Are These Right?

I'm back at it again trying to look up scott numbers can someone tell me if these are correct the 1st 2 stamps are they #119 and stamps 4 and 5 #170 and the last 3 are they #180 thanks I want to be able to get this right so im going to need somebodys help PLEASE

Tina, So what is stamp #3 with the green line through the reverse?

Mike

Probably one of the stamps from the series of 1941-1942 (or subsequent varieties/reissues).

One of the many varieties includes paper with 3 vertical green lines on the back as a control mark.

Yeah, I like to look at the back of stamps. I guess I spent too much time trying to get the Great Britain graphite issues.

k

Sorry, Tina, but your pics are just too small. Also, I cannot ID your stamps from just a picture alone.

Even for the first 2 stamps, there are many Scott listed/numbered varieties. I'd have to know the perforation in both directions, and whether it is unwatermarked, watermark 97, watermark 98...

Using your initial IDs, look at the footnote at the bottom of that section of listings. It will have a note saying "See ###-###...". Look at those other listings and you have a better idea what information you need to finalize the ID. As I mentioned, for the first 2 stamps you definitely need the perforation and watermark to make a final ID.

k

Tina,
The 1st 2 are likely Scott's #119, of course, #119 is unwatermarked, and then 171 or 171A or 171d are watermarked 97 or 98. You can find the watermarks shown at the beginning of the Brazil section in Scott's listings they will be the first two. Turn over the stamps and see if you see those watermarks. If you don't see any it's likely #119, but to be 100% sure you will need to soak stamp in some watermark fluid and see what happens. If you see a watermark but can't determine which is which you use #171 if clear wmk 97 is #171A wmk 98 is #171d.

On the two you believe to be #170 is wrong. Those two are two different forms of blue, blue & ultramarine, they are #178 & #179.

The last three are #180, you were correct. Nice job!

Mike

ok thats one thing I dont have is watermarking fluid but I did hear somewhere that you could use lighter fluid is that true? I havent tried it yet I wanted to ask here first.To the bare eye I dont see any watermarks

Mike, GREAT detailed walk-through of the ID process. You are much more thorough than I!!

Yes, Tina, you can use lighter fluid instead of watermark fluid for most stamps. I know some collectors who still use lighter fluid. It's a LOT cheaper than watermark fluid.

However, I personally don't recommend using lighter fluid. Remember, it's highly flammable, and you're gonna soak your stamps in something flammable? Yeah, it evaporates, and watermark fluid is hardly inert. But I say again -- you're gonna soak your stamps in something highly flammable?

On this issue, you should be able to see the watermark (if any) fairly easily by just holding the stamp up to a strong light and looking through the paper from the BACKside. While the difference between wmk97 and wmk98 sometimes is not immediately obvious, you should be able to tell right away whether the stamp is watermarked or not.

Hope that helps.

k

khj, Very true about the light. I forgot about that working!

Mike

about watermark detecting...I admit that fluids work well, but especially lighter fluid can have serious side effects for health (not to mention other risks it has). Like khj I'd recommend using other methods for watermark detection... Looking towards light / placing stamp on black background works well for some stamps. MorleyBright has "manual" watermark detectors (pricerange 20-40US$ depending on where you buy); they do work somewhat well (especially if you replace sachet annually). And the best solution would be an electronic watermark detector, but they are somewhat costly (from 100+US$ upwards).

-keijo-

Very Good intel, Keijo!

The Morley-Bright watermark detectors are all very innovative devices. Most of the full-time store-front dealers I know have one type or another. It can also be a very useful tool in expertizing. However, it takes some getting used to. The same dealers that I know, also end up using watermark fluid most of the time, instead of their Morley-Bright. The Morley-Bright still has a very difficult time with some watermarks, such as the modern British Commonwealth watermarks. But still, very innovative and still useful tool.

Best tool remains watermark fluid and a good black watermark tray. Because watermark fluid has gotten so expensive (to buy and ship), I tend to just hold the stamp up to light, leaving the watermark fluid for the really difficult watermarks, or to confirm a watermark variety/error. Watermark fluid has the advantage of helping to show some hidden defects/repairs.

Thanks for bringing up the Morley-Bright, keijo! I had forgotten about that device.

k