2c Washington #482 - Perf 5

The "used" value being for used singles language in the introduction goes back at least to the 1993 Specialized (that's the oldest cat. I have). "Cover" price is also for singles used commercially in-period.

Here are a couple of photos using Ronsonol. I have a feeling that my technique may need improvement. Oh, and I measured the 5 holes and 4 measure 2.10mm and one is 1.95mm - the second hole from top (measured side to side). I can't say that I see anything that would be a watermark. What would I be looking for?

Al E. Gator - 1.10mm between holes, 15.15mm length of 5 holes. Using Vernier digital caliper, and though I've not used one for some years, I don't think I'm too far off.

To me, I think the perfs. are good, but I'm not an expert on these issues. To bring out a watermark, or see that there is no watermark, you need to place the stamp onto a black plastic background or other black surface that will not absorb the fluid so the stamp can be soaked w/fluid for a few seconds. The black background is best because you can see the contrast between the watermark and the surrounding paper. The watermarked area is thinner than the rest of the stamp and will show up darker than the rest. It also looks like there may be some remnant from a hinge on the back of the stamp. That should be removed before checking for the watermark. If that is a hinge remnant, soak if off by placing the stamp in luke-warm water for a short period. After the remnant is removed, it should float free from the stamp, the stamp must dry before checking for the watermark. You don't want the stamp to curl when drying-put weight on it if it begins curling-if there is any gum remnant, take care that the stamp does not stick to the weight. You are looking for a single line watermark (#409) or no watermark (#482). Single line watermarks are sometimes very difficult to see especially if there is only a small portion of the watermark showing on the edge of the stamp. The Watermark will be some portion, or the whole letter, of one of these four letters-USPS.

Al E. Gator - Getting the hinge off now. Will let it dry and see about a photo against black for the watermark. Thank you for the description on the steps to take - that goes in my notes!

Well, here is the stamp with the Ronsonol on it. You may notice that the hinge is gone, as well as the pencil lettering/numbering. So is the very thin sheet of paper that was backing the stamp!

I don't see any change in the stamp, though. Any suggestions or ideas or known reasons of which you are aware?

Oh, yes. I don't see any sign of a watermark - am I missing it?

As was mentioned, sometimes the single line watermark can be very difficult to see. A darker black background would be much better but even then it can be difficult on a single stamp. The catalog value on a 482 is much higher than on a 409. Actual sales on ebay not so much, the 482 seldom demands a premium, for the very reason that the watermark can be so elusive.

As for "fake", as others have said, no one would bother attempting to fake such a common stamp. What the earlier poster was referring to was the measurable difference between a Mailmometer type IV known to have been used commercially and a Mailometer type IV thought to have been used to make request items for collectors. It's unknown if those items were actually produced by The Mailometer Co. or if they were produced by someone else. A likely candidate could have been C.H. Mekeel, a St. Louis stamp dealer of the same period. It may have been done with or without Mailometer's approval. That is not known, he had a working relationship with many of the Vending & Affixing Machine companies.

Look to the left, my avatar is C.H. Mekeel.

I've handled a few PVCs in my day and I do not ever recall seeing a M-O-M Type IV with such ragged-looing perf holes, so I agree with Ken. And he is also correct, the "Unused" price is always for a pair (unused singles of private coils are worth very little in relation to the pairs, which is strictly a function of marketplace preference as there is no other logical reason to discount the singles and basically ignore them in the listings). And the Used price is always for a single. For many years Scott dud not price used singles but in recent years have done a better job of doing so. Generally however, except for the most common PVCs, I think the used prices are too low.

Bill are you basing that on the original images he posted or the most recent one? Between those posts he soaked the stamp and removed some residual from the cover (or some such thing). In the last image they look pretty clean, so I am guessing that the fuzziness in the first images was due to the backing paper. The presence of that paper residual was probably what discouraged an earlier attempt to check for a watermark, hence the ambiguity over number that was written on the backing and is now gone.

Or so it would seem.

"As for "fake", as others have said, no one would bother attempting to fake such a common stamp."

And as I have said before, that is a philatelic myth where coils are concerned. This example may or may not be genuine, but the cheap ones have been faked.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet (too lazy right now to read) but if the cancellation ink runs down into the pref holes, it is unlikely a fake. If it doesn't it would be up to the best judgement of the eye.


-IBFS