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

Hello - sorry, this was only a photo. Our scanner is not very good and especially not in my room at my PC. So very often it's much easier for me to take a photo quickly. And as this is not about the size of the stamp, I hope it's ok with this stamp. (the height is nearly the same left and right, about 22.5mm, there is only more ink at the right).

The coil looks like a type II 454 but the close up image did not show all of the critical areas (see the chart in StampSmarter/1847usa). Because the cancel covers the lock of hair above Washington's ear, other areas not shown should be checked. The lighter and brighter shade is characteristic of 454, not 491.

Thank you CF Photo for your wonderful recommendations. I scanned again the used wavey line 10 perforated with a 1200 DPI, to view. The settings were changed. The other photos were harder to see the lines in the ribbons. What got myself in the direction to see the 491's was because both stamps had 19 1/2 x22 with measurements. I agree with you that the mint probably has 2 lines, so it probably a Type 3.
According to Seigels, the Scott 491's, only a small amount was produced before the Scott 492's 10 vertical coil. The lock of hair looks like that straight curve, but like you express more often will be a 454 with comparison due to the 491's are so extremely difficult to find.

Appreciate your great assistance! Thank you again!

The stamp is clearly a type II. The shade looks muted in the scan giving some hope that it could be a 491 but it is probably a 454. This is one of the most difficult Washington/Franklin stamps to expertize even with access to a Visual Spectral Comparator.

Also, the stamp has blunt perforations on the upper right from an affixing machine.

Clark, a question comes to mind: In the case where you have missing or blunted perforation tips, as with this example, knowing the possibility that a watermark could be present on such missing or blunt tip, would such missing perforation tips, absence of any other watermark evidence, cause an opinion to default to #454, assuming no other evidence conclusively points to either #454 or #491? Just curious as to how that would effect an opinion. I bring this up because I have a friend who sent in what he thought was a #491 that received an opinion that it was a #454 because a portion of a watermark was found to be on a perforation tip.

Watermarks on horizontal rotary press coils are oriented in the vertical direction with the letter on its side at right angles to the design. Laying a horizontal coil on a single line watermark template such as the one in "The Expert's Book" by Paul W. Schmid reveals that the watermark will cut into the stamp design, or if the stamp catches parts of two or three letters, enough will be visible on the edges of the stamp. The notion that a watermark would show up on only perf tip is at odds with what I observed. If a watermark letter catches only a perf tip on one side, it would extend into the design as much by an eighth inch or a quarter inch somewhere else. The size of rotary press coil stamps is reasonable consistent.

Perhaps this is the worst case: