I find the following after looking at some 5c lithograped:
The perforation comb used during the first printing, from October 1, 1935; with small and irregular holes, results in variables measurements of the vertical perforation between 13.1 and 13.4. I only find one vertical row with 13.1 perforation, and it is a row with a skipped perf hole. Here I show three illustrative blocks.
The first block is from the row with a perf skip, perforation 13.15, and it should be the same row as that for the 10c Rivadavia Red type I block shown previously.
The second block measures 13.3
The third block measures 13.4
Judging by the rare frequency with which I find the 13.1 perforation, I am guessing that it is only found in one column of the sheet. All of the 5c lithographed (5c1E1) look like they were perforated with this comb; and not with the later comb that measures exactly 13.5 by 13.5.
A Stamp Collecting Blog Dedicated to one of the Most Interesting Series of the 20th Century
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Perforations of the 10c Rivadavia Red
After ignoring this topic for a very long time (try 15 years), and receiving a Stanley Gibbons transparent strip to measure watermarks, I have made some measurements of the 10c Rivadavia Red:
Small, slightly irregular holes:
Type I horizontal.
Type I vertical as if it was 13.5, which it isn't.
Type I vertical measured correctly, looks like 13.1, and not 13.
Type II horizontal
Type II vertical
Medium, regular holes:
Type II horizontal
Type II vertical
After these measurements, I now realize why I am unable to separate the two vertical perforations with the naked eye:
1. The 13 perforation is from the irregular grid with small holes, and the measurement is not exactly 13.5 or 13.
2. The difference between 13.1 and 13.4 is VERY small.
I wonder if the other stamps from the first batch (October 1, 1935) are also found with the 'almost 13' vertical perforation?
Small, slightly irregular holes:
Type I horizontal.
Type I vertical as if it was 13.5, which it isn't.
Type I vertical measured correctly, looks like 13.1, and not 13.
Type II horizontal
Type II vertical
Medium, regular holes:
Type II horizontal
Type II vertical
After these measurements, I now realize why I am unable to separate the two vertical perforations with the naked eye:
1. The 13 perforation is from the irregular grid with small holes, and the measurement is not exactly 13.5 or 13.
2. The difference between 13.1 and 13.4 is VERY small.
I wonder if the other stamps from the first batch (October 1, 1935) are also found with the 'almost 13' vertical perforation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)