US Scott 500

Members,
Before I send this off for certification I wanted to get your opinion. This is a perf 11 flat plate Washington with what I believe are Type Ia characteristics. What do you think?

Can you post a higher resolution image? This one is a bit too small to check well. Need a good 300 dpi, and more if you can.

How does this one look? Thanks in advance for the assistance..

I don't see the heavy toga button, toga rope and rope shading lines of a Type 1a. Here is a 500 from the Philatelic Foundation database that you can use for comparison.

Thanks Tom. I agree and my assesment was on the consistency of the toga rope which typically is the defining feature to determine type. I took another look at the stamp through a loop and have another issue / question: It appears that this has a second line in the end ribbon. Its very, very light but this would lead me to believe that this is a type 3 which is only found on Scott #546 which is Rotary. I took my template for Flat plates and overlayed which you can see below. Its pretty close with a slight difference in the corner (second picture). Would this be enough to make this a Rotary 546?

Creating templates is an excellent idea (that never occurs to most collectors).

my guess: not Sc500

Thanks Doug, the templates have been an enoumous help.

Chasa, apprecaite the comments but if not 500 then what are your toughts?

I believe it's most likely a Scott #499 if the rest of the characteristics are correct. I must go through hundreds of these and every time I get a little excitement but it's always something like the "smiling" Sc. #499 from the "non smiling" Sc. #500 and so on...These can be very challenging as you well know.

Mind if I ask how you are generating and using the templates? I looks to me that when you were able to get the images to line up on three sides, you assume that they are at the same scale and therefore any misalignment of the fourth side signals a printing variation. But I have observed while working in Photoshop that matched scaling can be a tricky business since the x and y directions can vary independently. In making extreme closeup overlays in which the lines of engraving were to match up, I found that the only way I could be sure that both images were at the same scale was when I set the scanning parameter for a particular size and scanned both items with that same setting. After that it was important not to let one change in some way that the other did not. I had hoped that merely getting the image size parameters to match would do it, but found that the real determinant is the setting of the scanning parameters.

So, what are the controls you are using to assure that the template image and your scanned image are at the same scale in both the x and y directions?

That's not meant to be a challenge; I'm really looking for a simpler way if there is one.

essayk,

I could be wrong but I believe that the template shannon7692 was using is physical rather than digital (i.e., a known stamp with the corners cut off).

shannon7692,

At this point I'm leaning toward ILS' thought that your stamp is a 499. In addition to the two lines of shading in the curves of both ribbons, the type III shares other characteristics similar to Type II (heavy toga button, rope and rope shading lines, shading lines of the face at the lock of hair ending in a strong vertical curved line).

Is it possible for you to post a closely cropped, 600 dpi scan of the entire stamp?

Essayk, Tom was correct; I am using a physical stamp that I know is a flat plate, and I cut out the corners. This is the easiest way I have found to determine if a stamp is flat vs. rotary.

Tom, I am still not convinced this is not a 500 but even a 499 is always type 1 so I am a bit confused. This stamp has every charastic of a flat plate down to the ink on the back.

I do want to note that I have gone through over 50,000 of these so far (see a much earlier post for the hoard I landed) and have become fairly good at determining SC#; the reason I posted this one was because it has me stumped.

I have posted one more pic but not sure this will be any better. I need to upgrade my camera :)

Shannon, have you been on the www.1847usa.com site and reviewed the comparisons they show on the types of the 2-cent Washingtons? I think I remember from your earlier posts that you may have been given that site to check? If not its a good reference source. From what I'm seeing on your pics, I don't believe it is a 500 or 546. It looks like a type I flat plate--499. The slight difference showing on your stamp verses the templet looks like maybe .25mm or so which could just be shrinkage for the degree of wetness that the paper had when the sheet was printed. Also, presence of ink on the back should eliminate a rotary press item. Can you do a close up image of the ribbon where you are seeing two lines so we see what you're seeing there? I also have gone through several of these over the years and still, at times, have difficulty typing them.

Al,
I live on the 1847usa site! With the hoard that I have (again, ealier post will show pics) of some 400,000 W/F I needed a good site that that was it.

I have been able to identify and confirm 5 of the rare Scott 491's so far (all now have cert's from Weiss) which tells me I somewhat have the hang of this but you are right, I get stumped as well everytime I look at a new batch.

I dont think my camera can get any better shots then the ones I have taken.... time for a new camera. I will have to submit and pay for the expert to have a look. Ill let you all know what comes back.

I hope the result is in your favor!

As for replacing your camera, you might want to consider a scanner instead.

Shannon, wishing you the best on the cert.--would be a nice find for you. I finally printed off the comparisons from the site so I didn't have to keep pulling them up on my computer--but still from time to time have to go back on-line to look and make sure. W/F are challenging and facinating to work with. FIVE 491s! Wow! thats nice. I've yet to find one at all--but I'll keep looking! I agree that a good scanner would be much better than a camera. As soon as I can get a little $$ ahead, I'm going to get a good scanner and a new computer/monitor. Mine are way to old--like me.