Snake teething
Every stamp collector encounters the perforation of stamps at some point. The collector knows that the perforation must be perfect. Not a single tooth may be missing, because otherwise the stamp has no collectible value. Or is that not entirely true?
On January 1, 1860, two stamps were issued in Finland with values of 5 and 10 kopecks. Finland was a Russian Grand Duchy from September 17, 1809, until the end of 1917, with the Tsar as Grand Duke. Consequently, the currency in Finland was based on the Russian Ruble. The two stamps featured a distinctive perforation that had not previously been used in any other country. The perforation was applied in a serpentine pattern but not completely pierced through. Otherwise, the sheets of stamps would fall apart. Collectors quickly nicknamed this perforation "roulette perforation" or "serpentine perforation." In the Netherlands, where Finnish stamps are still eagerly collected, the term "snake perforation" was used, referring to the serpentine, serpent, or snake. It was also sometimes referred to as a "tongue-shaped perforation."
Five different perforation variants may be encountered. The first two stamps of this issue appear in two perforation sizes. The depth of the perforation is the determining factor here. In the first variant, the depth of the perforation is 1 to 1,5 mm. The length, measured over nine teeth, is 20 to 21,4 mm. The depicted 10 kopeck stamp was postmarked in Kastelholm in 1862. The postmark is elongated in shape.
In the second variant, the depth is 1,6 to 1,9 mm. The length, measured over nine teeth, is 20,6 to 21 mm. The depicted 10 kopeck stamp was postmarked in Tammerfors in September 1865.
From January 1, 1866, the value denomination on the stamps was changed to Finnish Marks. The denomination was indicated in pennies. The impression in blue postmark ink is by Helsingfors.
The first new value, of 5 pennies, was executed in the first and second perforation variants.
The third variant was used from 1867. In this case, the depth is 2 to 2,5 mm. The length, measured over nine teeth, is 21,2 to 21,4 mm.
The 20 penni value, likewise issued from January 1, 1866, also has three perforation variants. It is striking, however, that the postmarks on all the stamps are sometimes very faint or illegible. The impression on the third stamp is clear: BORGÅ.
The fourth tooth variant can be measured as follows: depth of the toothing 1,25 to 1,5 mm and the length measured over nine teeth 20 to 20,6 mm. The fourth variant was used from 1866, but the month is unknown.
The value of 40 penni is also known with four perforation variants.
But here a fifth variant emerges. This variant is clearly different from the preceding four, and the tooth size 10½ is also sometimes assigned to this toothing. This variant has been known since 1867, but I have not yet encountered it myself.
On January 27, 1866, a new value was added to the assortment: 8 penni. This value is known in five perforation variants, with the fifth variant also known with 'perforation' 10½ : 11. The stamp impression in the second image is FR.KO., an abbreviation of FRANKO.
Finally, the 1 Mark stamp appeared on May 9, 1867. This stamp was issued in perforation variants two and three. The Wiborg postmarks in blue and black are recognizable.
Finally, a remark regarding the quality of the perforation. It was difficult to tear stamps from the sheet in such a way that the perforation was perfect. Usually, the stamps would lose one, two, or even three 'teeth' or 'tongues'. This damage occurred particularly often at the four corners. Collectors sometimes pay up to five times the catalogue price for perfect examples, where all edges are flawless. That is why 'repaired' examples do exist; so be careful. However, stamps missing one or two 'teeth' or showing a blunt corner are considered normal quality. This is one of the few exceptions where the absence of teeth has little or no impact on the collector's value. Do you also collect stamps from Finland? And what term do you use for this perforation?

Very good and interesting piece. I really learned something new. Thanks!
This brings me to the first few sentences in the first paragraph: “The collector knows that the perforation must be intact. Not a single tooth may be missing, because otherwise the stamp has no collector's value.”
As a collector of Dutch postal history (particularly letters and stationery before 1880), I have also always had some difficulty with this view. I am of the opinion that my own collection, at the very least, should be a record of the normal use of stamps, cancellation marks, etcetera. Now, stamps from the classic issues ended up on letters in less than perfect condition. Stamps from the 2nd and 3rd issues, for example, were regularly still cut from the sheets, despite the fact that they were now perforated. In my opinion, that falls under normal use, and is therefore certainly collectible.
The same reasoning applies to overfranks from this period. Although rare (5 cents extra was really a lot of money), such frankings do indeed occur, and were certainly not 'fabricated' by the sender from a philatelic point of view. Therefore, in my opinion, they are also collectible. I therefore find the rejection of such pieces by the philatelic establishment truly absurd.
What are the opinions on this?