Washington 2cents, Sc482A?

In general, I always recommend that people start with the assumption that they do not have a rarity. This would be the same advice I would give someone who found a lottery ticket on the street and thought they had found a large winning lottery ticket.

Where a stamp is placed in an album or how it was marked by a previous owner is not something that people should place confidence in. And 'confirmation bias' is something that is best avoided when trying to ID a stamp. The excitement of thinking I have found something worthwhile has always led me to incorrect assumptions and ultimately disappointment. It is a lesson many here have also learned; and something we try to pass long.
Don

Alas, there is ZERO possibility of that stamp being a 482A. ZERO. ZERO.I can repeat it more if you think it will help.

I, for one, would like to see someone send in a stamp that the SCF community has given a LOUD opinion on, to a certifying body. But, I would LOVE that member to come back and tell us was the certifying body said. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

I saw Bill Weiss, RIP, tell at least 50 people that he would pay for the cert if their stamp came back as legitimate from APEX or PF; he never had to buy a single cert. <shrugs> And we have certainly seen it in this community every few days for years and years. I do not recall a time when a poster came back with a huge surprise that countered most opinions given.

I do not think there is anything wrong with hoping to find less common material. It has been and will always be part of the hobby.

But it is also part of the hobby which is been taken advantage of over the decades. In my opinion taking advantage of the wishful thinking has played a role in many hobbyists eventually becoming disappointed and dropping out of the hobby. One only has to consider "Franklin Mint" type of marketing that has occurred with subscription FDCs to understand how it can be used.

I think this why we often try to emphasize attributes like learning over 'treasure hunting'.
Don

I think largely like you, that it is not 482a...that's why certifying it will only cost me money, not broken illusions...some small ones, yes, hahaha, but very minimal...

Nope!

409 verified.. watermark revealed.

Thanks for the watermark confirmation.
I still hold there is a very good chance this was a paste-up pair of 409V imperforate coil, since soaked from its cover. Such a configuration explains both the trimmed bottom on one and the uncancelled top selvage area on the other.

Only the that was supposedly 482a has a watermark, the other is an unmarked 482.

yes John, the size of the selvage on the top also adds to that opinion.

A bit confusing to me.

I must also admit that I find it hard to believe that two stamps with halves of the same cancel would be different, etc. Keep in mind this diagram from the Scott catalog, which shows watermark 190, with fewer letters than stamp positions. Few stamps will show an entire watermark letter, and many stamps will show only one or two small portions of a letter around the edge of the stamp.

On the bright side, if you submit the stamp for certification the cost of the certificate will be significantly less than if the stamp were a genuine 482A. Probably around $25. As I recall, the max cert fee is $500 ... which is what you would pay if your stamp is really a 482A. But, as others have opined, the odds of that happening are 0.

For less than the cost of 1 certificate for your non-482A's, one could buy mint blocks of four of 409 and 482, and a strip of 409V. But it's not my money.