279Be Washington Vertical Watermark Error

I needing a little help and am asking for your advice on the matter. I believe this to be 279Be type 4 with the vertical watermark error on the back. It is vertical and not horizontal. You can almost see the watermark without fluid, but I did the test anyway. It has the toga, the extra dots in the ear,the not so thick line on the inner leaf, but not for sure on the straightening of the T. Its not straight but not as curved as the rest I have viewed. It looks orange red as far as I can tell. Full OG on the back. Can anyone tell me if I'm correct or is all I need is the vertical watermark on the back. Thanks again in advance for the help. Newby. Also it looks like it has the thicker hair and the triangle

It looks normal to me. A vertical watermark would read in the vertical direction with the letter(s) sideways to the design. A normal horizontal watermark will read in the horizontal direction. Any 264 will have a horizontal watermark. Many of the higher values have vertical watermarks. First Bureau stamps with a vertical watermark will be slightly wider and shorter than stamps with a horizontal watermark.

Clark

Thanks Clark, if I may say Clark. So it's a regular 279B type 4? Also, I would to add that there is a line that did not show in the scan but shows up under the glass that runs straight from the bottom of the left triangle to around the top of the "T" in United and I have red somewhere about this line but can not remember where. Would this make it a different Scott number?

Can you get a scan of that line? If the line is too fine to show up, it could be a mark from a dropped tool. Other than the position of this line, very fine lines that can be seen with a magnifing glass yet don't show when scanned under 1200 dpi resolution are fairly common on banknote stamps. Those are layout lines. This line may be of the same type.

Your scan is too blurry to make a solid ID as to type III vs IV, but it does seem to have many of the type IV characteristics. So let's go ahead and assume it is type IV, which makes it a 279B. The Scott Specialized listings for 279B have a long list of sublistings for color, watermark direction, and sheet vs booklet pane printings as you have already found. Which sublisting is yours? Your stamp is perforated on all 4 sides, so it is not from a booklet. Every scanner/computer is slightly different, so judging subtle color variants via a computer is a fool's game here. But let's go on to paper anyway,
For watermark, your scan provides no clue to the watermark orientation, so we would need a picture of the back side of it in watermark fluid or a sketch of the watermark lines you see to be able to rule-in or rule-out the watermark variety/error. The catalog can also be confusing. The normal watermark position for 279B has each letter USPS reading upright so the entire 4 letters read horizontally across the stamp. The vertical watermark error has the individual letters on their side so that the entire USPS reads vertically. So the watermark is described as vertical or horizontal based on the reading of the entire 4 letter watermark sequence, rather than the separate letters, even though (approximately) only 1 letter appears on any given stamp.
No, the extra line from the triangle to the T does not change the catalog number, as noted above, whether from a dropped tool, residual layout line, plate scratch, bit of dirt, etc.

Thanks littleriverphil and you as well John Becker. Yeah the scanner isn't the best in the world. On the back of the stamp with the watermark it is a #191 and is a P but the way it is orientated is as you flipped it vertical and it looks like a b running from top to bottom of the stamp not sideways/horizontal. The leg of the P is at the top of the stamp and the circle of the P is at the bottom. In other words if you took the stamp in the post and just flipped in over face down you would see a b.

Now as far as the line from the triangle I tried to scan it at 2400 and 4800 but still to blurry,but it looks like the outside line of the triangle keeps running down past the bottom tip of the triangle down to about 6 red lines with a little curve in it to which would put it on the level or line that the T in United is on, but it does not touch the white oval. It is in the middle of the lines.
Thanks

If you want to find $$$ VALUE $$$ in the 279B, the serious collectors
of the 279B *ONLY* pay the big money for plate singles and imprint
strips with plate # 505... 505 was the first printing of the Type IV,
and the rarest of any 279B... you can hunt extensively for 505's on
ebay and other websites, and you'll (maybe) come across a couple of
them in a year's searching... or none at all...

Thanks disi123 but it's not the money part. I've read about the 505 plates and all I'm just trying to see what stamp it is so I can write it down for sure in my books. Some I have missed numbered as just plain Jane stamps. I have it marked as an 279B but started reading and investigating about all the differences of the stamp. Since the family here say to buy a Scotts book and I did. Same with all my stamps as since I've been here on the forum. I have been learning a lot from the family here so, I going back thru my stamps and looking more in depth at them. Who knows I may send it to Bill and let him look at it. It's not a bad deal for the price. I'm thinking about sending him one that he wanted to see in hand and I may send this one as well. Again thanks to all of you.

Ok I see now. It's a horizontal watermark inverted.