jonesy - 1st step is to learn how to measure perfs. Can't collect stamps if you can't measure perfs - quickly & accurately. Your gauge is fine - try using the middle of it as opposed to the edges. (If eyesight is an issue, you'll need a more advanced gauge.) But it isn't magic, nor a mystery - there is a huge & tangible difference between perf 10 1/2 & perf 11. Not a camera or scanner issue. Try measuring again - both vertical sides will measure 10 1/2 & both horizontal sides will measure 11...
USPOD printed app 5 billion of #632. There have been app 50 certified examples of #596. By sheer numbers, it was much more likely you had a 632...
Always assume you have the most common version of a stamp. The steps necessary to demonstrate you have something rare & valuable are then taken with care & precision. Once you can perform all of the needed steps - perfs/watermarks ect - it becomes much more fun!
Your gauge is fine - try using the middle of it as opposed to the edges.
That's a very good suggestion. I second that suggestion.
Also, if you already know the perf will be a whole number or a half number, an even faster way is to simply use the 2cm measure. The definition of the perf measurement is the number of complete holes within 2cm.
Line up one tooth at the zero point, and then check 2cm down. If the 2cm is on a tooth, you've got the whole number (in this case, perf 11). If the 2cm line cuts through a perforation hole, then you've got a half number (in this case, perf 10½). You don't even have to bother trying to match all the perf holes/teeth.
I do have one other comment to make.. mdroth, if you recall at the very beginning of this thread I had stated that I needed assistance with identifying several of my more questionable stamps. I can only go by what others before me have done. My wife's colour recognition (if not her perf count ) is unquestionable. She can see shades that quite frankly blow me away. I do not have that luxury. I literally have no colour cones in my eyes... Yup.. I see like a dog!!! This is probably a squirrel or a bear or something other than a mutt, however it was the closest thing I could find to muttly
This being stated, I thought this was a forum of discussion between like minded philatelic lovers. I have enjoyed reading many of the posts as well as am grateful to you and khi especially for helping to educate me further. One thing I cannot and will not tollerate is aspersions being cast towards my wife no matter the subtlety of the comment. If you or anyone else on here think that I am being unreasonable with my legitimate questions, which I add I have always put forward with humor (when possible), earnest and honesty then maybe this is the wrong forum for us. So much for this being a "non-judgmental space where you can share and talk about your collection."
For the record, I do always assume that that stamp I have is one of the most common. It is only after hours, and I do mean hours, of research regarding paper, colour, type, etc. that I have even brought these items to the forum. My wife and I both have learned the correct manner on how to use the perf gauge. It was nothing we needed be embarrassed about, just something that, in 45 years, I had never been shown the correct manner in which to use one. This forum and people like yourselves have been instrumental in teaching us something that is extremely important. I thank you for that.
We would never consider wasting anyones time dismiss anyones opinion or question.
Thank you. We have the other two that I was hoping to confirm... It is either a 169 or a 194.
Both stamps have the first secret mark, which means Scott US design type A46a.
Both appear to be soft porous paper and green (at least on my screen), which means US #184. Wrong color for #194 Special Printing. At least the color doesn't look blue green on my screen.
You will need to confirm they are not wove paper -- hold up to good light and look through the back of the stamp. If you see a fine diamond-style array of white spots/dots (usually easier to see around the stamp margins where there is no stamp color obscuring), then you have wove paper and both stamps would be US #158.
But from the picture, they appear to be soft porous paper (#184)
The left stamp is used (cork cancel is faded, but definitely present), the paper is toned. Some of perfs also appear to have been cleaned up a little as some are way too round and clean-punched.
The right stamp appears to have no gum, but I'm not convinced it is unused no gum. The front is a little "dirty" in spots, and on his wide collar (white part) on his shoulder I see a small "purplish" spot that I believe may be either a remnant of a cancel (maybe purple cancel) or a stain. You can see it slightly on the back of stamp as well.
I should explain why there are both markings on the edge of the perforation gauge and also in the middle. Using the markings in the middle is preferred, as is reduces alignment errors.
The primary purpose of the markings along the side of the gauge is to measure stamps that cannot be removed and place on top of the gauge, such as stamps still on cover or album mounted stamps that you don't want to remove for some reason.
The alternative for the latter is to get a "transparent" gauge, such as the one from Linn's or Sonic Imagery (my favorite, although I use both).
Since this thread is no longer talking about expertizing businesses/organizations, I would ask that you post any future stamps that you would like ID assistance/verification in a separate thread. Thanks!
However, you can continue the discussion in this thread if you have any questions/comments regarding what I already posted above.
The last couple of scans were excellent & easy to work with. Having the stamps aligned properly and side-by-side in the same scan makes things a lot easier.
Thank you khi, as always, your input is well received and appreciated. As a note, the spot on Washington's face is a green like the ink, so we though it was a possible ink spot during printing. Never can be certain. It is why I posted these in the first place. ) I too thought they were super clean on the perf. Never have seen any like that in all the years I have been collecting. I did see the cancel on the left right. around his neck and face. As for the rest, I will hold these up to the light and look for the holes mentioned. As always .. I will put others within their own threads. Just seemed easier to consider with the line of thought... Thanks again mate.
As a note, the spot on Washington's face is a green like the ink, so we though it was a possible ink spot during printing.
I couldn't tell the color from the picture, so I assumed it was some sort of inclusion. Since you have stated it is the same green color as the printing ink, then yes, something may have stuck on the printing plate, resulting in transfer of ink onto the paper during the printing. Usually these things get removed when they wipe the plate, but not always.
When khi gets back in... My wife just got in and stated that the right stamp is a blue green. She is going to have me scan a "green common stamp" to show the difference. She is adamant when it comes to her colours. Must be all the quilting she does. (Had to add that snippet for crazyquilter )
The "blue green" is the Scott definition, which I have discovered over the years that the Scott definition of colors differs from the SG definitions which differ from Michel definitions which sometimes differ from "human" perceptions. Each catalog color definition must be matched to their own color definition guides for proper identification.
The stamps that are not Special Printings also come in bluish shades, so identifying the color is not sufficient by itself.
If you stamp turns out to be wove paper, #158 comes in verified shades of green, bluish green, yellow green, dark yellow green, and dark green. The soft porous paper #184 comes in shades of green, light green, and dark green. On my uncalibrated computer screen, the stamp at right looks like light green to me. But you've got the actual stamp, so you will see the color most accurately.
To convince yourself you have the Scott definition of "blue green", compare to another stamp that Scott lists that only comes in blue green color.
Some examples of relatively common stamps that only came in blue green include:
#797(26Aug1937) 10c Society of Philatelic Americans S/S #929(26Jul1945) 1c Roosevelt (I would have thought this stamp was dark green, but that shows what I know!) #939(26Feb1946) 3c Merchant Marine, Liberty Ship
As I mentioned earlier, I think it is a #184 (not Special Printing) as well. The only thing you really need to confirm is that it is not on white wove paper, which would make it #158 (also not Special Printing).
If it were Special Printing blue green, it would have been by far the darkest stamp in the batch of 3.
We are Happy to have you here!! New members, we would love to get to know you. Please feel free to introduce yourself HERE
Otherwise - Jump right on into the conversations!! We look forward to your participation.
If you are not a member yet, register today!! It's all free and we want to hear from you!!
Please share our site on social media networks. Thanks!!!