Found In Collection, Marked As 491

I found these two stamps in a big US collection I just got today. They are marked as 491, next to a strip of 3 also marked as 491 that were really 492.

The first image below seems be type II, but the possible three dash line in the ribbon just to the right of the first fold is very hard to see. After another look, the first image is type I. Not sure how I missed that toga rope. No setoff. W/Fs making me crazy again. The second image does have the characteristics of a type II.

They are both perf 10. I checked for watermark and couldn't see any, but I can't always see them when I know they are there. Not sure about the edges, but both measure the same side to side.

Opinions?

Know the feeling. Here's a good procedure for identifying Washington/Franklins...

1. Determine the printing method (Flat Plate, Rotary or Offset).
2. Determine the perforations.
3. Determine the type.

If you have these three things, you will actually know in many cases whether the stamp has a watermark or not. The only times when you absolutely need to check the watermark is on...

1. Flat Plate imperfs.
2. Perf 11 Flat Plates.
3. All perf 10's (except for Type I coils).


-IBFS

Also...The perfs on the right side of the stamp on the right look funny to me.

Now that I look closer, the perfs on the left stamp look funny also.



-IBFS

I think you're right on. The left is Type I and the right is Type II. Presence or not of a watermark is the only thing left to determine. For $5 Bill Weiss will take a look and he's very good at spotting watermarks.

As for the perfs, the left and right have to be original. The top and bottom perfs could have been cut off of a #539 coil waste 11x10, but that stamp catalogs at around $4500 higher. I can't see anyone deciding to turn a #539 into a #491 no matter how bad the top and bottom perfs could be. The odd shape of the right hand perfs could be due to how the user removed the stamp from a vending machine.

I just noticed some peculiarities of the Type I (left hand) stamp. It almost seems like it has some recuts. There's an odd break in the hair at the yellow arrow. The green arrows point to noticeable darkening of the eyebrow and some lines in the hair. None of these differences are noticeable on the few Type I rotary print coils that I have.

Good eye, DNA. I don't see what you pointed out on the only other rotary coil I have handy.

The type I stamp is a 453, and should have a watermark. I didn't see a watermark on either of these stamps, so I'm going to try a few more times. If I can't find anything, I'm sending the type II to Bill Weiss with something else I've been meaning to send him. It will most likely come back as a 454, but worth $5.

The left stamp looks like a type III to me (either Scott 455 or 492.) The right stamp looks like a type II, and my guess is that it's watermarked (i.e. Scott 454, not 491.)

IBFS

I hate to break in here, but being new to this game I have a question for you. I like you approach, I think I can determine the difference between Flat plate and rotary, but offset printing? From what I can see Type IV, V, Va VI and VII are offset printing, but short of these identifications, is there another way of telling the difference between Flat Plate and Offset Printing?

With experience, you'll be able to tell offset vs. engraved by "look." (I think that's what you're really asking about.) Short of that, the best way IMO is to just drag the edge/tip of your tongs lightly across the design (e.g. perpendicular to a frame line.) If the stamp is engraved (raised design,) the tongs will "catch" on the ink. If the stamp is offset, you'll encounter no resistance and the tongs will slide smoothly over all printed areas.

Thanks srailkb,

Found this Web site that I think will help.

http://www.jamesdire.net/W-F.html

Thanks srail, I can see possible faint type III lines on the ribbons. Is that what led you to type III? I thought type I because the top line of the toga rope is not very defined, and the rope lines don't seem consistent top to bottom. I read (probably on 1847usa) that the toga rope isn't a defining characteristic of type III, but it usually looks more like type II.

Joe, another good trick for telling flat plate and rotary stamps from offset stamps is the tinfoil test. If you can't get the hang of feeling the engraving, just put some tinfoil on the stamp and gently rub with your finger. If it's flat plate or rotary, you'll see an image of the stamp on the tinfoil, caused by the engraved lines.

raymodj, yes the right ribbon lines, plus the shape of the mouth.

srail, I think you're right. I dismissed type III because lack of the extra line in the left ribbon. Didn't even notice the right ribbon until looking at my enlargement after you mentioned it. In addition, the line under the ear looks type III. The locks of hair extend like a type III. They're difficult to see with this scan's detail. The last point to check is the top right laurel berry, but a better scan is needed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120618043935/http://www.1847usa.com/washfrank/2cT1_3/2cA10.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20130105043940/http://www.1847usa.com/washfrank/2cT1_3/2cA07.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20110906034701/http://1847usa.com/washfrank/2cT1_3/2cA09.htm

The forum software doesn't like compound links, so highlight the whole link then copy and paste or right click on them.

Well, no luck finding the watermark on the type II on the right. I took a few pictures but it's much easier for me to scan. I'm a little shaky and was born wearing glasses.

I tried to get one in fluid and the second while flashing.

It seems to me the right stamp is a type II. I don't see the watermark either. That means it's time to send it off. The left one is type III.
The way I look at these is to find stamps that have all of the markers clearly show. Since the 491 is the most expensive, it has to show all markers clearly. Otherwise it is a type III.

Some additional information that helps identify Types I-II-III rotary press issues. The first two images were taken from a 2011 post from another site that were posted by a friend on mine. The comments under the images are his, although I had to re-type them to fit under the images.



Its a little harder to see what he's talking about in this second post. But the lines can be seen.



This image (below)is an example of a #454 that I have on a cover. Its the best example I have that can show the lines in the border (type-II). I don't have an example of a type-I that I could post.



The image (below) is an example of a #492 that I have on a cover. Its the best example I have that can show the cross hatching in the border.


As Tipzi stated in his original post, most examples will show a solid border, so the border distinction used as an identifier will not work in every case. The difference in the hair line between a type-I and type-II should be fairly consistent to identify.

All this having been said, the first image in the original post is a type-I and the second is either a type-II or III. Most likely a type II but would need a better image to be sure. I am not seeing a watermark, but single lines are difficult to see. Ray Mac. sent in one he thought was a #491 and it was cert'ed. as a #454--a portion of a watermark was found on a single perf. tip. Go figure.