Scott #361? Your Opinions

A very worn and marked stamp, but seems to have the right attributes for a Scott #361. Not seeing a watermark, but researching says these an fade away over time. Opinions are welcomed. Thanks

Watermarks do not "fade away". Ever. Don't know what "research" claims that they do. This is not a bluish paper.

I have never, ever heard about fading watermarks.

A French researcher published a catalogue of watermarks from 1282 through to the 1600s, so I guess any watermark produced before 1282 has indeed faded away.

Yeah, right. Researching,

Or more important than a watermark fading, does one's pleasant personality "fade away" as you gain more stamp knowledge? Still a relative newcomer to stamp collecting, I look to forums such as this to be eduated, not ridiculed. For shame that you should think a little knowledge gives one the right to belittle another!

Jackson I agree with you in regard to the responses. It does come across as rude. Unfortunately, novice questions are sometimes viewed here as "lazy". Hopefully you realize that, as a group, we are friendly and helpful. I remember what it was like to be new to the hobby - first stamp I ever put in my album, I just licked the back and stuck it down.

P.S. Go Montreal Canadians! I think this is their year!

AI is not researching and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves ridicule.

This is research:




With the advent and adoption of school classes not actually teaching how to think, determine, explore, question and really research, the parroting of other's research has lazily been added to the term research. Likely due to so many students having no idea how to do true research but still allow for the conferring of educational participation awards.

So I will stand by my statement regarding your "researching." However, I never impugned your attempt to educate yourself nor belittled your inquiry as to do I have an exceedingly rare and valuable stamp.

Edited for English and to add:

I was impressed that you read enough to present your stamp on an orange background.

My response was the facts as I know them. I don't know why anyone thinks that this was rude.

The stampsmarter.org website is a great place to start reading up on identification tools for US stamps.

My apologies revcollector this was not implied to you, but more to the last two comments. Regardless, let's not turn this stamp discussion forum into personal discussion. I do appreciate the time and effort by others to explain themselves and feel this may be not so bad a group after all!
Back to business folks - any chance of this being the #361? I still intend to do the wet watermark test to confirm.

No greater than zero. The paper is not the correct color grey when on the orange background thus it cannot be a 361.

Edit:

Use SEARCH Button, third from right in the above line of buttons and then enter Blue Paper. You will find much information.

Jackson wrote:
but never stated what he thought those attributes were. One strike.

Then Jackson wrote:
Not a great attitude to have in your second comment on new forum. Imagine going into a new workplace and insulting everyone as a first order of business. Your probably setting yourself up for failure.

Just chill out. If you thought the comments in this thread were "insulting" hang onto your *SS if you stick around.

The stamp has no attributes of a bluish paper 361. Not even if one is drinking heavily and eating hash brownies.