In the old days, the perforating devices were often/usually manually aligned. This brought about misperfs such as what you have shown. They are not considered to be errors, because the misalignment is slight, and off-centered stamps are common. I believe to be an error, the shifted perfs have to be at least 25% (or thereabouts) off normal.
Agreed, there is an ephemeral line somewhere between…
“Wow, that is a really striking misperf and I wouldn’t mind adding that to my album.”
and
“Wow, that is one really off centered stamp that I would never add to my album”
Don
Michael said:
"the misalignment is slight"
"“Wow, that is a really striking misperf and I wouldn’t mind adding that to my album.”
and
“Wow, that is one really off centered stamp that I would never add to my album”
Don"
Yes, it's "freak", and it happens often with older stamps.
I would call the first stamp a jumbo, with nice wide margins.
I would call the second stamp an oddity, with height shortened due to perforating misalignment in the production process.
I would call the third stamp normal size.
I would call the fourth stamp a jumbo.
We have discussed this subject on Stamporama before, see the link below:
https://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=20&id=19463#143989
Lots and lots of stamps vary in size like yours. You can call it an EFO. I would call it an oddity, not a major error.
I agree with Michael, "the alignment was slight," when you compare your freaky stamp to the normal stamp next to it.
Linus
Linus, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that any of these stamps are jumbos. Aside from the obviously mis-sized stamp that is our focus, I believe all these others are normal size. To demonstrate this, I've added four more of the horizontal stamps from this set to the image and included four vertical white bars with identical lengths. We can use these bars to compare heights of the various examples. There just isn't enough variation in my opinion to call any of these stamps jumbo.
Ok, I stand corrected, they are all normal. But the first stamp is slightly bigger.
Linus
Here is a handy digital utility, free limited version available for download
http://www.iconico.com/caliper/
DOn
Am I correct in thinking this stamp falls into the "error" category of EFOs? The top 2-2½ mm of the stamp is missing. I don't know enough about the process of perforating the sheets to understand how this could happen, but I am assuming this was something that happened during production. Is this a safe assumption?
Before creating this post, I had searched for an SOR thread dedicated to "EFOs" or "Errors." I was surprised not to find one. Did I overlook it? We have several worthy threads for various philately niches. Shouldn't we have one for Errors or EFOs?
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
In the old days, the perforating devices were often/usually manually aligned. This brought about misperfs such as what you have shown. They are not considered to be errors, because the misalignment is slight, and off-centered stamps are common. I believe to be an error, the shifted perfs have to be at least 25% (or thereabouts) off normal.
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
Agreed, there is an ephemeral line somewhere between…
“Wow, that is a really striking misperf and I wouldn’t mind adding that to my album.”
and
“Wow, that is one really off centered stamp that I would never add to my album”
Don
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
Michael said:
"the misalignment is slight"
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
"“Wow, that is a really striking misperf and I wouldn’t mind adding that to my album.”
and
“Wow, that is one really off centered stamp that I would never add to my album”
Don"
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
Yes, it's "freak", and it happens often with older stamps.
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
I would call the first stamp a jumbo, with nice wide margins.
I would call the second stamp an oddity, with height shortened due to perforating misalignment in the production process.
I would call the third stamp normal size.
I would call the fourth stamp a jumbo.
We have discussed this subject on Stamporama before, see the link below:
https://stamporama.com/discboard/disc_main.php?action=20&id=19463#143989
Lots and lots of stamps vary in size like yours. You can call it an EFO. I would call it an oddity, not a major error.
I agree with Michael, "the alignment was slight," when you compare your freaky stamp to the normal stamp next to it.
Linus
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
Linus, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that any of these stamps are jumbos. Aside from the obviously mis-sized stamp that is our focus, I believe all these others are normal size. To demonstrate this, I've added four more of the horizontal stamps from this set to the image and included four vertical white bars with identical lengths. We can use these bars to compare heights of the various examples. There just isn't enough variation in my opinion to call any of these stamps jumbo.
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
Ok, I stand corrected, they are all normal. But the first stamp is slightly bigger.
Linus
re: Angola 1913 printing error?
Here is a handy digital utility, free limited version available for download
http://www.iconico.com/caliper/
DOn