Washington 2c- Type 2- Perf.10- 491's?

okay John..let me see if I could do that with this computer. Thank you for your suggestion.

Based on your scan it appears to have two lines in the ribbon which means it can only be Scott 492 (no watermark) or Scott 455 (single line watermark). If no watermark which is likely it is Scott 492, the cheapest variety.

I changed the stamp color to a vanilla with the computer graphics to see if there is any watermark noticed from it. However, in the meantime, will try what John suggested too

There are 3 lines in the right ribbon. in the mint stamp. It is terrible with the pic. I just used a magnifier 10 x..Definitely 3 lines, not two.

I am going to try the optimize to crop both ribbons for view

A higher quality scan is needed. However, I can see enough of the second line in the right ribbon to confirm that the stamp is a type III, probably the unwatermarked Scott 492.

When making a scan set the scanner to make a 600 DPI scan. A separate photo scanner would be better because they can scan at higher resolution. The scans below were scanned at 600 DPI and then optimized for the web to minimize file size without losing detail:

Type II 454:



Type III 455:

SF..I do see 3 lines in the ribbon..the photograph is terrible and does not show it correctly. it is not just 2 lines.. I looked under mag. 10x//Both used and mint have more than 2 lines..it is a terrible photograph since my computer is not set up for close imagining..I wish I could voom in for all of you to view.

it is the color of type 2, not the type 3

I tried to make it clearer, but still does not do it so well.

I did do what CFPhoto suggested with the 600 DPI setting. Thank you for your suggestion as well.

This is with the 600DPI. with my not great computer

They both appear not have watermarks, so it has to be one or the other type 2 or type 3, 491 or 492. I just checked the PF Foundation past certifications. They are difficult to tell the difference.
The man who sold me the small collection of 10 perforated coils. (about 15 of them in the group with mix wave lines cancellations and others) claimed that the unused stamp was a 491. He placed it in a small stock book marked as it, but he did not have a certification with it.
So I am grateful that I had the opportunity to meet him. As an elderly gentle man claimed he did not certify his stamps since would be too expensive for him to do them all at this time. Claimed his children refused to help him organize his hobby. He expressed so simple. "There loss." He had so many stamps being offered.

It is too bad a better scanner or better software is not available. I don't even know how some of the low detail scans seen on this board could have been created unless a small scan is enlarged. Scans like this are frequently seen on ebay providing yet another reason to avoid some sellers.

The scan notwithstanding, it is unlikely that either stamp is a 491. Many can be eliminated because the shade is too bright or because the paper is wrong. Because the watermark may be so hard to see, the stamp should be examined using a Visual Spectral Comparator (VSC) for signs of a watermark. When watermarking at home, if a watermark is not visible in lighter fluid, use Clarity in a glass watermark tray. Another technique is to backlight the stamp with a strong light in a dark room.

In my experience 99% of 491 candidates are 454. I found one in a donated collection to a stamp club in Portland, OR and had it certified on their behalf. Because the printing quantity was so low, don't expect to find one on the first or even the tenth try.

Because the type cannot be fully established in the obfuscated scans provided, in addition to the missing line in the left and right ribbons, check and understand the engraving differences between types I, II and III below Washington's ear lobe and be aware of the many other differences in the mouth, chin and surrounding design elements. Many type III stamps are poorly printed and may at first glance appear to be type I or II, which are seldom poorly printed. Finally, check the ribbons closely with a 10 or 15 power magnifying glass in oblique light for signs of scraping or other design alteration intended to make a type III appear to be type II.

Also, consider investing in a high quality dedicated flatbed scanner from Canon or Epson instead of one of the many included as an afterthought with an inexpensive printer. Some of the more expensive multifunction printer scanners will scan at 1200 DPI, but a single function scanner with much higher hardware resolution will cost less. It may be necessary to use VueScan to take full advantage of an existing or new scanner. Most scanner vendor software is brain dead or worse. Also, buying a copy of Photoshop Elements would be well worth the price if a copy is not bundled with a new scanner. Freeware also exists, but you are on your own.

Hello everybody,

I took the chance and looked also at many of my 2 Cents coils. And I would like to show this one. There is no watermark visible, and for me it could be type II? Are there other things that lead to 491 or rather 454?

(I know this is really damaged, I just want to know it for learning if the 491 can be detected by a certain type specifica?)

Stamperix , did you scan your stamp or you use a camera, because the right side is not the same high as the left one.