Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Stamp Community Forum
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

mm size for coil waste issues  
 

Previous Page | Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4
Valued Member
Germany
67 Posts
Posted 01/09/2017   2:13 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add joker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
hi angore,

thank you again, yes I will definitely order this item :).

perhaps someone could just help me with my last question on this concerning not performated sides and coil waste (see last post)?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
155 Posts
Posted 01/09/2017   6:33 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Caper123 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
angora: per Scott Specialized...
631-42 is 19 1/4 x 22 1/2
604-06 is 19 1/4 x 22 1/2
597-03 is 19 3/4 x 22 1/4
596 is 19 1/4 x 22 1/2
594-95 is 19 3/4 x 22 1/4
581-91 is 19 1/4 x 22 1/2
578-79 is 19 3/4 x 22 1/4
575-77 is 19 1/4 x 22 1/4
551-73 is 19 x 22

That should answer your general question.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Germany
67 Posts
Posted 01/10/2017   04:31 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add joker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
hello caper and thank you very much! that helps me until I will have the Scott Specialized.

just what about the perforation thing with coil waste? I mean, coil waste here is mostly perf. 11, but what about stamps with 1 border from a stamp sheet? so all sides are perf 11 except one. Or can these sheet stamps just never be this coil waste? (Scott no. in your list)
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Germany
67 Posts
Posted 01/20/2017   1:57 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add joker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hello again,

sorry for recalling this older topic, but my question for which I started this thread is still there and "following" me while creating my collection with Washington-Franklin these days.

First: I understood well that measuring is just one thing to consider and experts have many other. And I understood that I have to read and learn for years.

But my general question about measurement and coil waste: Are the sizes (like given here by Caper (Scott) quite fixed or is there a range? I mean if the sizes are given in steps of 0.25mm I would normally suppose that they are very fixed.

Example: In my case I have here a stamp that COULD be a 596, as it is perf 11 and has a bigger size than flat (a bit more than 19mm and a bit more than 22mm). But it's not these famous 19,25mm x 22,5mm, but perhaps 19,1mm x 22,3mm. Is there a rule of thumb from experts what you would do in my case?

option a) be sure that it's flat, so don't think about 596 because it's just not the size
option b) be unsure and consider if it could be any rotary (known or unknown)

So I just want to know if the sizes are pretty fixed or if any flat could also be larger or any rotary could also be smaller....

(by the way: I now own a Precision US Specialty Perforation MultiGauge, but the "tool" for rotary vs flat is just wrong there, the measuring box is too small, so 20mm are 19,8mm, but the ruler on the gauge is correct)
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by joker - 01/20/2017 2:01 pm
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
766 Posts
Posted 01/20/2017   2:51 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add angore to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Is there usb microscope that can measure to at least a tenth of mm. I realize it probably needs a platform to move the object.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page


Al
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1392 Posts
Posted 01/20/2017   4:07 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add littleriverphil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Is there usb microscope that can measure to at least a tenth of mm. I realize it probably needs a platform to move the object.


I use Irfanview 32 bit to edit my scans, and it will measure an original scan accurately in pixels, inch to .000, degree to .000 and mm to .000. more accurately than I can with a magnifying glass and clear metric ruler.

http://www.irfanview.com/
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by littleriverphil - 01/20/2017 4:25 pm
Moderator
Learn More...
3138 Posts
Posted 01/20/2017   4:17 pm  Show Profile Check 51studebaker's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add 51studebaker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
littelriverphil,
The accuracy of the software which manipulates your images is not as critical as the accuracy of the hardware (scanner) you are using. Even the area in the platen (scanner glass) in which you scan can effect the accuracy of any measurement which might be taken. This is because consumer scanners use a single CCD (camera) and in front of it is a lens (think fisheye). So stamps positioned away from the CCD/lens will not be as dimensionally accurate as those which are positioned directly in front of it.
Don
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Germany
67 Posts
Posted 01/20/2017   5:46 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add joker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hello,
yes I have a good measurement :) but this is not my point here. The 19.1 mm can also be 19.08 mm or 19.17 mm ... it was just an example that a stamp is just a bit larger than 19 mm but smaller then 19,25 mm, just between, but not too close to 19 and not too close to 19,25 :-). Also without microscope you can see with a loupe that the stamp lies between there. So what I hope to hear, of course, is that every stamp that is "obviously a little bit larger" than the flat size can probably rotary, like the 596 (which is an example, but I have this case here). I measured the mm size where I got this little difference - when I take my 499 flat template, it's just distinctly larger.

But as there are these very exact sizes with 0.25 mm steps, e.g. in the Scott, for the rotary coil waste, then these sizes seem to be quite fixed, I would suppose as a beginner. That's the core of my question here, if the flat size is quite fixed or the rotary or both or none (due to the fabrication technique).

(... and you can see the wrong rotary / flat box on the MultiGauge with normal eye and a ruler.)
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
735 Posts
Posted 01/20/2017   8:39 pm  Show Profile Check cfrphoto's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add cfrphoto to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Because of paper shrinkage some variation in stamp design size can be expected across the paper grain. The objective is to separate stamps into groups: tall or wide rotary press, flat plate sheet stamps and flat plate booklet pane stamps. The difference in size id large enough that comparison of stamp design size is sufficient. When the stamps are separated into piles by printing type, there will not be any stamps "in between". In any case, rotary press printings differ in appearance from flat plate printings. With experience it is possible to separate the stamps by color, appearance and aspect ratio without resorting to fine scale measurements.

In any case, the measurements given by the Scott catalog are not precise enough to be useful. To gain experience, compare stamps with each other starting with a known example. Insisting on using a crude millimeter ruler is simply not effective. In cases where precise measurements need to be made under magnification, a Peak Loupe with a reticule marked to the nearest tenth of a millimeter is superior to any ruler. I use a 10 power Peak loupe to validate Kans. and Nebr. overprint width. The field of view is not quite wide enough to measure the width or height of a stamp design. But, then again, identifying the stamp is the objective. Measuring the design size is not.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by cfrphoto - 01/20/2017 8:41 pm
Valued Member
United States
155 Posts
Posted 01/20/2017   10:24 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Caper123 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Each method mentioned above to measure a stamp is valid. The biggest problem for many is eyesight limitations. Having done some fabrication work in my past life where 1/100th or 1/100th of an inch was significant I now use for stamp measurements two metal straight edges with a little heft(one for each opposing side) and a micrometer under a lighted magnifier on a stand. Any finer measurement would be unnecessary.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Germany
67 Posts
Posted 01/21/2017   08:18 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add joker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hello and thank you for your both answers, that helps and is interesting. I will now make my piles :) and compare them. Then I will wait for my Micarelli and Scott specialized to come.

So the paper can shrink, but not grow, I would say. From the fabrication side I understand now that the sizes were relatively fixed. So as a result, there can be rotary stamps become a bit smaller due to paper shrinkage, but no flat stamps become larger - is this right? If yes I would at last understood this part or the mystery.

(what comes into my mind now is that when I measured perforation, it didn't fit 100% either. it was definitely not 10.5 or 11.5, most nearly to 11, but not just perfect as other Franklins, in the MultiGauge the perf would be 11.1 or 11.2 - this would also speak for a shrinked rotary?)

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by joker - 01/21/2017 08:29 am
Pillar Of The Community
United States
735 Posts
Posted 01/21/2017   09:29 am  Show Profile Check cfrphoto's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add cfrphoto to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Each method mentioned above to measure a stamp is valid. The biggest problem for many is eyesight limitations. Having done some fabrication work in my past life where 1/100th or 1/100th of an inch was significant I now use for stamp measurements two metal straight edges with a little heft(one for each opposing side) and a micrometer under a lighted magnifier on a stand. Any finer measurement would be unnecessary.



Quote:
So the paper can shrink, but not grow, I would say. From the fabrication side I understand now that the sizes were relatively fixed. So as a result, there can be rotary stamps become a bit smaller due to paper shrinkage, but no flat stamps become larger - is this right? If yes I would at last understood this part or the mystery.

(what comes into my mind now is that when I measured perforation, it didn't fit 100% either. it was definitely not 10.5 or 11.5, most nearly to 11, but not just perfect as other Franklins, in the MultiGauge the perf would be 11.1 or 11.2 - this would also speak for a shrinked rotary?)



The problem is that the size of the printed stamp design is not the same as the original die. Rotary press plates were bent to fit on a cylinder, stretching the design horizontally or vertically. In those days paper had to be quite damp to successfully pick up the ink from the plate. The paper had to dry and before gum application and the gum had to be dry before the stamps could be perforated. Once the paper and gum were dry, the size of the stamp design would be reasonably stable. For that reason, perforation measurements are consistent. Some dry printed flat plate stamps were printed from the same plates used for wet printing. Resulting design size differences are well documented, especially for the Special Handling stamps where the same plates were used for the wet and dry printings of the 10, 15 and 20 cent denominations in addition to special paper for the 1928 printings. Special paper was originally intended for booklet pane production.

Perforations and coil edges are another matter. Machinists who built the equipment worked to tolerances on the order of 1/1000 of an inch. Perforations can be measured by the distance in 1/1000 inch units between perforation holes. A perforation gauge is not a measuring device. It merely specifies how many holes/tip pairs fit between in two centimeters. Since rotary perforations and flat plate perforations differed slightly, they are reported to be the "same" by a perforation gauge when they are not.

Richard Kiusalas solved the problem for US stamps with his perforation gauge, now available on Richard Doporto's Multigauge available from Stanley Piller.

Again, one last time, using a metal ruler or measurements to within 1/2 millimeter as specified in the Scott catalog will be ineffective. Better and more efficient ways to determine the type and perforations of US stamps of this period exist, almost always involving use of another stamp.

More information is available on the United States Stamp Society web site.


Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by cfrphoto - 01/21/2017 09:56 am
Valued Member
Germany
67 Posts
Posted 01/21/2017   09:57 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add joker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hello - I have the Precision US Specialty MultiGauge which is said to be based on the one from Kiusalas, so is it ok to use this?

I found now the more exact versions and the stamp fits quite fine with 11-73. What can it tell?

Edit: to be more exact it's 11-73 on top and bottom and 11-72.5 on the sides.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by joker - 01/21/2017 10:05 am
Moderator
Learn More...
3138 Posts
Posted 01/21/2017   10:26 am  Show Profile Check 51studebaker's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add 51studebaker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply


Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Germany
67 Posts
Posted 01/21/2017   1:29 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add joker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
:-)
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
United States Postal Service, Now on eBay!United States Postal Service, Now on eBay!
New Forum Topics Recently Active Forum Topics
  US Scott 443 Washington 1c line single?
  I hate when Ebay seller try to make money with insurance
  The Stamps of Tokelau.
  Moscow to New York: two letter-size envelopes w/ Scott Russia #C75 1 PVB
  Can someone check the Part II of the new Minkus Pages for Togo Please
  Is my Washington 2 Cent stamp an error or just an oddity
  Need help please on this 1870 2 cent jackson scott 135 Red???
  Private Auctions on eBay
  Woohoo! Went 3 for 3 at the Philatelic Foundation!
  Help re Postal Service eGuide to US Stamps
  Imperforate 4d Kangaroo?
  Cut Square Stamp identification
  Looks like eBay is broken now?
  Canada Odd Unlisted Precancels - possibly Errors
  Canada Empress of Ireland press sheet
  Help with IDing watermark on cut square
  A perfectly placed ink void
  Lovely Q3 parcel post on first flight cover
  Scott 89xx-2 precancel
  Trying to identify stamp Scott 441 versus 448
  Can't find in German Catalogue Type 61?
  R15c double transfer pages from COMPEX
  Estate Stamp Collection ???
  Is this a Stamp? Possibly Russian?
  Minor issue with an eBay lot description

  american occupation of France 1944-please help me locate?
  US Scott 443 Washington 1c line single?
  Need help please on this 1870 2 cent jackson scott 135 Red???
  Automatic Supplements
  China Yunnan Province Scott #41; London 1931-37 Overprinted A37 4c
  I hate when Ebay seller try to make money with insurance
  The Stamps of Tokelau.
  MAILBOXES on stamps!
  The Stamps of Indonesia on Album Pages.
  Regency Stamp Auctions in St. Louis
  Ebay auto billing..can I add money to the bill?
  Which stamp has a high value in this auction?
  Moscow to New York: two letter-size envelopes w/ Scott Russia #C75 1 PVB
  PDF style Stamp Album Pages
  Can someone check the Part II of the new Minkus Pages for Togo Please
  Russia: Geometric numerals and background Inverted.
  Private Auctions on eBay
  Is my Washington 2 Cent stamp an error or just an oddity
  Woohoo! Went 3 for 3 at the Philatelic Foundation!
  Help with IDing watermark on cut square
  London Bus and family..
  FOOTWARE - Shoes, Sneakers, and Other Foot Coverings!
  Bicycles on Stamps...
  Help re Postal Service eGuide to US Stamps
  Just a label or a (private) revenue? McKesson & Robbins,1886

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2017 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2014 Stamp Community Forums Go To Top Of Page
It took 0.87 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05