What we collect!

 

Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps



What we collect!
What we collect!


United States/Stamps : 264? Another noob question...

 

Author
Postings
hblairh
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
02:31:10pm
Image Not Found
Image Not Found

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
Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
pedroguy
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
03:01:33pm
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

Like
Login to Like
this post
hblairh
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
03:26:11pm
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.

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
Redneck75

25 Nov 2015
04:52:57pm
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.

Like
Login to Like
this post
michael78651
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
06:03:29pm
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.

Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.

www.hipstamp.com/store/the-online-stamp-shop
Redneck75

25 Nov 2015
06:26:37pm
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.

Like
Login to Like
this post
smauggie
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
08:27:31pm
re: 264? Another noob question...

What did you pay for it?

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhistory.wordpress.com
hblairh
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
08:31:58pm
re: 264? Another noob question...

$7.00 and free ship... I think I did ok...lol

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
smauggie
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
08:42:58pm
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.

Image Not Found

Antonio

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhistory.wordpress.com
smauggie
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
08:44:59pm
re: 264? Another noob question...

"Wise man say, 99% of the time, if you pay for cheap stamp, you get cheap stamp."

Winking

Still that is a reasonable price for those stamps.

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhistory.wordpress.com
hblairh
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
09:00:40pm
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.

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
smauggie
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
09:18:29pm
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

Image Not Found

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhistory.wordpress.com
hblairh
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
09:30:26pm
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!

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
smauggie
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
09:35:56pm
re: 264? Another noob question...

You're right it's the U. My pleasure.

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhistory.wordpress.com
smauggie
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
11:04:08pm
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?

Image Not Found
Image Not Found

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhistory.wordpress.com
hblairh
Members Picture


25 Nov 2015
11:59:11pm
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...

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
musicman
Members Picture


APS #213005

26 Nov 2015
10:45:17am
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....Happy








Randy

Like
Login to Like
this post
Webpaper
Members Picture


26 Nov 2015
11:48:15am
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.

Like
Login to Like
this post
hblairh
Members Picture


26 Nov 2015
01:01:49pm
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

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
pedroguy
Members Picture


26 Nov 2015
01:19:55pm
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

Like
Login to Like
this post
seanpashby
Members Picture


26 Nov 2015
01:48:34pm
re: 264? Another noob question...

Watermarking a mint stamp with watermarking fluid, or even lighter fluid, does not damage the gum.

Like
Login to Like
this post
hblairh
Members Picture


26 Nov 2015
02:28:35pm
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:

Image Not Found

The watermark is plainly visible.

I then did the same with one of the block of 4 and this is what I got.

Image Not Found
(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





Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.

www.pbase.com/hblairhowell/historical
ccndd
Members Picture


27 Nov 2015
08:50:27pm
re: 264? Another noob question...

Don't be afraid to use Ronson lighter fluid. Works great. And the watermarks on the Bureau issues are easy too see. Just my 2 cents. Chris candy

Like
Login to Like
this post
        

 

Author/Postings
Members Picture
hblairh

25 Nov 2015
02:31:10pm

Image Not Found
Image Not Found

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

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Members Picture
pedroguy

25 Nov 2015
03:01:33pm

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

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
hblairh

25 Nov 2015
03:26:11pm

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.

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Redneck75

25 Nov 2015
04:52:57pm

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.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
michael78651

25 Nov 2015
06:03:29pm

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.

Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.

www.hipstamp.com/sto ...
Redneck75

25 Nov 2015
06:26:37pm

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.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
smauggie

25 Nov 2015
08:27:31pm

re: 264? Another noob question...

What did you pay for it?

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhisto ...
Members Picture
hblairh

25 Nov 2015
08:31:58pm

re: 264? Another noob question...

$7.00 and free ship... I think I did ok...lol

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Members Picture
smauggie

25 Nov 2015
08:42:58pm

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.

Image Not Found

Antonio

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhisto ...
Members Picture
smauggie

25 Nov 2015
08:44:59pm

re: 264? Another noob question...

"Wise man say, 99% of the time, if you pay for cheap stamp, you get cheap stamp."

Winking

Still that is a reasonable price for those stamps.

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhisto ...
Members Picture
hblairh

25 Nov 2015
09:00:40pm

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.

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Members Picture
smauggie

25 Nov 2015
09:18:29pm

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

Image Not Found

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhisto ...
Members Picture
hblairh

25 Nov 2015
09:30:26pm

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!

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Members Picture
smauggie

25 Nov 2015
09:35:56pm

re: 264? Another noob question...

You're right it's the U. My pleasure.

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhisto ...
Members Picture
smauggie

25 Nov 2015
11:04:08pm

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?

Image Not Found
Image Not Found

Like
Login to Like
this post

canalzonepostalhisto ...
Members Picture
hblairh

25 Nov 2015
11:59:11pm

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...

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Members Picture
musicman

APS #213005
26 Nov 2015
10:45:17am

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....Happy








Randy

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
Webpaper

26 Nov 2015
11:48:15am

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.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
hblairh

26 Nov 2015
01:01:49pm

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

Like
Login to Like
this post

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Members Picture
pedroguy

26 Nov 2015
01:19:55pm

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

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
seanpashby

26 Nov 2015
01:48:34pm

re: 264? Another noob question...

Watermarking a mint stamp with watermarking fluid, or even lighter fluid, does not damage the gum.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
hblairh

26 Nov 2015
02:28:35pm

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:

Image Not Found

The watermark is plainly visible.

I then did the same with one of the block of 4 and this is what I got.

Image Not Found
(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





Like 
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.

www.pbase.com/hblair ...
Members Picture
ccndd

27 Nov 2015
08:50:27pm

re: 264? Another noob question...

Don't be afraid to use Ronson lighter fluid. Works great. And the watermarks on the Bureau issues are easy too see. Just my 2 cents. Chris candy

Like
Login to Like
this post
        

Contact Webmaster | Visitors Online | Unsubscribe Emails | Facebook


User Agreement

Copyright © 2024 Stamporama.com