Can Someone Tell Me If These Are Rotary Press Coils?

Sorry I'm a little slow here. The condition is poor, but I hope someone can confirm these are Type I/II Rotary Press Coils. Thanks for the help!

all are rotary

Thanks chasa; I thought they looked like Perf 10 RP Coils, not FP Coils.

What are the dates of use? All but the 4th from top are Type II (the other is Type I). If cancelled after January 1, 1917, any Type II could be unwatermarked (#491), otherwise will be #454.

none are 444's which is why I said they were all rotary

Jmt... nice stamps... yours?

Tipzi & Chasa, they don't have the dates, they're just the corner of the envelope. The owner was told he needs to soak them off the paper, to check for WM. He was also told by the clown above, that they were all Flat Plate #444.

Notice how his brilliant comments keep disappearing. The best he can come up with now is "nice stamps yours". If they're mine or not, still doesn't change the fact that none are Flat Plate #444. I have a big problem with people providing other collectors with false information.

Quite a coverup, there jmt... why did you tell the member all of his stamps were #444, while they were plainly and clearly rotary?

Then, when you were corrected, you conveniently deleted all of your responses, then well over 100 comments from you in other groups... that must have taken you hours, then deleting your membership from the groups... why couldn't you just have stated you made a mistake rather than running away and hiding? Are you that much of an elitist that you can't confess to making a mistake in front of members, and disappearing instead?

just to know: for such single stamps like 491 without date (on cover or off cover), am I correct in assuming that it's quite difficult to get them certified? I don't have any candidate, but I just had to think about that. I also remember the 476A 30 Cents Franklin, which has lost a lot of reputation the last years. At the end there can't be a "proof" that the hole paper (sheet) didn't have a watermark if I only have a single one?

So would you send a single stamp without date in for certification for: Scott 491 and Scott 476A ?

Stamperix:

I think the answer to your question probably lies in the relative scarcity of the stamp in question. Scott 491 was without a doubt intentionally issued and has many many examples. Scott 476A may or may not exist (and if it does exist, some argue it was an error rather than intentionally issued unwatermarked), has spurred much controversy, and at best has extremely few stamps issued.

As a result, 491 can and will be certified in single format, but I doubt an expertising agency would go out on a limb to certify a 476A single.

There are better experts here that can weigh in more definitively, but if you have a stamp that you suspect #491, I would send it in.

stamperix, I've gotten good certs on a number of used 491's with unremarkable cancels (i.e. no year date.) You need to have good watermarking technique, as many 454's have very light (or difficultly-positioned) watermarks. There are also some characteristic "looks" to genuine 491's (shades, impression) which can help eliminate contenders. Also, remember to look for altered (scraped design) type III Scott 492's; they're out there masquerading as 491's.

On any prospective 476A, well, I certainly wouldn't send it to PSE and expect a good opinion, LOL! After they examined one of the PF-certified & signed 476A's, they found what they believe to be an "S" single-line watermark. They stopped acknowledging the existence of ALL perf 10 unwatermarked 30c stamps at that point. As far as I know, that's still their stance, so sending a 476A there is a waste of time. You'd get a Scott 439 opinion even if you sent a corner margin block with absolutely no evidence of watermark on the stamps or selvage; 476A doesn't exist to them.

But Scott continues to list 476A in the catalog, so they apparently remain unconvinced of PSE's evidence and conclusion. I consider it a controversial stamp with a fascinating history/story! To me, resolving the question should be straight-forward. Since the positions of all "original sheet" 476A's are known, you should be able to lay out where the watermarks "should" be on each stamp, starting with the PSE "S" position. Just re-examine the previously certified examples and see if a faint watermark exists where you'd expect it to be. Simple, no? If a certain position should have a "P" centered right in the middle, and the VSC finds absolutely nothing under the closest of scrutiny, I'd say that 476A is a legitimate unwatermarked issue (or a legitimate error on unwatermarked paper), and PSE's "S" is some other paper artifact; not a watermark.

Part of the fascinating story is the claimed presence of "S" like ghost watermarks on the first batch of unwatermarked paper delivered to the BEP, believed to be the result of an altered dandy roller. This could be exactly what PSE is seeing. PSE's partial "watermark," without corroborating watermarks on adjacent stamps, might actually "prove" it's unwatermarked paper, as counter-intuitive as that seems, and not the other way around...