Washington #14 10c Type II? Need Help With Type Identification

Hi!
Glad to be on the forum and thank you all for the kind introductory words! This is my first post, and I need help identifying the two stamps. I am still new to US Classics but I did go ahead and look it up on theswedishtiger.
I am still having trouble trying to identify them. The one on the left could possibly be #14 (Type II) because of the plate dot on the upper left? Not sure about the one on the right.

Any help will be much appreciated!
Thank you.

Welcome, Tex. The stamp on the left is #14 as you deduced. The one on the right appears to be a #15 because the circle above the right X appears broken. At first glance one would suspect both stamps to be trimmed #35's because of the very tight margins, but both have three pearls on each side of the lower plumes so these are genuine imperforates.

the same plate was used to print #31-34 as was used to print #13-16, they may be trimmed perforated stamps

Thanks for the replies.

In that case, how can one differentiate a true imperforate from a perforate that could potentially have been trimmed? is there any other identifying feature that could distinguish the two?

Does one make this assumption (that it is perforate) for other US imperforates simply because of the tight margins?

SPQR is correct, though one ordinarily would not consider the possibility since the imperforate 13-16 in each case is less valuable than the perforated 31-34. The very tight margins make it possible, though, that perforated originals with defective perfs or straight edges might have been trimmed. There is no way to tell unless the cancel reveals something.

Thanks. maybe a silly question but why would one trim a perforated stamp to make it look imperforate if the perforate has a higher value?

Higher catalog value perhaps, but if it has damaged perforations, say, it might well be worth less than the corresponding imperforate. The trade-off for someone attempting this fakery is that the necessarily tight margins of the created "imperforate" would limit its value as well.