Talk:Penny Red

Philately High‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Confusing statement[edit]

The article states "The stamps were printed in sheets of 240 (20 rows of 12 stamps), so one row cost 1 shilling and a complete sheet one pound. This situation continued with all postage stamps issued until 1971 when decimal currency was introduced and the sheet size was changed to 200, (20 rows of 10 stamps) making the lowest value denomination, (half pence), one pound per sheet. -- This can't be correct; British stamps were printed in a variety of values (including ₤1), shapes (rectangle, square); and sizes. They can't all have been printed in sheets of 240 (or 200) and certainly did not total ₤1). Ecphora (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified 240 stamps per sheet configuration. A sheet of half-pence stamps cost £1 but obviously higher values cost more per sheet. ww2censor (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers produced?[edit]

How many sheets was printed, and ca. how many stamps was made? 51.174.17.218 (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]