Washington / Franklins, My Watermark Nightmare

I've been putting off going through my Washington / Franklin assortments because I dread the watermark identification. So this afternoon I sat down to attempt sorting a few out when I came arcoss this beautiful 421 or 422. The catalog value is relatively similar but since this one has some great appeal it's going into the collection.

But for the life of me I can't see any trace of a watermark. I'm using ronsonol fluid, any better way ?

It can be really tough sometimes. You've probably seen this drawing, but I'm placing it here for others who don't have as much experience.

http://www.stamp-collecting-world.c...ps_1910.html

I'm assuming that if you can't find a watermark, then it's likely 421. Is that a reasonable position?

Stallzer, Clark made a comment on another post that Clarity W/M fluid may help negate the cancel ink and help to see hidden hard-to-find single-line watermarks. It could, I suppose, also assist on double-line watermarks in cases where there is a small portion hidden on the stamp by a cancel. I've never used Clarity; I've always used lighter fluid. I don't usually have trouble with double-lines since they are larger than single-line watermarks but I have had trouble with finding single-line watermarks. I find that I sometimes find the single-line when first placing the stamp in fluid--and it seems to "loose" itself after a moment---and then sometimes leaving the stamp in fluid longer sometimes brings out the single-line watermark that I couldn't see at first. Also, as I'm sure you know, single-line W/Ms that have a very small portion on the stamp are devilish. Good luck!

Please read the note under 422 in the Scott US Specialized Catalog. It states that 421 almost always has an offset[sic] on the back while 422 does not. The correct term is setoff. For purple or violet stamps I find that lighter fluid seems to catch more watermarks than Clarity. I try both if the results are ambiguous.

Clark

Thanks, 421 it is. I've become so accustomed to stamp smarter and Scott's pocket catalog I've forgotten the missing info you can find in the big book. What Scott's doesn't mention is why the 422 does not have the offset, they are both flat plate printings.

the offset isnt a sure thing but there is at least a 90% chance it is a 421 if it has the offset

Could someone explain what you mean by "setoff" (offset)? Is it the ink transfer I see in the last image shown above?

Thanks

Wikipedia to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-off_(printing)

Setoff is unwanted transfer of ink between sheets of paper or unwanted ink transfer in an offset press. Offset is a printing method. Too much ink in an offset press may cause paper to stick to the plate and work its way into the ink rollers.

While ink takes a certain amount of time to dry, space to store unfinished printed sheets of stamps was limited requiring that the sheets be stacked. Apparently the Bureau did not worry about a small amount of setoff because it only affected the backs of stamps. Why 422 has no setoff? The printing may have been done at a different time of year on a better drying day or the ink formulation may have been slightly different. Small quantity stamps were printed intermittently over a short period of time in batches large enough to satisfy demand for a reasonable period of time.

Clark

Clark,

Maybe it was George Brett's website, can't remember exactly whose it was because it was taken down after his passing and I removed the bookmark, but I remember reading a firsthand account of stamp production during the early 20th century on that website. If I'm remembering correctly, and it's been 10 years or so, after flat plate sheets were printed they were stacked with interleaving, the character of which was not discussed. Prior to gumming, the stamps had to be pressed so the gum would be evenly applied. Prior to pressing for gumming the interleaving was removed. It was this step that created set-off, as the paper and/or the ink still had some remaining moisture, and the sheets were coming into contact for the first time without interleaving. So I would presume that the longer the stack waited to be gummed and the longer the interleaving remained, the dryer the sheets became and the less likely to set-off their ink to the sheet above. It is possible that an issue known for lacking set-off had its gumming delayed until all sheets happened to dry, for whatever reason.

if you have any older special delivery stamps they are so big the watermark is never missing if it has one, look at them to get an idea of what you are looking for. Ronsonal works better than anything else I have ever tried.