What we collect!

 

Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps



What we collect!
What we collect!


General Philatelic/Gen. Discussion : Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

 

Author
Postings
lemaven
Members Picture


23 Jan 2017
03:38:17pm
I am almost near the end of extracting the few Australia stamps (to 1970 only) I want to collect, from the massive piles I found, and mounting them in an album as I go to avoid re-resorting them later.

Instead of doing Approvals/Auctions for the remainders I am thinking of using the "Stamps For Sale" topic to just offer everything as one super-cheap bulk lot to someone with more time to do so. (Note to Moderator: this is not intended to be a solicitation to sell).

I don't want to actually count every stamp, but I'm sure at least a (good) approximation would be useful to someone in considering relative value. So a couple questions:

1) Is there a decent rule of thumb for a weight-to-number conversion for "small" definitives and/or "normal" commemoratives (or somewhat sub-optimally a mix of same)?

2) With a clear caveat "approximately x-number of stamps as calculated by weight", a reasonable description (e.g. "about 25% definitives 75% commemoratives; all sound-appearing with obviously damaged stamps removed), pictures of spread-out piles of stamps, and a "wholesale" asking price of 1-3c per stamp ) would that be sufficient for someone to make a decision?

3) If you later obsessively counted and found 2,810 stamps (where the approximation was 3,000) would that compel a demand for "compensation" and cause undue aggravation? Conversely, if the actual count was 3,190 would it trigger a need to return the "extras" and engender feelings of guilt?

Any other thoughts/advice? Sticky legal or regulatory issues to comply with?

Many thanks, Dave.










Like
Login to Like
this post
michael78651

23 Jan 2017
05:11:23pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

I got the following from a discussion thread on this topic on Stamp Community web site:

"Just for reference if buying kilo-ware.

ON paper, poorly cut = 80-100 per ounce
ON paper, close cut = 140-170 per ounce
OFF paper, large = 200-300 per ounce
OFF paper, medium or mixed = 300-500 per ounce
OFF paper, small = 500-600 per ounce"



Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
lemaven
Members Picture


23 Jan 2017
05:31:28pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

That's awesome Michael, very helpful, thanks.

If I get a chance tonight or tomorrow will do a small test case with 100-200 stamps to see if this works.

Dave.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Madbaker
Members Picture


23 Jan 2017
06:54:10pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

Hi Dave,

Give the guidelines Michael shared, how about just selling by weight?

"50g assorted, looks like 25% large sized. Should be approx. xx stamps per 50g"

Then just give them 55g so there's nothing to complain about.

My 2 coins,

Mark

Like
Login to Like
this post
lemaven
Members Picture


23 Jan 2017
08:09:40pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

That's a great idea Mark. More info is always better when doing an approximation.

You are truly a Mad-Baker, not a Master-Baker...Rolling On The Floor Laughing

Ha enn gooda owent, Dave.



Like
Login to Like
this post
lemaven
Members Picture


23 Jan 2017
10:12:24pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

Just putting this in as a reminder for myself as I pack it in for the night...

1 ounce = 28.35 grams.

Since Canadian postal rates are based on increments of multiples of 10 grams I will use our digital food scale to measure different trial mixtures of stamps in 10 gram batches. This can then easily be converted to "per ounce" approximations for U.S. members.

Hopefully we will soon have our very own "SoR" Stamp Weight/Number Conversion Scale".

G'Night, Dave.

Like
Login to Like
this post
cdj1122
Members Picture


Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..

24 Jan 2017
05:23:08am
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

".... Is there a decent rule of thumb for a weight-to-number conversion for "small" definitives and/or "normal" commemoratives (or somewhat sub-optimally a mix of same)? ...."

Ahoy there, I have something that is a little more accurate than a CWAG "Rule of thumb." (Calculated Wild-assed Guess.)
1,000 small Machins weighs 1.55 ounces, 645 to the ounce, `10,320 to the pound.
1,000 1938-39 Prexies should weigh about 1.78 ounces, 561 to the ounce, about 8,970 to the pound. Modern US definitives are about the same, regular commemoratives, half as many.


A few years ago after winning a 20kg box of Machins (over 40 pounds) mixed, on and off paper, I had a significant number in a large pile that had been soaked, dried and flattened. Having nothing better to do with my life that week, I counted out many glassines of 100, and five small Ziplock bags of 1,000 each. I had access to an accurate scale and after weighing them in different combinations, allowing for the weight of the bags and calculating an average I found that 1000 Machins weighed 1.55 ounces.
Also 645 Machins would tip the scale at 1 ounce.

------( And yes, I allowed for the fact
------ that the scale tripped from .9 ounces
------ at .05 ounces lower than a full ounce,
------ and also at 1.05 would advanve to 1.1 ounce.)


Then I measured the height and width of one of the Machins and found a height of 2.4cm and a width of 2.0cm using my good eye only. That is 4.8 sq.cm which becomes important later when I also measured the size of one of the many US 1938-39 Prexies and found it was 2.3x2.4 or 5.52 sq.cm
That means that the Prexies were 15% bigger in surface area than the Machins or the Machins were 13% smaller than the Prexies.
So somewhat logically 1000 Prexies should weigh 15% more than 1000 Machins or 1.75 ounces.
That ignores the potential difference in paper thickness, humidity, or of different paper weights, but it should be close as it was during a month long dry spell in Florida.
Playing around with the calculator I multiplied the 645 of the Machins count by 87% and thus concluded that about 560 Prexies ought to also weigh an ounce or around 8,960 +/- Prexies per pound. Furthermore, the standard US definitive of recent years are almost the same size and the common commemorative is twice that size. Hopefully that means that a pound of commemoratives would have about 4,500 stamps.

I have always wanted to do some close weighing of a thousand close-cut single layer Machins and a second thousand mixed close and as they were torn from an envelope. Perhaps that will occur in the future. However, there is a base to make estimates from.

It was late and I had been getting groggy so I rechecked the figures, corrected spelling and added commas and such when I felt more alert.
Thanks Tony for reminding me.

Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
StampCollector
Members Picture


24 Jan 2017
09:10:38am

Approvals
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???


"Then I measured the height and width of one of the Machins and found a height of 2.4mm and a width of 2.0 using my good eye only. That is 4.8 sq.mm which"

Charlie, I believe that you mean "cm"

And with so many Machins you probably can fill some of the holes in my collection.

Tony

Like
Login to Like
this post

colnect.com/en/collectors/collector/StampCollector1
michael78651

24 Jan 2017
11:22:33am
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

...and I thought I had too much free time! Big Grin

Like
Login to Like
this post
bobgggg

Past President Cortlandt Stamp Club

24 Jan 2017
01:26:37pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

"and I thought I had too much free time Big Grin"




I'm soaking U.S. stamps from the 70's Rolling On The Floor Laughing

Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
cdj1122
Members Picture


Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..

24 Jan 2017
02:14:24pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

" ... Charlie, I believe that you mean "cm" ..."

Yes, of course I do. Thanks for reminding me. I'll go back and fix it. I use a small steel pocket "engineering" ruler that measures to the mm and I meant to correct all the measurements to 'CM' or the numbers to mm, but it was very late central time. But first, a second cup of coffee and breakfast.

Like
Login to Like
this post

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
hayesherb

25 Jan 2017
12:56:18pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

I have bought mixed pounds off paper several times at $35 per pound.

I have seen on-paper for 15 or 20, but who wants to soak them when you can buy the same stamps by the pound off paper?

Like
Login to Like
this post
cdj1122
Members Picture


Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..

25 Jan 2017
03:33:37pm
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

| ... I have seen on-paper for 15 or 20, but who wants to soak them when you can buy the same stamps by the pound off paper? ..."

You make a good point and I suppose the extra work does have its drawbacks, however, if someone already soaked the stamps off paper, despite a sellers assurances that the lot has not been picked through, someone must have actually gone over the stamps one by one, so unless that person was wearing a blindfold, it is possible that certain stamps may have been extracted.
Another consideration is that I find the process of soaking, drying and eventually sorting relaxing, and being retired it fills in some of those desolate hours when it is too late to do anything creative and I am not tired enough to fall asleep. Besides that, during my evenings working with the Machins, the Queen and I have had some long conversations about world affairs, some of her children, the fate of the Empire, such as it is nowadays, as well as my children, and many facets of their education, at least, that is my sincerely held belief.
The conversation gets really interesting when Charlie Dickens, Chuck Darwin and recently Davie Lloyd-George and his friends join the post mid-night conversation.

I am reminded of a passage in the seminal Mark Twain novel concerning the odious chore of whitewashing a picket fence and the benefits that can be accrued. The key moral is; .... Work is what you have to do. ..."

But for others, I do understand why some may feel that the process is a burden.
Another pithy aphorism, " ... One man's blessing is some poor woman's burden. ..."

Like
Login to Like
this post

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
hayesherb

26 Jan 2017
08:38:27am
re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

I assume they are not soaked off the paper because someone thought they were so worthless as to not want to fool with them. In either case (on or off paper), a pound of stamps is a good education for a beginner and it helps get a collection started, especially if you are doing worldwide.

Like
Login to Like
this post
        

 

Author/Postings
Members Picture
lemaven

23 Jan 2017
03:38:17pm

I am almost near the end of extracting the few Australia stamps (to 1970 only) I want to collect, from the massive piles I found, and mounting them in an album as I go to avoid re-resorting them later.

Instead of doing Approvals/Auctions for the remainders I am thinking of using the "Stamps For Sale" topic to just offer everything as one super-cheap bulk lot to someone with more time to do so. (Note to Moderator: this is not intended to be a solicitation to sell).

I don't want to actually count every stamp, but I'm sure at least a (good) approximation would be useful to someone in considering relative value. So a couple questions:

1) Is there a decent rule of thumb for a weight-to-number conversion for "small" definitives and/or "normal" commemoratives (or somewhat sub-optimally a mix of same)?

2) With a clear caveat "approximately x-number of stamps as calculated by weight", a reasonable description (e.g. "about 25% definitives 75% commemoratives; all sound-appearing with obviously damaged stamps removed), pictures of spread-out piles of stamps, and a "wholesale" asking price of 1-3c per stamp ) would that be sufficient for someone to make a decision?

3) If you later obsessively counted and found 2,810 stamps (where the approximation was 3,000) would that compel a demand for "compensation" and cause undue aggravation? Conversely, if the actual count was 3,190 would it trigger a need to return the "extras" and engender feelings of guilt?

Any other thoughts/advice? Sticky legal or regulatory issues to comply with?

Many thanks, Dave.










Like
Login to Like
this post
michael78651

23 Jan 2017
05:11:23pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

I got the following from a discussion thread on this topic on Stamp Community web site:

"Just for reference if buying kilo-ware.

ON paper, poorly cut = 80-100 per ounce
ON paper, close cut = 140-170 per ounce
OFF paper, large = 200-300 per ounce
OFF paper, medium or mixed = 300-500 per ounce
OFF paper, small = 500-600 per ounce"



Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Members Picture
lemaven

23 Jan 2017
05:31:28pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

That's awesome Michael, very helpful, thanks.

If I get a chance tonight or tomorrow will do a small test case with 100-200 stamps to see if this works.

Dave.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
Madbaker

23 Jan 2017
06:54:10pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

Hi Dave,

Give the guidelines Michael shared, how about just selling by weight?

"50g assorted, looks like 25% large sized. Should be approx. xx stamps per 50g"

Then just give them 55g so there's nothing to complain about.

My 2 coins,

Mark

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
lemaven

23 Jan 2017
08:09:40pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

That's a great idea Mark. More info is always better when doing an approximation.

You are truly a Mad-Baker, not a Master-Baker...Rolling On The Floor Laughing

Ha enn gooda owent, Dave.



Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
lemaven

23 Jan 2017
10:12:24pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

Just putting this in as a reminder for myself as I pack it in for the night...

1 ounce = 28.35 grams.

Since Canadian postal rates are based on increments of multiples of 10 grams I will use our digital food scale to measure different trial mixtures of stamps in 10 gram batches. This can then easily be converted to "per ounce" approximations for U.S. members.

Hopefully we will soon have our very own "SoR" Stamp Weight/Number Conversion Scale".

G'Night, Dave.

Like
Login to Like
this post

Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
24 Jan 2017
05:23:08am

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

".... Is there a decent rule of thumb for a weight-to-number conversion for "small" definitives and/or "normal" commemoratives (or somewhat sub-optimally a mix of same)? ...."

Ahoy there, I have something that is a little more accurate than a CWAG "Rule of thumb." (Calculated Wild-assed Guess.)
1,000 small Machins weighs 1.55 ounces, 645 to the ounce, `10,320 to the pound.
1,000 1938-39 Prexies should weigh about 1.78 ounces, 561 to the ounce, about 8,970 to the pound. Modern US definitives are about the same, regular commemoratives, half as many.


A few years ago after winning a 20kg box of Machins (over 40 pounds) mixed, on and off paper, I had a significant number in a large pile that had been soaked, dried and flattened. Having nothing better to do with my life that week, I counted out many glassines of 100, and five small Ziplock bags of 1,000 each. I had access to an accurate scale and after weighing them in different combinations, allowing for the weight of the bags and calculating an average I found that 1000 Machins weighed 1.55 ounces.
Also 645 Machins would tip the scale at 1 ounce.

------( And yes, I allowed for the fact
------ that the scale tripped from .9 ounces
------ at .05 ounces lower than a full ounce,
------ and also at 1.05 would advanve to 1.1 ounce.)


Then I measured the height and width of one of the Machins and found a height of 2.4cm and a width of 2.0cm using my good eye only. That is 4.8 sq.cm which becomes important later when I also measured the size of one of the many US 1938-39 Prexies and found it was 2.3x2.4 or 5.52 sq.cm
That means that the Prexies were 15% bigger in surface area than the Machins or the Machins were 13% smaller than the Prexies.
So somewhat logically 1000 Prexies should weigh 15% more than 1000 Machins or 1.75 ounces.
That ignores the potential difference in paper thickness, humidity, or of different paper weights, but it should be close as it was during a month long dry spell in Florida.
Playing around with the calculator I multiplied the 645 of the Machins count by 87% and thus concluded that about 560 Prexies ought to also weigh an ounce or around 8,960 +/- Prexies per pound. Furthermore, the standard US definitive of recent years are almost the same size and the common commemorative is twice that size. Hopefully that means that a pound of commemoratives would have about 4,500 stamps.

I have always wanted to do some close weighing of a thousand close-cut single layer Machins and a second thousand mixed close and as they were torn from an envelope. Perhaps that will occur in the future. However, there is a base to make estimates from.

It was late and I had been getting groggy so I rechecked the figures, corrected spelling and added commas and such when I felt more alert.
Thanks Tony for reminding me.

Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
Members Picture
StampCollector

24 Jan 2017
09:10:38am

Approvals

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???


"Then I measured the height and width of one of the Machins and found a height of 2.4mm and a width of 2.0 using my good eye only. That is 4.8 sq.mm which"

Charlie, I believe that you mean "cm"

And with so many Machins you probably can fill some of the holes in my collection.

Tony

Like
Login to Like
this post

colnect.com/en/colle ...
michael78651

24 Jan 2017
11:22:33am

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

...and I thought I had too much free time! Big Grin

Like
Login to Like
this post
bobgggg

Past President Cortlandt Stamp Club

24 Jan 2017
01:26:37pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

"and I thought I had too much free time Big Grin"




I'm soaking U.S. stamps from the 70's Rolling On The Floor Laughing

Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.

Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
24 Jan 2017
02:14:24pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

" ... Charlie, I believe that you mean "cm" ..."

Yes, of course I do. Thanks for reminding me. I'll go back and fix it. I use a small steel pocket "engineering" ruler that measures to the mm and I meant to correct all the measurements to 'CM' or the numbers to mm, but it was very late central time. But first, a second cup of coffee and breakfast.

Like
Login to Like
this post

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
hayesherb

25 Jan 2017
12:56:18pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

I have bought mixed pounds off paper several times at $35 per pound.

I have seen on-paper for 15 or 20, but who wants to soak them when you can buy the same stamps by the pound off paper?

Like
Login to Like
this post

Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
25 Jan 2017
03:33:37pm

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

| ... I have seen on-paper for 15 or 20, but who wants to soak them when you can buy the same stamps by the pound off paper? ..."

You make a good point and I suppose the extra work does have its drawbacks, however, if someone already soaked the stamps off paper, despite a sellers assurances that the lot has not been picked through, someone must have actually gone over the stamps one by one, so unless that person was wearing a blindfold, it is possible that certain stamps may have been extracted.
Another consideration is that I find the process of soaking, drying and eventually sorting relaxing, and being retired it fills in some of those desolate hours when it is too late to do anything creative and I am not tired enough to fall asleep. Besides that, during my evenings working with the Machins, the Queen and I have had some long conversations about world affairs, some of her children, the fate of the Empire, such as it is nowadays, as well as my children, and many facets of their education, at least, that is my sincerely held belief.
The conversation gets really interesting when Charlie Dickens, Chuck Darwin and recently Davie Lloyd-George and his friends join the post mid-night conversation.

I am reminded of a passage in the seminal Mark Twain novel concerning the odious chore of whitewashing a picket fence and the benefits that can be accrued. The key moral is; .... Work is what you have to do. ..."

But for others, I do understand why some may feel that the process is a burden.
Another pithy aphorism, " ... One man's blessing is some poor woman's burden. ..."

Like
Login to Like
this post

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
hayesherb

26 Jan 2017
08:38:27am

re: Approximating stamp counts by weight - any decent heuristics for another wacky idea ???

I assume they are not soaked off the paper because someone thought they were so worthless as to not want to fool with them. In either case (on or off paper), a pound of stamps is a good education for a beginner and it helps get a collection started, especially if you are doing worldwide.

Like
Login to Like
this post
        

Contact Webmaster | Visitors Online | Unsubscribe Emails | Facebook


User Agreement

Copyright © 2024 Stamporama.com