Dear Sir,

In his article on the linerless Flag over Porch coil in the April Specialist, Todd Uebele states that “When the slitting wheels that cut the web into individual coil strips are properly set, the correct configuration for all normal Scott #3133s are in fact 12/12 PV/PV or 12/12 VP/VP.”  While it is possible to use the specifications for the stamp height and die cut gauge to calculate the number of serpentine cycles a normal stamp is supposed to have, it is impossible for us to know what die cut feature they intended the stamps to begin and end with or if they even cared.  This is because the serpentine pattern for this issue ran continuously across all the rows in the web without interruption between rows, giving us no clue what feature they intended the stamps to begin and end with.  If the slitting shifts or if the die cutting shifts, the starting and ending features will change even if the stamp is of a normal height.

This continuous die cut pattern is no different than what is found on a conventional perfed coil issue.  We collect them by perf gauge (and on the Liberty series by hole size), but I’ve never heard of anyone collecting them by whether they start or end with a hole or a perf.  On the other hand, in the case of the private vending coils, which do have distinctive patterns, they are collected by the number of holes or slits.

In contrast to the continuous pattern of the #3133, the serpentine pattern for Scott #2915A (BEP coil of 100) is interrupted by straight line separators that are intended to be split between the tops and bottoms of stamps of adjacent rows.  The pattern is named by the first feature under the separator at the top and the last feature above the separator at the bottom and by counting the number of peaks between the separators.  Even if the slitting shifts or if the die cutting shifts, the convention that has been developed allows the die cut pattern to be positively identified by referencing from the separators (not from the top and bottom of the stamp), something that is not possible on a continuous pattern issue like Scott #3133.

Using the terminology that was developed for a distinctive die cut pattern instead for a continuous die cut pattern only confuses things and adds fuel to Scott’s decision not to list legitimate die cut varieties for issues like the #2915A that were a result of different die cut mats and not a result of minor production freaks.

Sincerely,
Doug Iams