards, envelopes, wrappers, etc. Just a guess!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
They only are listed in Unitrade are for pairs.
Login to Like
this post
09:55:19am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
@bigcreekdad
This is my three cents worth about this mystery.
When your stamp was issued, was the guage for the perf. in thousands of an inch standard, or was the guage in MM?
The perf. guage you are using the Clearvue, is this MM standard guage?
So if the stamp perf. guage is thousands of an inch but you are using a guage in MM, won't this give you the wrong measurement?
What do you think?
Login to Like
this post
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I no understand
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
07:57:54pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
@bigcreekdad
OK, do you know how to determine when this stamp was issued, year?
Login to Like
this post
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Surely the year of issue is irrelevant as you are measuring the number of perforations over 20mm (2cm) or it's equivalent in inches, and whichever is used, the number of perforations in that distance will be the same.
Otherwise you would need a gauge for the whatever measurement system a particular country used.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:22:42pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
bigcreekdad did not understand my post, so I was trying to back tract him to the year of issue in order to determine the right and proper way to determine the process of identification. So then the date of issue is paramount to this process. The number of perfs might or might not be the same, thus all this dependends on what year this stamp was issued.
The date of issue is very important.
Login to Like
this post
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Sorry 1898 but the year of issue is not relevant, the number of holes per side is measured over 2cm, whatever the measuring system was when the stamps were designed or perforated.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:08:44pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
2sheepshanks
Ok, the year is not important, so dod not be concerned with year of issue. So what is the identification? You have the number of perfs. either MM or thousands of an inch. What is the cat. number, but do not use the year of issue or series.
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
07 Feb 2023
10:15:15pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
All of that is mentioned in the early parts of this posting! It's a Canada #41 - small Queen, 1888, Ottawa printing.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:28:22pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
@Harvey, you are correct.
But I was pointing out it's paramount to know which standard perf. guage when the stamp was issued (year/series).
Sheepshanks stated the year of issue is not required to determine the right and proper identification.
Is the 41 the only stamp issued in all the years with the stated perf. guage. Using MM on thousands of an inch guage will maybe or maybe not be functional but lack being accurate. In stamp collecting it's paramount to be accurate, or perhaps collectors now think functional with being accurate is good enough!
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
08 Feb 2023
09:26:12am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"Sheepshanks stated the year of issue is not required to determine the right and proper identification."
No he didn't. He stated that the year of issue was not relevant to the measurement of the perforations, which is true.
For decades, philately worldwide has accepted the MEASUREMENT standard as being the number of perforations (holes) in a distance of 20mm (2 cm).
Your comments seem to indicate that you believe that knowledge of the perforating machines of the time has some relevance to the MEASUREMENT of the resulting perforations. At least, that is the gist I am getting out of your nearly indecipherable and cryptic posts. That is nonsense. If I am measuring a boat, I can report its length in meters, even if the builder used cubits.
" it's paramount to know which standard perf. guage"
If by "gauge", you mean "measurement" rather the device used to make the measurement, you are implying that there was a "standard" for a particular period of time, that would be useful in making an identification by at least assigning the stamp to a range of years. Might or might not be true, but totally unnecessary for this issue. If you actually mean "device", I repeat, that's nonsense. Their device might have been calibrated in cubits, but we now use "holes per 2cm".
The stamp, by its design, is either #37 or #41. The differences are multiple printings over a period of approximately 25 years. Different perforating machines were used, giving measurements of 11.5, 11.75, 12, 12.25 in various combinations, different ink mixtures giving various shades and notably, in the distinction between the Montreal (#37) and Ottawa (#41) printings, the quality of the paper.
Roy
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
08 Feb 2023
09:39:13am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
P.S. @bigcreekdad
There is a problem with the type of perf gauge that you are using that uses the dots you match up.
The measurement standard counts the number of holes per 2cm, however, says nothing about the size of the holes relative to the space between them (the "teeth"). This can vary, and the visual effect can throw you off with that kind of gauge. See the following image taken from my exhibit "GB Seahorses - a Short Tutorial" (see the Exhibits index page).
Both of these stamps are perf 11 x 12.
In my opinion, the only type of perf gauge worth using is one of these:
Roy
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:47:06am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Let's agree to disagre!
Using words such as "indecipherable", "cryptic", etc. really is not helpful.
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
08 Feb 2023
01:03:31pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I was just looking through Scott's in the Canada section and just before the section on the Jubilee Issue is an article on Imperforates and Semi-Perforates of early Canada stamps. I'm not able to scan the article to include here but it talks about numbers of special stamps produced for various purposes from early sheets that the government had hanging around. They were distributed as gifts and for other purposes. No mention is given as to possible value. I suggest that whomever is interested should read the article. They are probably in the same category as Cinderellas but I'm just guessing!
John sent me a picture of the imperforates he has. I really hope he doesn't object to me posting it here!!
The thing that confuses me is that they are used! Maybe these the different from the ones mentioned in Scott's or maybe someone just decided they may as well use them. Does anyone have any idea of value? With the size of the margins these are not regular stamps with the perfs cut off!
I almost cancelled this post, I really should have cleared this with John first!!!
If these "stamps" were just manufactured from miscellaneous sheets lying around then they should be quite rare and worth a significant amount to someone who wants this sort of item. John might have a real find here - or not!?
Login to Like
this post
02:39:30pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Bob thanks for the info.
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
08 Feb 2023
02:59:15pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"With the size of the margins these are not regular stamps with the perfs cut off!"
I am afraid that is exactly what they are. All these stamps come as "jumbos". Note how there is always one smaller margin on the "imperfs".
These are on my desk right now. They are headed for my wife's "Victoria" collection.
To see more, do a search on ebay using "Small queen jumbo".
Roy
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
08 Feb 2023
03:27:51pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Sorry Roy, I re-looked at my Queens and I have a couple like that as well. How in the heck can you absolutely be sure what these are? Is there a way to tell whether perfs have been cut off unless the person doing it messes up and leaves a bit of the perfs behind? I've seen that before!
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
08 Feb 2023
03:42:05pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"Is there a way to tell whether perfs have been cut off"
No, but that's the point. That's why these are only catalogued as pairs or other multiples.
But do you really think that any of these imperf stamps that came from the archives (the "gifts" only started in 1927) were ever used?
The rule of thumb on this kind of stuff is that you don't give it the benefit of the doubt. If it CAN be created by mutilating a regular stamp, it WILL BE.
Another example. Never buy a Canada #133 (2c Admiral coil) without checking the width against a cheaper one of the set of perf 12 horiz. coils. This is the most commonly faked stamp of Canada (in my experience) made by trimming the perfs off a regular 2c Admiral. At a guess I would say that 90% of those in collections I have bought (and I have bought a lot of collections in 47 years of dealing) have been fake.
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
08 Feb 2023
04:06:48pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
All great points and very true! You made me go back and check my #133, thankfully it looks fine. All coils should be very suspect if they seem too small and I guess that's why most are sold as pairs. Unless they are very expensive and then common sense has to be used! I guess with most imperforates you would have to be 100% sure they didn't result from regular stamps being trimmed. And the only sure way is to buy it as a pair! I'm sort of lucky with my BC #1 AND #3 since the sheets of stamps for all BC have the stamps very closely packed together. But obviously the small Queen jumbos (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) make these stamps a different story. Thanks for the great answer!!
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
08 Feb 2023
04:27:34pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
How do you like these two Canada #133 ? Scott catalogue value $75 each.
I made them just now.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
08 Feb 2023
04:57:23pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I don't know if it's my imagination or not but the cuts on the sides don't look right! Otherwise I can't figure out how you would tell. It's a bit late now to re-buy all my coils as pairs!!
Login to Like
this post
06:05:12pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
@roy
You mutilated two stamps! I think we must safe guard out stamps in our collections for future stamp collectors!
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
08 Feb 2023
06:12:48pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
The two stamps together were worth less than $1 in total. I think it was worth the money to prove a point. If I had those two stamps I'd mount them in my album to prove a point to future stamp collectors. Please make sure they are marked in ink!!
Edit: Would a well trained stamp certifier be able to tell an old cut from a new cut, especially if it were done by a device that would guarantee a perfectly straight line. If not, I'm not sure how most coils, if single stamps, could ever be given a certificate. Are all stamps of the same number the same distance from perf to perf? They should be quite close unless the perforating machine was readjusted. Just a thought!
Login to Like
this post
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Harvey...I'm astonished you took the liberty of posting the pic I sent to your private email in confidence! I ave contacted both my attorney and certain Philatelic Worldwide Law Enforcement.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Harvey...hopefully you know I was pulling your leg. You saved me the trouble of posting the pic.
So, where the heck does that leave us. Just some small queen jumbos?
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
08 Feb 2023
06:30:41pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Thank God both of these messages came in at the same time!!! Otherwise I'd be out applying for a name change! I did take a bit of a chance, it's highly likely that there are some people out there who would have been upset. I'm glad you're so easy going!!!
I have no idea now what to say in relation to those stamps. I really like them and think they would look great in any collection. But, I'm sorry to say, that as far as money goes, they probably have little or no real value. But, if I were you, I'd still give them a place of pride in my collection and imagine the best of them.
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
08 Feb 2023
06:56:21pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"Please make sure they are marked in ink!!"
They are. That's my writing in ink on the back.
"were worth less than $1 in total."
Way less. Not even a nickel apiece. And beyond that, I started with straight-edge copies.
Those came out of this stockbook:
" It's a bit late now to re-buy all my coils as pairs!!"
That wouldn't help you. If I had a vertical pair or a block of 4 to split, I could have done the same to a pair. Good news is that this perf 12 horizontal set (131-4) is the only one to be wary of. And of those, #133 is the only one worth faking. Almost all other Canadian coils are perf 8 or perf 9.5. Coils are traditionally collected in pairs not for security against fakes (unlike imperfs), but because that highlights the nature of their issue .. i.e in coiled rolls of stamps.
"Would a well trained stamp certifier be able to tell an old cut from a new cut, "
Possibly, but who says the fake has to be newly made?
"Are all stamps of the same number the same distance from perf to perf? "
No, that's clear from the "jumbo" stamps shown earlier. Those stamps are physically significantly larger than the usual small queens. It is caused by increments that the perforating machine allowed do not exactly match the dimensions of the design and margins between, resulting in some narrow and some wide stamps. This is particularly apparent in the 1/2c small queen. If I can find my pair of narrow/wide stamps I'll show it. Might be in my wife's Victoria collection.
However, with coils, it's not perf to perf that counts. It's straight edge to straight edge. This is likely a more consistent width, but I cannot say that for sure. In any case, if a single, ostensibly coil, stamp is narrower than standard, known coil, it is not going to get a cert. That's the case with my, indelibly marked, fakes.
"I don't know if it's my imagination or not but the cuts on the sides don't look right! "
Now that's interesting. But I would lay a bet that it's the left side you think is wonky. If I am correct, I win a chuckle, because that side was a natural straight edge from the edge of the sheet! I only trimmed the right, in both cases.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
08 Feb 2023
07:11:10pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
This has been a fantastic post, I've learned a lot today! Thanks to everyone who helped make it interesting!!
Edit: I finally figured how to upload a picture!!
Login to Like
this post
08:11:37am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
@roy
No offense intended, I'm trying to learn. The two stamps you mutilated, to appear like coil stamps, how would the real coils stamps be printed (flat plate or rotary plate)?
What did you use to mutilate them?
Login to Like
this post
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I'm a small time "dealer"...no longer collect. I think I will list them all together and indicate they are very likely trimmed jumbo queens. Maybe ask $20 for the five. Seem reasonable?
Also, FWIW, I'm certainly not going to refer to them as "mutilated".
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
09 Feb 2023
09:24:55am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"Maybe ask $20 for the five. "
I doubt you will have any takers.
In my opinion, they are worthless, intentionally damaged stamps, just like my #133 fake. They are good for nothing more than a reference or an illustration for an article on "how not to get fooled".
Anybody who buys them is most likely doing so to foist them off on somebody less experienced.
Remember, the true imperforate copies that exist came from the postal archives. Do you really think there is a set of postally used singles in existence?
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
09 Feb 2023
10:55:56am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I think it would be a great idea if catalogs like Unitrade gave the dimensions of coils from straight side to straight side. This would hopefully cut down on some of the cut perfs being sold. It wouldn't help for stamps like the cutbacks of the small Queen Jumbos but it might help with coils. If they could give sizes for things like rotary and flat plate printings then giving measurements for coils would not be a huge thing to do.
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
09 Feb 2023
11:04:16am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"The two stamps you mutilated, to appear like coil stamps, how would the real coils stamps be printed (flat plate or rotary plate)?"
Winthrop Boggs
The Postage Stamps and Postal History of British North America (1945)
Quarterman reprint 1975
"What did you use to mutilate them?"
Roy
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
09 Feb 2023
11:15:08am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"If they could give sizes for things like rotary and flat plate printings then giving measurements for coils would not be a huge thing to do."
But those quoted dimensions are for the sizes of printed designs, not the entire stamp, and paper sizes of many Canadian stamps (i.e. "jumbos" and "almost jumbos") vary due to the perforating machines as described earlier, right through the 1930s.
And again, it is only #131-134 that you have to worry about, because it is a perf 12 coil, as you can see from the Boggs quotation above, cut from partially perforated sheets and pasted into strips. And of those, only 133 has enough value to be concerned about.
No other Canadian coils of any value share the same attribute as the sheet stamp to allow the same sort of fakery (or at least to make it worthwhile)
Of course the problem is rampant with Washington-Franklin coils of the US, but that's a whole 'nother thread that i will leave up to somebody else.
Roy.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
So Roy
You are implying I should not sell them, even if I clearly identify them as NOT the real impetrate stamps, to prevent some bad person from duping a dumb person?
Seems a bit overboard in my humble opinion.
John
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
09 Feb 2023
02:16:58pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Not for me to tell you what to do. The main elements of my post were that I didn't think you would get the $20 and my own opinion that they are worthless except for reference of alterations that can be made to stamps that might fool the unwary. i.e. an educational use.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
09 Feb 2023
03:03:54pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I'm not sure if I should say this or not, but I really like the look of these ALTERED WICKED stamps!! I joyfully paid the $20 and will display them proudly with the rest of my small queens. I have the complete set from #34 to #47 with many varieties and I think these 5 stamps will add to the value! I will mark the stamps on the back and add a proper description on the page where I display the stamps. We all collect our own way and I think material like this adds to my collection. Yes they were messed with, but IMHO they have character and I thank Bigcreekdad for allowing me to own them! SO THERE!!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
09 Feb 2023
03:21:32pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
"SO THERE!!!"
Excellent! I guess I can't predict what price everybody might put on "educational reference", but I am very pleased that this is how they will be used.
Then you are going to be REALLY happy with the fake #133 I mailed to you an hour ago!
Roy
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
09 Feb 2023
03:38:30pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I really mean no offence Roy, but we all collect differently! I find fakes, as long as they are marked in such a way as they are unsaleable as real, interesting and have a legitimate place in a collection. If you actually did send me a faked #133 I would mount it the same way, only in this case I could put the name of the faker with it!! Some one at one point liked these stamps enough to buy them and they should merit at least a small amount of appreciation. A friend of mine is into German Shepherd dog rescue. She has this nasty dog that everyone wanted to destroy but she gave it a home. In a very minor way I am doing the same thing to these five stamps. I know this might sound silly and stupid to some people but everything has some value that only we can determine. These cut back stamps have a value to me and $20 seemed reasonable to me. No one has the right to tell me I'm wrong, stupid maybe, but not wrong!!
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
09 Feb 2023
04:30:37pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I've been looking in the sources I have available to me and can find no reference to these Jumbos. Is this something that only happened in the small Queen series or are they known elsewhere?
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
09 Feb 2023
04:59:07pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
In my experience, it is most notable in the small queens, with the largest variation in stamp size, however the variation continues into the 1920s and early 30s, but not nearly to the same extent.
Some stamps are more frequently seen as "jumbos".
By the time the 1935 Pictorial issue comes around ($1 Champlain Monument #227), the effect seems to have disappeared.
For example, this one. A normal stamp that had margins this big on any side would likely have "perfs touching" or nearly so, on the opposite side.
Note the centering on this block. Compare the right margins to the stamp above, then the left margins:
It's all a matter of how the perforating machine fit the design widths.
Here is another one. Notice the width of the margins of the right hand pair relative to the left hand pair. Note that the effect also happens vertically. Compare top pair to bottom pair.
This effect exists from the Jubilees to the Medallion issue. It's not nearly as dramatic as the Small Queens, but it does cause some interesting auction results.
Roy
Login to Like
this post
04:59:55pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
" or are they known elsewhere? "
I think they should be classified in the "errors, freaks and oddities" category. Here is a wide #65 and a normal one. They happen on all of the early issues along with double rows of perfs, straddle pane copies, etc.
Login to Like
this post
05:02:13pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
I am slow at typing
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
15 Feb 2023
11:22:51am
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
Roy, I got your faked #133 today. Honestly if I bought it as a #133 I wouldn't think twice about it, but I have a question. There seem to be threads on the cut edges that you don't normally see with coils that have been around for a while. My guess is that with usage they would break off. I wonder if that's something to look for if edges have been recently trimmed. Also with a particular coil how consistent would the distance from cut edge to cut edge be, give or take a certain amount. If I think about how coils are made each run should have the score lines, or cuts, the same distance apart. The problem is would the distance be the same for the next run? I did buy the lot of 5 cut back small Queen jumbos as an anomaly to jazz up that page a bit but I will mark them properly on both the back of the stamp and with them in the book. But if the width of coils for each particular stamp if fairly constant maybe that number should be available,just a thought!
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
17 Feb 2023
04:43:58pm
re: Another Canada Small Queen Mystery
This cutting perfs off stamps seems to be done a lot!! I was checking through some misc. Russian stamps and came across an imperforate version of Scott #92. You really don't need to know what it looks like ( ),but the imperforate version, 92a, lists at $1000. But mine is used, it only exists mint, and mine has very small margins. That means someone's been messing around!! Either that I just found a priceless stamp! I DON'T THINK SO!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.