I Think I Might Have A 482A! ????

So, what household product could be used to safely check for
a watermark? I have no dedicated checking fluid yet. It was
on my "to get" list. I have a UV light... Will that help?

My catalog isn't clear on which watermark to look for either.
Single line, or double line?

OK, I thought you had already done all that. You need to start from scratch. Since you have the Scott US Specialized catalog, go to the "Identifier of Definitive Issues -- Arranged by Type Numbers" located near the front of the catalog. Go to the subsection on Type A140 (Two Cents). There should be a page worth of abbreviated listings for ALL the 2 cent Washingtons of A140, along with the differences (Type, perforation, watermark, color...).

Or perhaps someone more skilled than I can help walk you through.

Since you know it is a Schermack, you can go to the Schermack listings and whittle down the A140 list considerably.

Have fun!

The design borders are 19mm wide, 22.25mm tall.

No watermark visible to UV light...

In general, you cannot detect watermarks on stamps using UV light. You have to use watermark fluid (some people use lighter fluid instead, but that is not a recommendation).

You can also try holding the stamp up to a light and looking through it from the backside.

I have a MNH 409, and the rope/button outline are definately faint,
almost non-existent, just as the cert type 1 I posted earlier. This
stamp has darker, more distinct markings. I am still at a loss as
to the watermark. I suppose I need to see if there are other possibilites
than the 409 as well, since this doesn't look type 1. There are 7 types
though, plus some 'a' types as well, so I need to look there until I
find a way to check for a watermark. It seems a single line is what
I would be looking for when I find a way...

Here is an excerpt from Scotts that may help.



ALSO:

Type 2 ruled out. Rotary only, rope lines very dark.

Type 3 ruled out. Rotary only, 2 lines of shade in ribbon.

Type 4 ruled out. The button lines do not form "D"s. Offset use only.

Type 5 ruled out. The rope lines are too dark, shading in the "2" is solid, not broken.
Offset use only.

Type 5a ruled out. Nose feature has 6 dots, not 4. Offset use only.

Type 6 not sure. Same as type 5, but has unbroken '2' shading. The unbroken 2 was the
biggest thing to rule this out as a Type 5. The rope lines appear darker on the description
of the 5 as well, but not a clear indicator. Offset use only. Not sure how that affects things.
534a would be the number, without watermark.

Type 7 ruled out, not imperf.

So, if it has a watermark, it is a 409, but with very strong features, out of the ordinary
for a typical type 1.

If it has no watermark, it is either the flat plate 482a, or the offset print 534a.

Got it narrowed down to 3 candidates.

ILS:
I have 2 problems with it being a T1...
In side by side comparison with my MNH, perfect centered, 409 T1,
the color is different, the rope lines are stronger, the hair definition
is stronger, the button is outlined stronger, and the shade lines in the
button are slightly thicker. (I am using the same illustrations you posted)

Not to mention the provanance (sp?) of the stamp coming from a Pittsburgh collection.

I am about to rule out the 534a...
All of my offset stamps have a fuzzy design about them, and don't measure
anything like this one measures. (Outside frames to outside frames)

This stamp is a flat press, and as for it being a 500 trimmed, as suggested
in the Scott snipet posted by ILS, I looked at my 500 and can't see enough
border width around the stamp to come up with as much border as my stamp
has when done trimming. Not that it couldn't be done to fake a 482a, but
to fake a 482a with as much clear border as my stamp in question has, unlikely.

I know... I am excited, and need a Devil's advocate until I can check the watermark.

Oh, and if you look at the scan of my stamp, you'll see a pull on
the perf at the lower right... Well, it was hanging on by a hair's
thickness, and it fell off when I took the stamp out to look at the
back... Now it has a pulled Schermack perf! :cry:

This is a 409, Type 1...
I wanted a huge pic, and the only one I could find was of a used.
The rope, button, and hair in front of ears is much lighter.

The rope outline and button are faint, as is my 409.

Dang it! I need a way to check the watermark...

I think you have a TI rather than a TIa. I base that on a comparison of your stamp with the images shown for items 6, 7 and 8 at http://www.1847usa.com/washfrank/2c...1_03main.htm.

It looks Type I to me. The 2 main differences between Type I and Type Ia are the top line of the toga rope and the toga button.


Type I top line of toga rope is weak and not well defined.


Type Ia top line of toga rope is well defined


Type I toga button not well defined


Type Ia toga button is well defined

Edit Type Ia from plates 10208, 10209 only

Tom, the chart shows 1 distinguished from 1a only on items 3 and 4.
6,7,8 distinguishes 1/1a from 2 and/or 3.

It doesn't matter.
Even with the abnormally strong features vs a type 1, the Schermacks,
and the stamp having come from Pittsburgh, where all 482a were released...
I found some lighter fluid, and the stamp appears to have a watermark.

I tried, and I learned a whole lot in a short time...