Missing The Mark

This stamp should have a water mark. I can't see it.

Pref is 12, I am trying to ID it 331? 357? or 274?

Nice looking stamp, well centred.
Sometimes the watermarks are hard to see, in some positions the stamp may only have the upper tips of the you or slight curve of the S on an edge.
My only suggestion would be that 357 is listed on bluish paper, and from you image I don't think your stamp qualifies. That should narrow it down a little.
Good luck.

The highlighted area looks like it may be the left portion of a double line "U".

I saw that as well but it's the cancellation wave on the front. If you look, there is another mark to the left of your oval towards the top, might be ink bleed.

Just can't figure this one out.

I probably should have looked at the cancelation before jumping to a conclusion!

Usualy the water mark jumps right out at you but this one is hard, maybe I found some new type for this series LOL

I've an A138 on cover dated 12/31/1910. If its a 374, would be an EDU. I sent it to Weiss, he agreed to cert. it when I lifted the stamp to check the watermark. After lifting, I couldn't find a watermark but sent it to him anyway. He also couldn't find a watermark. I've looked multiple times and still can't see one.

Could this be an issue released with out a water mark?

How can you find out Letter/e-mail to Scott, Post Office?

Anyone Know?

Can't imagine its anything like the 476A issue. I'd think that there is a trace, albeit difficult to see, of a watermark. If there were A138s printed on unwatermarked paper, someone in the past 100+ years surely would have discovered it/them? I don't know what the process would be to get anyone to check on that.

All the other stamps in the series had at leaset one issue with out a watermark, could there have been a mix up with paper when printing?

I keep soaking this stamp looking for any kind of mark and NOTHING, any more soaking and it will start to wrinkle.

I've had a couple of stamps like yours. The only thing I'll say about them is a double lien watermark will be seen. They are huge. if you can't see one the it will be a single line watermark that fell in between the letters. If you send it in they will send it back and tell you there is sl watermark somewhere.

I tried an experiment: I soaked the stamp in Watermark fluid and placed it on the scanner with a dark background, you can see the fluid build up on the side. However, I don't see a 191 or a 190 type mark.




If anyone sees something please point it out, Thanks.

Joe, some years back, I sent in a W/F 30 cent that I thought could be a 476A because I could not detect any watermark. I got opinions back from two different services stating it was a 439, single line watermark. To this day, I can't see the watermark. I'm thinking if you send it for an opinion, that's what you'll get. I've run across other W/Fs where the watermark, especially a single line mark, is very difficult to see. Usually but not always, the double line is more easily detectable. Are you thinking about sending it for an opinion?

Sorry about the post earlier. I hadn't had my 10th cup of coffee yet. There isn't a recorded example of that series without a watermark. Since stamps can fall in between the letter in the watermark they will only show tell-tell signs on the edges. a double line watermark is so large that the stamp can't fall between the letters of the watermark. If you would have a large multiple of stamps and still couldn't find the watermark then you might have something. A single stamp isn't enough to get that kind of an opinion. Therefor since it doesn't have a double line watermark it has to be a single line. Welcome to the wonderful world of stamp collecting!
William