Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I have time to determine what I have now, but what to find out the right and proper perf. standard to use?
Login to Like
this post
What do you mean by "standard"?
Are you referring to what perf gauge to use for Canadian stamps?
Or are you asking what the most common perf measurement is for Canadian stamps?
Or something else?
Login to Like
this post
Surely the "standard" is the number of holes in 2cm, this being what all the catalogues reference as the stamp perforation.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thus the standard was MM not thousands of an inch, thanks.
The Kiusalas gauge years ago was for sale in two forms, one for thousands of an inch for U.S. only, and for Candian standard, I should have bought one for the Candian stamps but I didn't.
Thanks for the information all Candian stamps is standard MM per 2CM!
Login to Like
this post
Just to add that perfs measured over 2cm is the universally adopted standard, including USA by Scott. Approximate conversion would be 787 thousandths of an inch.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I understand, but U.S. stamps require the Kiusalas gauage to obtain the correct standard measurement!
1898
Login to Like
this post
"I understand, but U.S. stamps require the Kiusalas gauge to obtain the correct standard measurement!"
Could you please explain why? Does it give a different measurement, surely perf 13 ( or any other number) would be the same whatever gauge is used.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@sheepshanks
My original posting (reread it might be useful so you understand, just a suggestion!) Candian stamps 1880s - 1920s, what perforation gauge should be used.
Last night I did a little research and found out Candian stamps issued before 1 Jan 1971 the correct right and proper gauge was based on thousands of an inch, not metric!
Then I searched for Perforation gauge for Candian stamps and find Uni-safe (not sure of the spelling) some used had both gauge based on thousands of an inch and metric standard!
Years ago I won at a stamp club meeting years ago, never used it, one of those plastic perforation gauge that has lines based on the metric standard and decided to try it out last night on U. S. A. stamps. Impossible gauge to determine accurate perforation size!
So I will obtain one of the Kiusalas perforation gauge for my Candian stamps issued before 1 Jan 1971 based on thousand of an inch.
Hope this answers your posting of 08 Jun 2023 at 08:03:45 hours! This was an interesting topic and found out Candian stamps just as U.S. A. stamps issued before 1 Jan 1971 are based on thousands between the performation holes!
Thank you
Login to Like
this post
Good points 1898, but did not answer my question.
Login to Like
this post
@sheepshanks
Sorry, yes it gives a different measurement!
Login to Like
this post
So, if I understand this correctly, a metric perf 15 is different to an Imperial 15. Is this what you are saying?
Login to Like
this post
@sheepshanks
Yes.
Login to Like
this post
Perf 15, is perf 15, irrespective of which tool is used to measure it. It always refers to 15 perforations over a distance of 20mm.
This is the universal system that as far as I am aware has been adopted by all the major catalogue manufacturers, including Scott.
When it comes down to it, as long as one is able to convert from one measurement system to the next, it makes absolutely no difference whether the pins in the perforating machine were spaced in fractions of a foot, inches, millimetres or even Martian Cubits!
And, of course, the US was not alone in using Imperial measurements, I have no doubt that most British Commonwealth stamp production equipment would have been designed using imperial measurements until at least some time in the 1960s.
If one is able to use their trusty digital callipers to somehow measure the perforation spacing on a stamp accurately to the thousandth of an inch, such as for example 0.030" then one can simply multiply by 25.4 to convert to millimetres and then by 20 to get the perforation count.
e.g
0.030" = 0.762mm => 15.24perf
As close as a gnat's hair to perf 15 1/4
This brings up the next point. Perf measurements are not precise, they encompass a range, which is why when a catalogue lists an item as perf 15, it could actually be anywhere in the range of something like 14 3/4 to 15 1/4.
Which will of course take into account perforating machines that may have been designed using a non-metric measurement system.
I have never used a Kiusalas Gauge, it may offer a way of measuring perforations more accurately, but given the unstable nature of paper, this would seem to be an unnecessary complication, and as for a different scale - I don't think so.
Clive
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Clive, having read some of the online articles I concluded that the Kiusalas gauge was more accurate in the fractional measurements.
This really would only be of use to the specialist or expertiser who has knowledge of the original printers perforation gauge detail. The SCF forum does have an article that shows a number of USA perfs by year and includes the comparison to Scott and Instanta gauge numbers.
There are specialty gauges that are based on the Kiusalas idea, but as the standard catalogues round figures to the nearest quarter, not much use to the average collector, unless trying to sort a possible uncommon or rarer stamp or reperf.
Login to Like
this post
@clivel
Can you scan an image of your Perforation gauge, then explain how one would measure the space between perf. holes, for Candian stamps 1880s - 1920s?
I wonder why the Uni-safe perforation gauge that's for sale uses both thousands and metric standard guage.
Thank you
Login to Like
this post
@clivel
Your posting was most interesting!
Login to Like
this post
"I wonder why the Uni-safe perforation gauge that's for sale uses both thousands and metric standard guage. "
I use a Stanley Gibbons Instanta Perforation Gauge, which is almost identical to the Uni-Safe, neither use thousands.
See the SG gauge in use here: https://youtu.be/j9H9hOupNCQ
Clive
Login to Like
this post
@clivel
Attached is the image specs for the uni-safe gauge that is the current gauge for sale and clearly thousands is one of the gauges shown, there must be a reason for it.
Login to Like
this post
This is the Unisafe gauge, the SG Instanta is basically the same.
Memory says that we have an older thread on perforation gauges including a number of images.
Edit to add link to older thread.
https://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_ma ...
Login to Like
this post
These stamps may look the same, a perf. gauge of any brand will tell you they are not. The perfs. on a stamp
do not change regardless of which gauge you use.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This is the current gauge for Candian stamps, made in Canada.
As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), gauge can be used for stamps issued before 31 Dec 1970 which is standard thousands of an inch, and for stamps issued on and after 1 Jan 1971 standard metric.
This gauge should work good for my needs, wish it was on metal instead of plastic.
Login to Like
this post
At least being see through you can use it for stamps on piece, I have one and it is fine and simple to use, though I tend to use the outer edge mostly. I also have one of the Instanta type which I use as well.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks to all who posted helpful information.
I decided to obtain the uni-safe that is current, this gauge will serve my needs until I can purchase a Kiusalas gauge for Candian stamp for the years 1880s - 1920s (see attached images).
This is the natural end to my original posting.
Thank you!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
1898, thanks for posting the picture of the specialist gauge. A long time ago I had obtained just the gauge in a box lot. I had no idea what it was as the other informational sheets were not included with it. I think I simply gave it away one day when I was clearing out surplus supplies.
Login to Like
this post
"
This is the current gauge for Candian stamps, made in Canada.
"
And it is good for stamps of any country, not just Canada
Login to Like
this post
The importance of the specialist gauge is that although a stamp may be listed as perf 12 it usually is a rounded number so offers more precision in measurement. It is important in detecting early re-perforated stamps.
For example. some US stamps listed as perf 11 can be 10.9 or 11.1 depending on the perforator (L or bulls eye) used. They are not exactly perf 11.00.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
The thought occurs that after perforating millions of stamps, the perforation pins will get worn and affect the actual measurements, more noticeably so if using a gauge that measures to a thousandth of an inch.
Login to Like
this post
@Sheepshanks
The male and female pins are changed with new ones to some scheduled event!
What you say would also apply to either metric standards or thousands of an inch!
1898
Login to Like
this post
I've made up the scanned image, very hard to do, took me many times to get it right, anyway for the people who are only concerned with the perf. hole (black dot here) I offer this Kiusalas gauge in the standards of thousands of an inch.
Not a joke, I think this will help. See the 3 arrows. the top arrow is for perf. 10, next arrow down is for perf. 11, last arrow perf. 12.
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
I fail to understand your argument in favor of Kiusalas gauge.
In the measurement system there are thousandths of mm (micron) which is equal to one thousandth of an inch divided by 25.4 - but that is not an argument either.
Any measuring device has a specified precision class - I haven't seen Kiusalas or metric gauge have it listed.
The machines that make pin and female pin have a guaranteed deviation from the dimensions (I think that the distance between the holes of the perforator have a deviation between 0.02 and 0.1 mm / 0.78 and 3.8 thousandths of an inch - depending on the machine on which the holes are made)
What precision are we talking about here?
In fact, each of us praises the Kiusalas / metric gauge we use (or in my case a simple transparent ruler)
It is night for me, but tomorrow I will post an American stamp and my way of measuring the perforation.
I hope you have the same stamp and submit a picture of it and the Kiusalas gauge.
Login to Like
this post
@gerom
I've read and reread you posting, maybe there is something wrong with me, but I simply do not understand your posting!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:53:28pm
"but I simply do not understand your posting!
"
I can trump that! I haven't understood any of this stuff about different perforation guides! I don't consider myself to be stupid by any means but you've all got me totally confused. When someone said a stamp if perforated 11, or whatever, I took out my trusty perforation guide and did a simple measurement, case closed! Do we really need to make everything 10 times more complicated than that?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@Harvey
All I was doing is pointing out to use the correct perf. gauge! If the stamp is based on thousands of an inch, then use that gauge. If the stamp standard is metric then use that gauge on the stamp. Very simple!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
I'm translating with "google translate" and maybe that's a reason you don't understand.
...or maybe my technical explanations in the field of measuring or metal processing did not find the person with experience in the field.
Login to Like
this post
@gerom
It's for sure me, you latest posting has more more thinking I'm just stupid.
1898
Login to Like
this post
Stick a fork in me... I'm done! I don't need no stinkin' Kiusalas gauge to measure those pesky Canadian stamps. Here's a magic decoder ring presentation of a portion of the Kiusalas gauge.
12 - 64 0.064" spacing = 0.16256 cm spacing
2.0 cm /0.16256 cm = perforation 12.30
12 - 65 0.065" spacing - 0.1651 cm spacing
2.0/0.1651 cm spacing = perforation 12.11
12 - 66 0.066" spacing = 0.16764 cm spacing
2.0/0.16764 = perforation 11.93
12 - 67 0.067" spacing = 0.17018 cm spacing
2.0/0.17018 = perforation 11.75
11.5 - 68 0.068" spacing = 0.17272 cm spacing
2.0/0.17272 = perforation 11.57
Now , here is the trusty Unitrade 'Perfect Gauge'. So, if you measure a perforation of 11.9, then you can be sure you have a Kiusalas gauge 12-66. Likewise, if you measure a perforation of 12.3, then you surely have a Kiusalas gauge 12-64... 'snot too complicated.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@Terry
Thanks for the image where I can see that you can measure the perforation from 0.1 to 0.1
I only knew perforation gauge with 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75.
How do you use your perforation gauge on stamps with line perforation? (the first top hole is not on the same vertical as the first bottom hole)
Login to Like
this post
Maybe a picture will help, or not.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@Terry
I object to the first part of your posting, your coments could have been worded another way. (moderator-comment deleted)
The rest of your posting was real interesting (moderator deleted section) and you must have worked on it a long time, thank you.
Now let me try a different way for this discussion. Pretend you buy an album from an on line auction. You get lots of stamps you need for the country(s) you collect. You find a stamp that wasn't shown on the auction pictures, and you think it's a rare stamp. The perf. is on the standard of thousands of an inch, it's over 100 years old but looks so outstanding you submit it for a cert. You stamp comes back to you from the cert. company, they tell you it's a fake. The Cert. company says it doesn't perf. correctly using there metric perf. gauge! What is your reaction?
1898
(Modified by Moderator on 2023-06-30 06:42:14)
Login to Like
this post
@mbo1142
Wow, an outstanding art work you presented!
Here is my image (yes I know it's crude!), but on the Kiusalas gauge standard of thousands of an inch, the measurement is the area between the perf. holes, not the perf. holes!
Hope this help the discussion.
Again my image is very crude but I think it clear.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:48:21am
I have one simple question which I hope someone will answer for me - please! If Scott's says a stamp has a certain perforation, and by the way my perforation guide is the one that Terry shows, does it ever specify that you have to use a certain guide to measure it? I don't think it does! I could be wrong on the next statement and please correct me if I am. I don't remember them ever specifying a perforation like 10.25 and even if they did I could estimate using my guide. Is there ever a real need to use a different guide unless we are a specialist like 1898 is? If Scott's says perforated 11 then I assume that my guide is fine. If it turns out to be 10.8 or 11.2 I assume they want me to round to 11. The question boils down to this - unless I am going to specify do I really need to buy a " Kiusalas gauge standard of thousands of an inch"? Please provide a sensible answer, I really want to know!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@Harvey
I don't think you are an "a**" because I don't really know what this is. I suspect it a dirty word! As a teacher would you use a** in your class room, I don't think so, may I suggest you delete this, before just in case a young person reads it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
Can you please provide the source of your drawing indicating that the Kiusalas gauge is used to meaure the space of the perf and not the perf holes. I mean written documentation from a reliable source. Each dot on the Kiusalas gauge must line up with a perf hole. If you are saying that once that is accomplished, then the measure you receive is actually the distance between the 2 edges of one perf itself, then I am lost.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:03:14am
Sorry 1898, I didn't mean to offend you! Editing is done!! By the way, I would never say anything in the classroom to offend the kids, but I've heard much much worse!!
Login to Like
this post
1898:
I will be as audacious as you are:
Please stop correcting people for their posts or requesting that they change them to conform to your self-perceived guidelines.
It's not just on this thread -- it's on many of the threads you've participated in recently.
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@1898
Sorry if I let my child come out, but stamp collecting for me is supposed to be fun! Fun for me does not include insisting that there can be only one way to do things (the Kiusalas gauge is the only accurate way of measuring Canadian perforations). What does it matter if you measure perforations between the center of the holes, or the center of the nibs? The results will be the same (as I think @mbo1142 will agree). And, no it didn't take me hardly anytime at all to "analyze" the Kiusalas gauge... it's simple math. Perforations do not have different measurement standards... the perforation GAUGES that you discuss are using different measurement standards.
@Harvey
I don't think it matters what perforation gauge you use, as long as you can accurately determine the number of perforations in the specified length (1 perforation in 0.066" or 12.3 perforations in a 2cm length). I prefer cm (as the metric system is used by the vast majority of the world). @1898 is right about Scott "rounding" their perforation data. However, they often use quarters in their data as well. Use the perforation gauges that you are comfortable with... the perforations will be the same regardless of how you want to declare them. I also use the Linn's perforation gauge because it goes down to 8 on the perforation scale, and the longer metric ruler allows me to accurately measure some of those humongous souvenir sheets (got to watch out for the ones that have been "cut-down" to fit album pages!).
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:39:29am
"stamp collecting for me is supposed to be fun"
AMEN TO THAT!!!
I'm having about as much fun with my stamp collecting as I possibly can, and I don't need a fancy guide to tell me that!
Some of these posts are getting a bit out of hand. I vote we do what we can to stop that from happening!!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@mbo1142
You are correct, the perf. gauge actually measures the space between the perf. holes. The black dots are there just as an aid to get right and proper orientation to make an accurate reading.
Glad you are not lost anymore!
You will find the written instructions for either Kiusalas in the instructions that come with the gauge.
I assume the Kiusalas instructions are a reliable source.
1898
Login to Like
this post
@Philatarium
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
@Everyone
I think Harvey is right, but I don't know how to stop all this.
Might I suggest that Stamp-O-Rama close out any more useless posting on this subject!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@d1stamper
I just learned about the Kiusalas gauge a few years ago, and I'v been collecting since Aug. 1958. I'm always willing to learn something new!
It's not my silly topic, just the silly responses from people who are given the facts and for some unknown reason want to ignore them.
I agree with you but how can we stop all this waste of time and effort.
I for one want to get back to enjoying Stamp-O-Rama!
1898
Login to Like
this post
I have watched (i wouldn't say followed, and certainly not understood) this thread from its inception, which, using any gauge of your choice, is a long time.
Moderators could come in here and close this off, but since most of you want this to end, I suggest my post be the final in this very long string.
The lightest touch of self-control and all of us get to go back to stamps and measure them any way we choose, or not at all.
David 17 neck with 38x30 trousers; 12 US or 46 EU shoes; or just XL
Login to Like
this post
Wow!
Just had to throw in my comment.
Pushing buttons is so much fun.
Tad
Login to Like
this post
I found this in the May 2023 issue of American Philatelist, an article by Randy Shoemaker.
I'm just scanned one bit of the entire article for your pleasure.
What do you think about it?
Login to Like
this post
@1898
I wrote to you that I use "google translate" and I hope to make myself understood.
Very interesting article, especially:
"...have the proper spacing and perf hole size....This is absolutely critical for detecting reperforated stamps.'
This statement leads me to the conclusion that the measurement is made by aligning the black dots of the gauge with the punched holes of the stamp (this way you can check if they have the same diameter or otherwise it means that a re-perforation has been made)
It can also be checked if the centers of the holes are on the same line.
Login to Like
this post
I had read the article and found the comments on the Sonic Imagery Labs gauge to be more more interesting. I checked and I have the "10" version. I thought the article seemed written as a personal opinion piece rather than a comprehensive write up.
I measure at the low points of the perforation rather than tips.
Login to Like
this post
@angore
Interesting point!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@gerom
Good morning from Texas
Well said.
On a few older revenue (U.S.A. stamps) the performations in a straight line, but are on an angle (up or down) in relation to the stamp margins.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
@Everyone
Don't know if you know this, but if you use a performation gauge you will need to replace it often because they all shrink.
Hope this helps my fellow stamp collectors.
1898
Login to Like
this post
@d1stamper
This information I'm passing on is the current up to date information.
Silly, guess each person has to decide for them self!
1898
Login to Like
this post
06:58:39pm
I have alot of Candian stamps from sometime in the 1880s up to about 1920s (my guess), during these years what perf. standard was used?
I have time to determine what I have now, but what to find out the right and proper perf. standard to use?
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
What do you mean by "standard"?
Are you referring to what perf gauge to use for Canadian stamps?
Or are you asking what the most common perf measurement is for Canadian stamps?
Or something else?
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Surely the "standard" is the number of holes in 2cm, this being what all the catalogues reference as the stamp perforation.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:03:20pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Thus the standard was MM not thousands of an inch, thanks.
The Kiusalas gauge years ago was for sale in two forms, one for thousands of an inch for U.S. only, and for Candian standard, I should have bought one for the Candian stamps but I didn't.
Thanks for the information all Candian stamps is standard MM per 2CM!
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Just to add that perfs measured over 2cm is the universally adopted standard, including USA by Scott. Approximate conversion would be 787 thousandths of an inch.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:48:52pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
I understand, but U.S. stamps require the Kiusalas gauage to obtain the correct standard measurement!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
"I understand, but U.S. stamps require the Kiusalas gauge to obtain the correct standard measurement!"
Could you please explain why? Does it give a different measurement, surely perf 13 ( or any other number) would be the same whatever gauge is used.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:46:29am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@sheepshanks
My original posting (reread it might be useful so you understand, just a suggestion!) Candian stamps 1880s - 1920s, what perforation gauge should be used.
Last night I did a little research and found out Candian stamps issued before 1 Jan 1971 the correct right and proper gauge was based on thousands of an inch, not metric!
Then I searched for Perforation gauge for Candian stamps and find Uni-safe (not sure of the spelling) some used had both gauge based on thousands of an inch and metric standard!
Years ago I won at a stamp club meeting years ago, never used it, one of those plastic perforation gauge that has lines based on the metric standard and decided to try it out last night on U. S. A. stamps. Impossible gauge to determine accurate perforation size!
So I will obtain one of the Kiusalas perforation gauge for my Candian stamps issued before 1 Jan 1971 based on thousand of an inch.
Hope this answers your posting of 08 Jun 2023 at 08:03:45 hours! This was an interesting topic and found out Candian stamps just as U.S. A. stamps issued before 1 Jan 1971 are based on thousands between the performation holes!
Thank you
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Good points 1898, but did not answer my question.
Login to Like
this post
10:02:59am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@sheepshanks
Sorry, yes it gives a different measurement!
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
So, if I understand this correctly, a metric perf 15 is different to an Imperial 15. Is this what you are saying?
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Perf 15, is perf 15, irrespective of which tool is used to measure it. It always refers to 15 perforations over a distance of 20mm.
This is the universal system that as far as I am aware has been adopted by all the major catalogue manufacturers, including Scott.
When it comes down to it, as long as one is able to convert from one measurement system to the next, it makes absolutely no difference whether the pins in the perforating machine were spaced in fractions of a foot, inches, millimetres or even Martian Cubits!
And, of course, the US was not alone in using Imperial measurements, I have no doubt that most British Commonwealth stamp production equipment would have been designed using imperial measurements until at least some time in the 1960s.
If one is able to use their trusty digital callipers to somehow measure the perforation spacing on a stamp accurately to the thousandth of an inch, such as for example 0.030" then one can simply multiply by 25.4 to convert to millimetres and then by 20 to get the perforation count.
e.g
0.030" = 0.762mm => 15.24perf
As close as a gnat's hair to perf 15 1/4
This brings up the next point. Perf measurements are not precise, they encompass a range, which is why when a catalogue lists an item as perf 15, it could actually be anywhere in the range of something like 14 3/4 to 15 1/4.
Which will of course take into account perforating machines that may have been designed using a non-metric measurement system.
I have never used a Kiusalas Gauge, it may offer a way of measuring perforations more accurately, but given the unstable nature of paper, this would seem to be an unnecessary complication, and as for a different scale - I don't think so.
Clive
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Clive, having read some of the online articles I concluded that the Kiusalas gauge was more accurate in the fractional measurements.
This really would only be of use to the specialist or expertiser who has knowledge of the original printers perforation gauge detail. The SCF forum does have an article that shows a number of USA perfs by year and includes the comparison to Scott and Instanta gauge numbers.
There are specialty gauges that are based on the Kiusalas idea, but as the standard catalogues round figures to the nearest quarter, not much use to the average collector, unless trying to sort a possible uncommon or rarer stamp or reperf.
Login to Like
this post
12:21:59pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@clivel
Can you scan an image of your Perforation gauge, then explain how one would measure the space between perf. holes, for Candian stamps 1880s - 1920s?
I wonder why the Uni-safe perforation gauge that's for sale uses both thousands and metric standard guage.
Thank you
Login to Like
this post
12:40:18pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@clivel
Your posting was most interesting!
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
"I wonder why the Uni-safe perforation gauge that's for sale uses both thousands and metric standard guage. "
I use a Stanley Gibbons Instanta Perforation Gauge, which is almost identical to the Uni-Safe, neither use thousands.
See the SG gauge in use here: https://youtu.be/j9H9hOupNCQ
Clive
Login to Like
this post
02:13:40pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@clivel
Attached is the image specs for the uni-safe gauge that is the current gauge for sale and clearly thousands is one of the gauges shown, there must be a reason for it.
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
This is the Unisafe gauge, the SG Instanta is basically the same.
Memory says that we have an older thread on perforation gauges including a number of images.
Edit to add link to older thread.
https://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_ma ...
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
These stamps may look the same, a perf. gauge of any brand will tell you they are not. The perfs. on a stamp
do not change regardless of which gauge you use.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
05:37:49pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
This is the current gauge for Candian stamps, made in Canada.
As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), gauge can be used for stamps issued before 31 Dec 1970 which is standard thousands of an inch, and for stamps issued on and after 1 Jan 1971 standard metric.
This gauge should work good for my needs, wish it was on metal instead of plastic.
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
At least being see through you can use it for stamps on piece, I have one and it is fine and simple to use, though I tend to use the outer edge mostly. I also have one of the Instanta type which I use as well.
Login to Like
this post
06:29:27pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Thanks to all who posted helpful information.
I decided to obtain the uni-safe that is current, this gauge will serve my needs until I can purchase a Kiusalas gauge for Candian stamp for the years 1880s - 1920s (see attached images).
This is the natural end to my original posting.
Thank you!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
06:48:21pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
1898, thanks for posting the picture of the specialist gauge. A long time ago I had obtained just the gauge in a box lot. I had no idea what it was as the other informational sheets were not included with it. I think I simply gave it away one day when I was clearing out surplus supplies.
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
"
This is the current gauge for Candian stamps, made in Canada.
"
And it is good for stamps of any country, not just Canada
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
The importance of the specialist gauge is that although a stamp may be listed as perf 12 it usually is a rounded number so offers more precision in measurement. It is important in detecting early re-perforated stamps.
For example. some US stamps listed as perf 11 can be 10.9 or 11.1 depending on the perforator (L or bulls eye) used. They are not exactly perf 11.00.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
The thought occurs that after perforating millions of stamps, the perforation pins will get worn and affect the actual measurements, more noticeably so if using a gauge that measures to a thousandth of an inch.
Login to Like
this post
12:58:20pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Sheepshanks
The male and female pins are changed with new ones to some scheduled event!
What you say would also apply to either metric standards or thousands of an inch!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:24:39pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
I've made up the scanned image, very hard to do, took me many times to get it right, anyway for the people who are only concerned with the perf. hole (black dot here) I offer this Kiusalas gauge in the standards of thousands of an inch.
Not a joke, I think this will help. See the 3 arrows. the top arrow is for perf. 10, next arrow down is for perf. 11, last arrow perf. 12.
1898
Login to Like
this post
07:57:48pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@1898
I fail to understand your argument in favor of Kiusalas gauge.
In the measurement system there are thousandths of mm (micron) which is equal to one thousandth of an inch divided by 25.4 - but that is not an argument either.
Any measuring device has a specified precision class - I haven't seen Kiusalas or metric gauge have it listed.
The machines that make pin and female pin have a guaranteed deviation from the dimensions (I think that the distance between the holes of the perforator have a deviation between 0.02 and 0.1 mm / 0.78 and 3.8 thousandths of an inch - depending on the machine on which the holes are made)
What precision are we talking about here?
In fact, each of us praises the Kiusalas / metric gauge we use (or in my case a simple transparent ruler)
It is night for me, but tomorrow I will post an American stamp and my way of measuring the perforation.
I hope you have the same stamp and submit a picture of it and the Kiusalas gauge.
Login to Like
this post
09:37:07pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@gerom
I've read and reread you posting, maybe there is something wrong with me, but I simply do not understand your posting!
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
28 Jun 2023
09:53:28pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
"but I simply do not understand your posting!
"
I can trump that! I haven't understood any of this stuff about different perforation guides! I don't consider myself to be stupid by any means but you've all got me totally confused. When someone said a stamp if perforated 11, or whatever, I took out my trusty perforation guide and did a simple measurement, case closed! Do we really need to make everything 10 times more complicated than that?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:37:53pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Harvey
All I was doing is pointing out to use the correct perf. gauge! If the stamp is based on thousands of an inch, then use that gauge. If the stamp standard is metric then use that gauge on the stamp. Very simple!
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:45:07pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@1898
I'm translating with "google translate" and maybe that's a reason you don't understand.
...or maybe my technical explanations in the field of measuring or metal processing did not find the person with experience in the field.
Login to Like
this post
11:32:11pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@gerom
It's for sure me, you latest posting has more more thinking I'm just stupid.
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Stick a fork in me... I'm done! I don't need no stinkin' Kiusalas gauge to measure those pesky Canadian stamps. Here's a magic decoder ring presentation of a portion of the Kiusalas gauge.
12 - 64 0.064" spacing = 0.16256 cm spacing
2.0 cm /0.16256 cm = perforation 12.30
12 - 65 0.065" spacing - 0.1651 cm spacing
2.0/0.1651 cm spacing = perforation 12.11
12 - 66 0.066" spacing = 0.16764 cm spacing
2.0/0.16764 = perforation 11.93
12 - 67 0.067" spacing = 0.17018 cm spacing
2.0/0.17018 = perforation 11.75
11.5 - 68 0.068" spacing = 0.17272 cm spacing
2.0/0.17272 = perforation 11.57
Now , here is the trusty Unitrade 'Perfect Gauge'. So, if you measure a perforation of 11.9, then you can be sure you have a Kiusalas gauge 12-66. Likewise, if you measure a perforation of 12.3, then you surely have a Kiusalas gauge 12-64... 'snot too complicated.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
02:45:06am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Terry
Thanks for the image where I can see that you can measure the perforation from 0.1 to 0.1
I only knew perforation gauge with 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75.
How do you use your perforation gauge on stamps with line perforation? (the first top hole is not on the same vertical as the first bottom hole)
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Maybe a picture will help, or not.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:46:22am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Terry
I object to the first part of your posting, your coments could have been worded another way. (moderator-comment deleted)
The rest of your posting was real interesting (moderator deleted section) and you must have worked on it a long time, thank you.
Now let me try a different way for this discussion. Pretend you buy an album from an on line auction. You get lots of stamps you need for the country(s) you collect. You find a stamp that wasn't shown on the auction pictures, and you think it's a rare stamp. The perf. is on the standard of thousands of an inch, it's over 100 years old but looks so outstanding you submit it for a cert. You stamp comes back to you from the cert. company, they tell you it's a fake. The Cert. company says it doesn't perf. correctly using there metric perf. gauge! What is your reaction?
1898
(Modified by Moderator on 2023-06-30 06:42:14)
Login to Like
this post
09:05:50am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@mbo1142
Wow, an outstanding art work you presented!
Here is my image (yes I know it's crude!), but on the Kiusalas gauge standard of thousands of an inch, the measurement is the area between the perf. holes, not the perf. holes!
Hope this help the discussion.
Again my image is very crude but I think it clear.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
29 Jun 2023
09:48:21am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
I have one simple question which I hope someone will answer for me - please! If Scott's says a stamp has a certain perforation, and by the way my perforation guide is the one that Terry shows, does it ever specify that you have to use a certain guide to measure it? I don't think it does! I could be wrong on the next statement and please correct me if I am. I don't remember them ever specifying a perforation like 10.25 and even if they did I could estimate using my guide. Is there ever a real need to use a different guide unless we are a specialist like 1898 is? If Scott's says perforated 11 then I assume that my guide is fine. If it turns out to be 10.8 or 11.2 I assume they want me to round to 11. The question boils down to this - unless I am going to specify do I really need to buy a " Kiusalas gauge standard of thousands of an inch"? Please provide a sensible answer, I really want to know!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:50:03am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Harvey
I don't think you are an "a**" because I don't really know what this is. I suspect it a dirty word! As a teacher would you use a** in your class room, I don't think so, may I suggest you delete this, before just in case a young person reads it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@1898
Can you please provide the source of your drawing indicating that the Kiusalas gauge is used to meaure the space of the perf and not the perf holes. I mean written documentation from a reliable source. Each dot on the Kiusalas gauge must line up with a perf hole. If you are saying that once that is accomplished, then the measure you receive is actually the distance between the 2 edges of one perf itself, then I am lost.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
29 Jun 2023
11:03:14am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Sorry 1898, I didn't mean to offend you! Editing is done!! By the way, I would never say anything in the classroom to offend the kids, but I've heard much much worse!!
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
1898:
I will be as audacious as you are:
Please stop correcting people for their posts or requesting that they change them to conform to your self-perceived guidelines.
It's not just on this thread -- it's on many of the threads you've participated in recently.
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@1898
Sorry if I let my child come out, but stamp collecting for me is supposed to be fun! Fun for me does not include insisting that there can be only one way to do things (the Kiusalas gauge is the only accurate way of measuring Canadian perforations). What does it matter if you measure perforations between the center of the holes, or the center of the nibs? The results will be the same (as I think @mbo1142 will agree). And, no it didn't take me hardly anytime at all to "analyze" the Kiusalas gauge... it's simple math. Perforations do not have different measurement standards... the perforation GAUGES that you discuss are using different measurement standards.
@Harvey
I don't think it matters what perforation gauge you use, as long as you can accurately determine the number of perforations in the specified length (1 perforation in 0.066" or 12.3 perforations in a 2cm length). I prefer cm (as the metric system is used by the vast majority of the world). @1898 is right about Scott "rounding" their perforation data. However, they often use quarters in their data as well. Use the perforation gauges that you are comfortable with... the perforations will be the same regardless of how you want to declare them. I also use the Linn's perforation gauge because it goes down to 8 on the perforation scale, and the longer metric ruler allows me to accurately measure some of those humongous souvenir sheets (got to watch out for the ones that have been "cut-down" to fit album pages!).
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
29 Jun 2023
11:39:29am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
"stamp collecting for me is supposed to be fun"
AMEN TO THAT!!!
I'm having about as much fun with my stamp collecting as I possibly can, and I don't need a fancy guide to tell me that!
Some of these posts are getting a bit out of hand. I vote we do what we can to stop that from happening!!
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:56:43am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@mbo1142
You are correct, the perf. gauge actually measures the space between the perf. holes. The black dots are there just as an aid to get right and proper orientation to make an accurate reading.
Glad you are not lost anymore!
You will find the written instructions for either Kiusalas in the instructions that come with the gauge.
I assume the Kiusalas instructions are a reliable source.
1898
Login to Like
this post
11:58:07am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Philatarium
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
12:03:02pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Everyone
I think Harvey is right, but I don't know how to stop all this.
Might I suggest that Stamp-O-Rama close out any more useless posting on this subject!
1898
Login to Like
this post
12:37:36pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@d1stamper
I just learned about the Kiusalas gauge a few years ago, and I'v been collecting since Aug. 1958. I'm always willing to learn something new!
It's not my silly topic, just the silly responses from people who are given the facts and for some unknown reason want to ignore them.
I agree with you but how can we stop all this waste of time and effort.
I for one want to get back to enjoying Stamp-O-Rama!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
I have watched (i wouldn't say followed, and certainly not understood) this thread from its inception, which, using any gauge of your choice, is a long time.
Moderators could come in here and close this off, but since most of you want this to end, I suggest my post be the final in this very long string.
The lightest touch of self-control and all of us get to go back to stamps and measure them any way we choose, or not at all.
David 17 neck with 38x30 trousers; 12 US or 46 EU shoes; or just XL
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
Wow!
Just had to throw in my comment.
Pushing buttons is so much fun.
Tad
Login to Like
this post
07:26:49pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
I found this in the May 2023 issue of American Philatelist, an article by Randy Shoemaker.
I'm just scanned one bit of the entire article for your pleasure.
What do you think about it?
Login to Like
this post
12:16:01am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@1898
I wrote to you that I use "google translate" and I hope to make myself understood.
Very interesting article, especially:
"...have the proper spacing and perf hole size....This is absolutely critical for detecting reperforated stamps.'
This statement leads me to the conclusion that the measurement is made by aligning the black dots of the gauge with the punched holes of the stamp (this way you can check if they have the same diameter or otherwise it means that a re-perforation has been made)
It can also be checked if the centers of the holes are on the same line.
Login to Like
this post
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
I had read the article and found the comments on the Sonic Imagery Labs gauge to be more more interesting. I checked and I have the "10" version. I thought the article seemed written as a personal opinion piece rather than a comprehensive write up.
I measure at the low points of the perforation rather than tips.
Login to Like
this post
09:18:15am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@angore
Interesting point!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:24:27am
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@gerom
Good morning from Texas
Well said.
On a few older revenue (U.S.A. stamps) the performations in a straight line, but are on an angle (up or down) in relation to the stamp margins.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:33:00pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@Everyone
Don't know if you know this, but if you use a performation gauge you will need to replace it often because they all shrink.
Hope this helps my fellow stamp collectors.
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:38:00pm
re: What Perf. Standard is Current
@d1stamper
This information I'm passing on is the current up to date information.
Silly, guess each person has to decide for them self!
1898
Login to Like
this post