Looking For Help On This Stamp

I recently came in posession of the stamp in the picture. A note that came with the stamp said the following: GB 1o / 350. Could it be a used Scott #1 from Great Britain? Maybe someone can help me out on this. Thank you very much.
hawkstamp




I have added another pic of the watermark. It's the best picture I can get. Thanks khj



After some of the comments I saw, I tried to scan one more time and here are the results. Thank you to all that are helping me:

It does look like it has the crown watermark, although it's hard to tell if it is the correct watermark. If you can verify it has watermark 18 in the Scott catalog (i.e., small crown watermark), then congratulations -- you have a nice 4-margin Penny Black (even if one of the margin is very slim)!

Thank you for looking at my stamp and giving me someone else's view. I guess there is not much interest in this subject. Thanks again, hawkstamp

Thanks for posting another scan of the watermark. Unfortunately, watermarks usually don't scan well. I'm pretty sure you have the right watermark (Penny Black only came with the small crown watermark, so usually having a crown watermark is sufficient to confirm).

If you don't have watermark fluid, simply hold your stamp up to a light and look through the stamp from the backside. The watermark should look like this:

There's considerable interest, but when everything's based on a WATERMARK, our commentary is limited. Unless it's a fake, there's no ID other than Great Britain #1; there was only ONE black 1d. stamp of that type, and the cancellation looks OK.

One notable aspect of this stamp is that it has a black MX (Maltese Cross) cancel.

I think it was Londonbus1 who noted that a number of black cancels have corroded, and thus appear to be black cancels. Iron was the primary pigmentation component in the ink used in this type of cancel.

Careful analysis of the cancel may reveal that it is one of the more desireable varieties of MX cancels which are fun to study.

Notwithstanding the watermark, what other stamp could it have been other than a PB? Can anyone tell what plate it is and if it is more valuable than the basic catalog value? Hawkstamp can you please upload a higher resolution scan of the stamp? So it might be plated by an expert here at some point. I know some plates can be very very valuable. But don't get your hopes up too much as those plates are really rare.

I once owned two PB's and then sold one. It is a great stamp to own! Congrats!

The corner letters are EF (I think ???) so if you go here...

http://www.spink.com/nissen-reconstructions.aspx

...you can see all the plates with the letters EF and have a decent go at plating it yourself. The illustrations are very good quality and are the illustrations most platers use. Thanks to Spink they are now available online.

The reason I brought up the watermark is because that is the quick and easy way to confirm it is genuine and not a reproduction. There was no intent to limit any other comments.

Whenever I have a Penny Black, the first thing I usually do is to check to see that it has the small crown watermark. I guess I may be the only person who has this habit.

To clarify, #1 with a black Maltese cross cancel actually pulls the value down to the minimum. In the 2012 Gibbons, black = £350; red = £375; blue = RRRR; cross with number = RRRR; "Penny Post" = RRR; and "town" postmarks = RRR. Anything other than a red or black Maltese cross is likely to be quite valuable.

By the way, a small crown watermark is no guarantee of authenticity. A #3 (also small crown) can be bleached and a fake #1 printed on the blank stamp paper; very difficult to detect, fortunately uncommon.

True, but as you stated, very uncommon. Also, very unlikely given the cancel on the stamp. I wasn't considering forgeries since they are rare; rather, I was only considering ruling out reproductions.

I'm not good at plating. My amateur guess is plate #2. But I'd be interested in learning from someone regarding which plate and why.

k

Maybe EK??? That would be my guess.

WOW, I didn't realize that I had a stamp that could generate all these very exciting comments from EXPERTS like you! You probably understand how I feel when you think back to your own 'First One'. Anyway, I will attempt to produce a better scan and posted it here an a while. Thanks again,
hawkstamp

Posting an ambiguous classic here is like tossing a soupbone into a pack of pit bulls...

I am sorry if I phrased or worded my comment incorrectly. I didn't mean to offend anybody, nor was it meant to be joke. Obviously, I continue to learn how to act in this forum and will be more careful and presice with my future questions! Regardless, I'd like to thank everbody for their replies.
hawkstamp