Type I Or Type II? Watermark Or No Watermark?

Rotary press issue, perf. 10 vert. coil. The cancel is interfering with some of the design characteristics. The line between the cheek and sideburn showing 4-5 lines joined seems to be the best distinguishing characteristics showing. Type one does not show that. Also, I can't see any sign of a watermark. This wet scan is the best I could get with several attempts. Single-line watermarks can be difficult to see, but I don't see one. Interested in opinions from you guys.

I can't see a water mark.

Well, Mr. Gator my friend, in a couple of weeks I'll be glad to bring my certed 491 if you want to make a comparison.....

You may remember that when I sent my first attempt in, I told Weiss that I'd eat the stamp if he found a watermark...and he said it was on the perf...I still have it, but should've eaten it....

Ray

Bring it along Ray. I'd certainly like to compare them. Got this one last week--mis-Identified--I think. The strike isn't as strong as some, but it still looks like a T-II. I'll call you in a week or so, we can coordinate travel then. You got my E-mail about D.S. coming with us?

Dave

When I get a combination of a single line watermark on that hard paper, they can be very hard for me to see. If I can't see anything clearly in the middle of the stamp back I divert to the corners, because with a single line watermark, you can run into a situation like this...



try as I might, I also see no watermark on that 2 cent.



-IBFS

Is that a partial "P" inside the blue block I added? Looks like the outer edge of the P just above the A showing through from the cancel.

Eagle---Dipped it again and I do not see evidence of a partial "P" showing. I see what you're seeing in the scan but that's not showing in a more saturated fluid. The dark spot by the fourth perf down is cancelation ink. I measured the distance between the top of the "A" and the dark spot and it measures approx. 3-1/2mm. I measure the same approx. area on a 375 that has a full "P" center in the stamp and that same area measures 5+mm. on the 375. Scanning a "wet" stamp is not an easy thing to do. Pretty hard to get a complete saturated surface scanned--so this scan has a bit of a mottled effect--shows that in the bottom between the design and edge--which may (or may not) effect what we see.

IBFS---Its sometimes hard to see them. They were often weak, and on the edges its pretty hard to see them. I struggle with it too.

I know Al, took me a few times to see that "P" myself. I struggle with these as well, some are very easy, others not so much. Good luck with this one.

I see no watermark.....

I see no watermark. I agree that it is Type II.

When I was using wet scans for hunting watermarks on my yellow and orange W/F's, I found that dipping the stamp and then quickly placing it on the scanner surface gave me better scans with more consistently distributed WM fluid than trying to add fluid to a stamp already on the scanner.

That worked best for me. A different technique might have worked for someone else. I was using Rosonol lighter fluid.

Look at the fourth perf hole from the top on the right side. There appears a faint outline that may be the stem of a "P" or part of a "U". Keep in mind that the watermark would be vertical (sideways to the design). Watermarking should also be done with Clarity to minimize the effects of the ink.

The other reservation I have is that the shade appears to be too bright to be a Scott 491. It is one of the most difficult US stamps to expertize. A cert is required to make it marketable. PF, PSE and PSAG have a video spectral comparator (VSC) with back lighting capabilities to "see" a watermark. Although still controversial, using a VSC is more likely to be successful than using watermark fluid. The older APS Crime Scope lacks backlight capability, so it would be advisable to ask that the stamp be sent an expertizer with access to the Smithsonian for testing.

Also, the stamp is extremely scarce. I found one in a collection and it received a good certificate. Again, the duller, deeper shade was a key indicator.

C;ark

Thank you Clark. Guess its one to send to the PF.

Here is the one that Bill certed for me as 491. The reason that I mentioned bringing it was that the shade is so different than the one that Al.E. posted: