Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Scott seems to indicate that it comes from a booklet pane of 12, this seems to equate to SG pane 1449?, but Gibbons does not mention the thick value that Scott does. (Litho, Walsall perf 14)
The illustration in Scott has perfs left and bottom, the panes would have a straight edge either top/bottom or right or left, unfortunately as only part of the stamp is illustrated it does not help.
Deegam notes a T2 variation in the value position but I'm unable to decide to which stamp it refers.
I have looked through my bunch of these but am not seeing any "thick" values.
Yes I know I'm a Machin nut but I would like to fill a gap on my pages.
Hopefully someone can help.
Edit.According to Scott it is Photo, perf 14.75x14, Die cut S/A with elliptical perforations, issued 4th. July 2002, revised image. My catalogue is 2014, maybe it has been updated since.
This date is given for SG booklet ME2, printed by Questa, Concise #2039. The details do not appear to match those of Scott, with no mention of the larger value. (maybe outside the scope of the Concise)
Login to Like
this post
I had the very same question. I was not sure if they were indirectly referencing printers or just the the thick issue.
I gave up mapping Scott to SG since it was way too time consuming and never got a response from Scott. On the 2nd light blue issues, I had sent an email to Scott to get clarification on perfs, source, and die cuts since I saw confusing and conflicting information with SG/Deegam. I saw a contradiction between perf gauge and die cuts shapes comparing with Deegam. I give Scott points for at least using die cut perf shapes and EME as catalog variants but I believe they failed to do a complete job.
Example of what I sent to Scott.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks Al, there is definitely a visual difference that can be seen with the eye. Now I now what I'm looking for will make things easier.
I probably would not have bothered but there is a space for this on the Steiner page that is irritating me and now I can get it filled.
Appreciate your reply.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:22:18am
Please, no offence intended since we all collect differently, but I would not have the patience to collect this material! Best of luck to those that do!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
If you collect Machins to SG Consise, it is pretty easy. If you collect to Scott, you will have will a few issues such as the subject of this thread. By including thick/thin and perf shapes, they added a incomplete complication.
Here is another example of misleading rabbit hole.
Deegam provides value positions for each issue. BUT, after spending time measuring and getting wierd results, I contacted Deegam team and learned these dimensions vary between stamps on every sheet so the information is almost useless for identification.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Most definitely a rabbit hole. As I collect used Machins mainly, the gum types become irrelevant. I do not distinguish between head types either, as on postally used it is often difficult to decide due to postmarks.
I do have pages of mint, and especially where the stamps were in Prestige booklets, very few would be genuinely used (a bit like fdc's, mass produced and sent under wrapper).
The new low value King Charles issue on fdc's actually are different from the over the counter stamps, in that they do not have the security slits. They were from coils that were not available for general sale.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I stopped when they introduced security slits and the codes.
Login to Like
this post
Before I drive myself mad, could someone please show me this stamp as compared to a normal 2nd. class Bright Blue.
Scott seems to indicate that it comes from a booklet pane of 12, this seems to equate to SG pane 1449?, but Gibbons does not mention the thick value that Scott does. (Litho, Walsall perf 14)
The illustration in Scott has perfs left and bottom, the panes would have a straight edge either top/bottom or right or left, unfortunately as only part of the stamp is illustrated it does not help.
Deegam notes a T2 variation in the value position but I'm unable to decide to which stamp it refers.
I have looked through my bunch of these but am not seeing any "thick" values.
Yes I know I'm a Machin nut but I would like to fill a gap on my pages.
Hopefully someone can help.
Edit.According to Scott it is Photo, perf 14.75x14, Die cut S/A with elliptical perforations, issued 4th. July 2002, revised image. My catalogue is 2014, maybe it has been updated since.
This date is given for SG booklet ME2, printed by Questa, Concise #2039. The details do not appear to match those of Scott, with no mention of the larger value. (maybe outside the scope of the Concise)
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott MH 294
I had the very same question. I was not sure if they were indirectly referencing printers or just the the thick issue.
I gave up mapping Scott to SG since it was way too time consuming and never got a response from Scott. On the 2nd light blue issues, I had sent an email to Scott to get clarification on perfs, source, and die cuts since I saw confusing and conflicting information with SG/Deegam. I saw a contradiction between perf gauge and die cuts shapes comparing with Deegam. I give Scott points for at least using die cut perf shapes and EME as catalog variants but I believe they failed to do a complete job.
Example of what I sent to Scott.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott MH 294
Thanks Al, there is definitely a visual difference that can be seen with the eye. Now I now what I'm looking for will make things easier.
I probably would not have bothered but there is a space for this on the Steiner page that is irritating me and now I can get it filled.
Appreciate your reply.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
22 Oct 2024
09:22:18am
re: Scott MH 294
Please, no offence intended since we all collect differently, but I would not have the patience to collect this material! Best of luck to those that do!!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott MH 294
If you collect Machins to SG Consise, it is pretty easy. If you collect to Scott, you will have will a few issues such as the subject of this thread. By including thick/thin and perf shapes, they added a incomplete complication.
Here is another example of misleading rabbit hole.
Deegam provides value positions for each issue. BUT, after spending time measuring and getting wierd results, I contacted Deegam team and learned these dimensions vary between stamps on every sheet so the information is almost useless for identification.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott MH 294
Most definitely a rabbit hole. As I collect used Machins mainly, the gum types become irrelevant. I do not distinguish between head types either, as on postally used it is often difficult to decide due to postmarks.
I do have pages of mint, and especially where the stamps were in Prestige booklets, very few would be genuinely used (a bit like fdc's, mass produced and sent under wrapper).
The new low value King Charles issue on fdc's actually are different from the over the counter stamps, in that they do not have the security slits. They were from coils that were not available for general sale.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scott MH 294
I stopped when they introduced security slits and the codes.
Login to Like
this post