Try Retroreveal.com
Watermark testing does not damage the gum although it is expensive, I use Ronson Lighter Fluid
Happy Turkey Day.........Bill
Thanks Bill!
I ran it through retroreveal and nothing shows up that could even be vaguely seen as a watermark.... Most of what you see is aspects of the design from the front of the stamp through the paper but this is VERY vague. You can also see some anomalies in the gum but nothing that looks like part of a letter.
Some of these self proclaimed experts I am sure surprised. These look as genuine as you can get for a stamp that is 120 years plus that old. They will be #247 if no watermark. Mystic price $100.00 unused. A stamp printed in 1894 are not very plentiful. good luck . worth going to a professional but not on this forum. By the way I am no expert just a very active collector.
You know what, I took a closer look at the examples that I have of this stamp, and others from the three sets. I'm going to back track from what I said, and agree with Redneck.
I also deleted my other post to avoid confusing the matter.
Thank you , It does pay to be fastidiuos (sp) when looking and buying stamps. Like I said I am no expert.
What did you pay for it?
$7.00 and free ship... I think I did ok...lol
There is a glare in the image which suggests the picture of the back was taken with a camera and not a scanner. In these cases retroreveal.org is useless because you have to catch the image at just the right angle to catch the watermark.
Still I think we can say that this is conclusively a block of 4 of US 264.
Here the image of the back of the stamps which I played with for a bit. I was able to bring out a bit of the S on one of the stamps. The arrows point to it, though even here it is not all that easy to see.
Antonio
"Wise man say, 99% of the time, if you pay for cheap stamp, you get cheap stamp."
Still that is a reasonable price for those stamps.
Sadly I don't own a scanner so I have to us my camera... I'm not seeing what you see... but I will defer to you as you have much more experience than I do.
I am sorry if I came off wrong Blair.
In this image I have drawn the lines darker that I saw in the previous picture. Perhaps it will be more obvious when you compare the two?
Antonio
AH Yes now I see it... but it looks small for the U and it's shaped wrong for an S in the 191 watermark...
and you didn't come off wrong in any way. I just couldn't see it until you outlined it.
This is why I ask questions as now this will help me see it next time.... WELL worth the $7.00 just for the chance to learn.
Thank you!
You're right it's the U. My pleasure.
If figured out what my problem was. The image of the numeral 1 from the front was confusing me.
There are still two lines of a watermark, I think now it is more likely part of the curve at the top of a P.
What do you think?
I think you're seeing rises in the gum. I pulled the stamps out again and looked at that area under a mounted lighted magnifier. It looks like there are two lines of rises in the gum... but not filled depressions as a watermark would be but rises.
I moved the stamps back and forth under the light and the glare breaks there over the two rises... not sure what caused them but they are definitely rises in the gum...
I tend to NOT agree with Antonio (sorry Antonio!);
I see no clear evidence of a watermark on any of the four.
This is NOT to say that there isn't one, just that I do not believe what is thought to be the inverted upright of a letter 'U' in the scan is actually a/the watermark.
Assuming you have a US Specialized Catalog, if you look at the graphic of the watermark layout for "USPS" you will see that the letters in USPS are quite large and in no way would they show a beginning curve to the letter U with the upright being that short.
Therefore, this can NOT be a 'U'.
And I also believe it is not part of any of the other 'USPS' letters, either. As I mentioned above, if you look closely at the image of the watermark layout in the catalog you will see what I mean.
But again I reiterate - this does not mean there is no watermark; just that, in this image, none can be seen.
...just my 2 cents....
Randy
If you want to know if it is watermarked there is only one way to find out - watermark the block. Due to it's size just use a glass ashtray or Pyrex baking dish sitting on a piece of dark construction paper and use either watermark fluid or lighter fluid. You can then be certain.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
I agree Randy and thank you Webpaper. I'm just terrified of damaging the gum and thus decreasing the value of the block... which ever stamp it is, it's a beautiful pristine block (though I know not perfect) and I would hate to damage that.
I'm too inexperienced and just know I would mess it up...lol.
Blair
Blair
Try using an inexpensive mint stamp for starters as a test, someone here also mentioned rubbing alcohol, I think it was charlie (cdj1122) if I recall. I've been using Ronson lighter fuel for years with no adverse results. Start small with a single stamp so you
can judge the results before you move on to your block of four.
GOOD LUCK......Bill
Watermarking a mint stamp with watermarking fluid, or even lighter fluid, does not damage the gum.
I'm an amateur photographer and I shoot A LOT. Usually in Raw format. Raw is for lack of a better explanation a digital negative and allows a ton of control over exposure, glare, etc.
I took a stamp I KNOW is watermarked and shot a photo in a VERY controlled situation... no flash and controlled light. I then equalized the white balance etc is a program for working with raw photos. I then took it into retroreveal and this is what I got:
The watermark is plainly visible.
I then did the same with one of the block of 4 and this is what I got.
(I played with contrast a little on this photo just for good measure which is why it appears a bit darker in spots than the photo above.)
It doesn't appear there is any watermark on this stamp.
Blair
I picked this up the other day and am wondering how I know if this is 264 or 247. They are MNH OG I know the watermark is the difference but I would assume you can't test for a watermark as it would damage the gum.
Am I wrong?
Thanks,
Blair
re: 264? Another noob question...
Try Retroreveal.com
Watermark testing does not damage the gum although it is expensive, I use Ronson Lighter Fluid
Happy Turkey Day.........Bill
re: 264? Another noob question...
Thanks Bill!
I ran it through retroreveal and nothing shows up that could even be vaguely seen as a watermark.... Most of what you see is aspects of the design from the front of the stamp through the paper but this is VERY vague. You can also see some anomalies in the gum but nothing that looks like part of a letter.
re: 264? Another noob question...
Some of these self proclaimed experts I am sure surprised. These look as genuine as you can get for a stamp that is 120 years plus that old. They will be #247 if no watermark. Mystic price $100.00 unused. A stamp printed in 1894 are not very plentiful. good luck . worth going to a professional but not on this forum. By the way I am no expert just a very active collector.
re: 264? Another noob question...
You know what, I took a closer look at the examples that I have of this stamp, and others from the three sets. I'm going to back track from what I said, and agree with Redneck.
I also deleted my other post to avoid confusing the matter.
re: 264? Another noob question...
Thank you , It does pay to be fastidiuos (sp) when looking and buying stamps. Like I said I am no expert.
re: 264? Another noob question...
What did you pay for it?
re: 264? Another noob question...
$7.00 and free ship... I think I did ok...lol
re: 264? Another noob question...
There is a glare in the image which suggests the picture of the back was taken with a camera and not a scanner. In these cases retroreveal.org is useless because you have to catch the image at just the right angle to catch the watermark.
Still I think we can say that this is conclusively a block of 4 of US 264.
Here the image of the back of the stamps which I played with for a bit. I was able to bring out a bit of the S on one of the stamps. The arrows point to it, though even here it is not all that easy to see.
Antonio
re: 264? Another noob question...
"Wise man say, 99% of the time, if you pay for cheap stamp, you get cheap stamp."
Still that is a reasonable price for those stamps.
re: 264? Another noob question...
Sadly I don't own a scanner so I have to us my camera... I'm not seeing what you see... but I will defer to you as you have much more experience than I do.
re: 264? Another noob question...
I am sorry if I came off wrong Blair.
In this image I have drawn the lines darker that I saw in the previous picture. Perhaps it will be more obvious when you compare the two?
Antonio
re: 264? Another noob question...
AH Yes now I see it... but it looks small for the U and it's shaped wrong for an S in the 191 watermark...
and you didn't come off wrong in any way. I just couldn't see it until you outlined it.
This is why I ask questions as now this will help me see it next time.... WELL worth the $7.00 just for the chance to learn.
Thank you!
re: 264? Another noob question...
You're right it's the U. My pleasure.
re: 264? Another noob question...
If figured out what my problem was. The image of the numeral 1 from the front was confusing me.
There are still two lines of a watermark, I think now it is more likely part of the curve at the top of a P.
What do you think?
re: 264? Another noob question...
I think you're seeing rises in the gum. I pulled the stamps out again and looked at that area under a mounted lighted magnifier. It looks like there are two lines of rises in the gum... but not filled depressions as a watermark would be but rises.
I moved the stamps back and forth under the light and the glare breaks there over the two rises... not sure what caused them but they are definitely rises in the gum...
re: 264? Another noob question...
I tend to NOT agree with Antonio (sorry Antonio!);
I see no clear evidence of a watermark on any of the four.
This is NOT to say that there isn't one, just that I do not believe what is thought to be the inverted upright of a letter 'U' in the scan is actually a/the watermark.
Assuming you have a US Specialized Catalog, if you look at the graphic of the watermark layout for "USPS" you will see that the letters in USPS are quite large and in no way would they show a beginning curve to the letter U with the upright being that short.
Therefore, this can NOT be a 'U'.
And I also believe it is not part of any of the other 'USPS' letters, either. As I mentioned above, if you look closely at the image of the watermark layout in the catalog you will see what I mean.
But again I reiterate - this does not mean there is no watermark; just that, in this image, none can be seen.
...just my 2 cents....
Randy
re: 264? Another noob question...
If you want to know if it is watermarked there is only one way to find out - watermark the block. Due to it's size just use a glass ashtray or Pyrex baking dish sitting on a piece of dark construction paper and use either watermark fluid or lighter fluid. You can then be certain.
re: 264? Another noob question...
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
I agree Randy and thank you Webpaper. I'm just terrified of damaging the gum and thus decreasing the value of the block... which ever stamp it is, it's a beautiful pristine block (though I know not perfect) and I would hate to damage that.
I'm too inexperienced and just know I would mess it up...lol.
Blair
re: 264? Another noob question...
Blair
Try using an inexpensive mint stamp for starters as a test, someone here also mentioned rubbing alcohol, I think it was charlie (cdj1122) if I recall. I've been using Ronson lighter fuel for years with no adverse results. Start small with a single stamp so you
can judge the results before you move on to your block of four.
GOOD LUCK......Bill
re: 264? Another noob question...
Watermarking a mint stamp with watermarking fluid, or even lighter fluid, does not damage the gum.
re: 264? Another noob question...
I'm an amateur photographer and I shoot A LOT. Usually in Raw format. Raw is for lack of a better explanation a digital negative and allows a ton of control over exposure, glare, etc.
I took a stamp I KNOW is watermarked and shot a photo in a VERY controlled situation... no flash and controlled light. I then equalized the white balance etc is a program for working with raw photos. I then took it into retroreveal and this is what I got:
The watermark is plainly visible.
I then did the same with one of the block of 4 and this is what I got.
(I played with contrast a little on this photo just for good measure which is why it appears a bit darker in spots than the photo above.)
It doesn't appear there is any watermark on this stamp.
Blair