Denmark Scott #6. Wrong Watermark Or Forgery?

The watermark appears to be 112 but the stamp is listed in Scott as #6 wmk 111



The watermark appears to be 112 but the stamp is listed in Scott as #6 wmk 111

I'm not convinced. The lobes of the crown are fairly narrow. I can't rule out "Small Crown" Wmk 111.

Looks good to me..

Usually, the forgeries are rather poor. Some examples here:
http://stampforgeries.com/denmark-1854-57/

Scott Catalogue show Denmark watermark 111 with a flat oval

The Michel catalogue doesn't, so I don't think that is a definitive marker. Look at the lobes of the crown -resembles Wmk 111 rather than Wmk 112.

Also the size (Small vs large) of the Wmk is important.

And aren't your examples a probable imperforate (Scott 6 - Wmk 111) rather than a rouletted 11 (Scott 10 -Wmk 112)?

But, you could always send it in for a cert if you are willing to spend money.

Denmark
Wmk 111 -112
Wmk 112- 111

As you can see, one can get some information by the shape of Wmk 111 (1851) and Wmk 112 (1860), but SIZE is the most important factor.

Michel calls them "Small Crown" vs "Large Crown".

Both stamps are genuine and looks to have acceptable margins as well as good clean cancels.

VM II (112) doesn't appear until 1858... when you have alot of that issue it becomes easier to tell them apart.

when it comes to danish watermarks there is a lot more to them than you'd think, and especially listed in foreign catalogues.

if anyone is interested in this I can elaborate, but won't take my time unless someone is interested.

Sorsh, I'd be interested as I have seen considerable variation in the shape of the same early (and identical) Iceland watermarks. Facit and AFA don't make any distinction as far as I can see.