Scott 375 First Day Cover?

I know it is not likely, but here it is...

I have this cover shown below, that has a 2c Washington definitive, which is cancelled on November 23, 1910 (which is the first day of issue for the Single Line watermark 2c). I know that the 2c with a Double Line watermark was issued at an earlier date, so it is likely Scott 332, and the currently known EDU for 375 is December 17, 1910.

BUT... I surely would like to think that it is possible for this to be a FDC of the Scott 375.

So, how does one go about detecting the watermark while on cover?

I know it is probably too good to be possible (especially since the stamp is a gem...). However, I am hoping to get some good advice/input on this one.

You are most likely correct; but just wanted to say that's a nice cover in any event. Would be nice if you found it to be a 375; Would be nice to re-write that little snippet.

I believe the standard advice is to send it to APEX for a cert and to ask them to lift the stamp. You won't be able to tell for sure if it is a single line watermark without lifting the stamp. If you lift the stamp yourself, you might not be able to get a cert after the fact that the stamp was genuinely used on cover.

Not my area, but I seriously doubt that your cover is a FDC. The Siskin/Berkun earliest documents use list says that the stamps were put on sale in Washington DC on 11/23, so how would the stamp have gotten to Aberdeen WA that same day.

SPQR - very useful information! Yes, unless there was an early escape (which would then be contrived), it is extremely unlikely a 375 made it out to Washington if they were sold at WashDC initially that day, and not also distributed to other locations to be sold on that day. Also, 332 was a workhorse so was probably issued in quantities of at least 100's of millions, if not billions, so likely many still being used at this time and later.

Looking at the Siskin-Burkun census, though, I find:

"
* M:12/10/10- "Judging from the time blocks of the 1 and 2c values were mailed to me by my friend Chas. R. Morris of Wash DC, who has the opportunity of getting "first whack" at everything new, I would guess Nov 23 as the date of issue of these two values at the Washington post office."
* LHK: First Printing 10/27/10... on sale at DC on 11/23/10
"

So, "M" declares that he would guess that Nov 23 was the date of issue at WashDC, but "LHK" states "on sale at DC on 11/23/10". I would like to know who/what "M" is (Mekeels?), and whether "LHK" statement was based on "M"'s statement or other information.

Also, note the first printing was on 10/27/10, considerably before 11/23/10.



Andyrich74 - thanks for the encouraging thoughts!

Since the cover is nice and clean, you might try holding it at a low angle to the light to see if you can see the watermark. Check it with different sides toward the light. Try it with and without watermark fluid; using watermark fluid, also wait for the "flash", the point at which the fluid is almost dried up.

The small town at the other end of the country makes it very doubtful as you already know.

Nonetheless, good luck with this.

This is an area I became interested in several years ago when I thought I had a rare stamp on a cover but couldn't prove it. Turned out to be a fake as others have pointed out. But in the process I looked at a fair number of possible ways of determining the watermark on a stamp on cover. Some showed promise but none were practical.

Recently I got to thinking about Occam's Razor and I came up with the following possible approach. Everyone has done it as a child, making a rubbing with a crayon.

I ended up making a rubbing using a graphite "crayon". The materials needed are shown below. The critical one being the graphite "crayon".



The stamp on cover, graphite "crayon", 2"x3" microscope slide and Post-it notes. I am looking at other papers, but the Post-it notes work. I tried numerous artist graphite rubbing sticks, but found them to be too soft. The ones I use are from Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...e=UTF8&psc=1

The following sequence of photos illustrates the technique. It has taken me a good bit of practice to get good images but it does seem to work.

1) Glass slide inside envelope under stamp to provide a hard surface for resistance against the "crayon". Note the flat on the end of the graphite "crayon".


2) Post-it Note centered over stamp, adhesive on left side to help hold it steady when rubbing.


3) Rubbing the graphite, flat surface down, against the Post-it note over the stamp.


4) Resulting image, single line U watermark visible at bottom of image.


5) Rubbing image compared to stamp. Single line U watermark fairly visible.


I scan the rubbing and further process the image in Photoshop.

Hope this is useful. Don't get discouraged, it does take some practice, and not all stamps have watermarks. I started off with a stamp with a known strong watermark, laid it face up on an envelope and developed the technique from there, knowing what I was looking for. I also looked at probably 20 covers where I could not identify a watermark, so concluded there was none.

Good luck.

Gary

hy-brasil and gslaten - thank you for the suggestions on procedures to detect a watermark on-cover. Even though I am somewhat doubtful about the stamp, I will try both of these techniques and see if I can get any results. Since it is either DL or SL, and the DL probably will stand out more, this hopefully should provide some useful indication one way or the other.

I'm curious to see if gslaten's method will work for you. I've never heard of this before and will keep this trick when looking at stamps on cover to identify. Learning something new everyday it seems.

This, I believe, is the current EDU for #375. Its listed in the Berkun-Siskun data base on Frajola's site and has been submitted to Scott for up-dating the Specialized catalogue. Its certified by the PF, #557282 and states the stamp was lifted and hinged back in place. I lifted it, watermarked it, hinged it back in place and sent it to the PF for certification. I've done this before with the PF and APS. If it is clearly evident the stamp ties with the cancel on the stamp and cover, you shouldn't have trouble lifting it first if you wish. You can always send the PF and/or APS a scan first and get their approval before lifting. I've also done that when there might be an question about the stamp originating.

The reason I state 'believe" is because I've no way of knowing if anything has been sent to Scott of late. Scott has never notified me when I've sent in other W/F EDUs; I can only find out when a new catalogue is printed. I only get a new catalogues about every 3-4 years, but have checked current catalogues that dealers have at shows to see if my submissions are there. So far so good....

I agree that yours is probably a #332, but you should pursue it if you wish..it might be a new EDU.

Hi Gslaten,

Great idea! In the past I have removed the stamp from the cover, but would prefer to try your method first in an effort to simplify things. Occam's Razor indeed!!

Thanks Brad905.

I use it for loose stamps as well, placing the stamp face up or face down on a glass plate, typically the microscope slide mentioned but any flat clean glass surface will do. I scan and manipulate the graphite image to enhance the results, but also have a "hard copy" record as well.