Could This Be A Sc491?

In my plethora of stamps my grandfather labeled this as a 491. I looked at many previous post from here and I'm not sure? Can anyone help?

Catalog numbers do change over the years. Not sure if a 492 was previously a 491 or if he was just dreaming.

I'm not certain if I am replying but I am figuring this was done in the 1940's

Anybody else have any idea about this George? I'm looking at Stamp Smarter and have a perf guide but I don't think this stamp was labelled correctly

It looks like a 491 to me.

I noticed there was someone on here that use to grade stamps. Is there currently anyone who does this not besides the Philatelic society?

Thanks

The remaining perfs visible on the upper left side seem sketchy to me. Unusually wide.

I would look closely at the shading lines in the ribbon to make sure someone didn't alter a type III. Type II was only issued on rotary press stamps, so the options to fake this stamp, is limited but not impossible, with altering a type III the most common.

The left perfs look wide because the are cut all the way down. The arc cut is typical of coils applied by an affixer, discussed in several previous threads.

To revisit an earlier question in this thread about catalog renumbering:

Short answer: Yes. There has been, so anything labeled as "491" in the past should be reexamined - including this stamp

Long answer:
1927 Scott worldwide catalog showing only 1 type:


I don't have a 1928 catalog, but skipping forward to the 1929 Scott worldwide catalog with types III and II listed, in that order:


Things remain static through at least the 1956 U.S. Specialized catalog with type III being the major type and type II being the "a" subtype:


I don't have 1957 or 1958 catalogs, but by the 1959 U.S. Specialized catalog (scanned here) the 491 listing is split into 491 and 492 as it remains today:

raypie,
Having a stamp that is previously identified (whether it is marked, in a glassine, stockbook, or album) is mixed blessing. Sometimes it helps you but sometimes it misleads you. It pays to study and learn how to identify stamps yourself and always take any existing ID with a grain of salt. I typically am especially dubious of any stamp that is marked as a rare or uncommon variety, I find these are often mis-identified.
And as mentioned above, catalog numbers changed over time; at other times a stamp might have a catalog number from a catalog that you are not familiar with.
Don

Thanks so much everyone. I was researching about the different shading. My untrained eye needs more experience at this. It is interesting how the rotary press elongates the subject matter. I really appreciate the effort all of you gave me.