watermarks and 11d plum

[faw...@cc.usu.edu]

Mike

I have used the roll-atector and found it slightly better
than looking at the stamp and squinting.

I have also had trouble distinguishing SG 528 and 553.
I am sure of the 553 now (with the help of the rollatector.
But 528 is still ambiguous. When I'm rich I might purchase one of
the high end watermark detectors.

Do you think there was something unusual about the paper on the 11d
plums or do you think that dealers were trying to unload amgibuous
watermarks for the most valuable stamp in the set?

Curious

Paul

Paul Wolf
Logan, UTAH

[Greg Ioannou]

It gets easier with practice. I'd suggest sorting a batch of one of the
easier-to-sort values to get a good feel for the watermarks. The penny
is probably the easiest value to see the watermarks. A 99% reliable method
is as follows:

Sort out all of the ones where you can't see the straight line of the E. These
are the crowns-only third paper. Sort the remainder into "easy to see the
watermark" and "tough to see the watermark" heaps. Virtually all of the
"easies" are the first watermark and the "toughs" are the second. At that point
I'd pick the nicest copy from each heap for my collection and confirm my
identification with a drop of lighter fluid.

It doesn't work quite that easily for the values where the watermark is harder
to see (I have always had trouble with the lighter ones, like the 4d and 6d),
but starting with the easier values and working up to the hard ones has usually worked
for me.

Just wait until you try sorting the two NZ watermarks of New Zealand, or the very similar
Crown and NSW and Crown and V types of New South Wales and Victoria. (The latter two
are not a problem, I guess, for collectors who use Scott. That catalogue doesn't even
indicate that there are different types.)

My candidate for toughest watermark of all goes to some of the ones in the Indian states.
You can go blind trying to sort stamps from Travancore!

cheers
Greg

[Michel Lee]

(faw...@cc.usu.edu) writes:
> Mike

>
> I have used the roll-atector and found it slightly better
> than looking at the stamp and squinting.
>
> I have also had trouble distinguishing SG 528 and 553.
> I am sure of the 553 now (with the help of the rollatector.
> But 528 is still ambiguous. When I'm rich I might purchase one of
> the high end watermark detectors.
>
> Do you think there was something unusual about the paper on the 11d
> plums or do you think that dealers were trying to unload amgibuous
> watermarks for the most valuable stamp in the set?

This is exactly what i thought, of all the stamp in the set,
why is the most expensive one the moost difficult to detect?
(am i that unlucky?)
or is the dealer trying to rip me off?
or is it more difficult for them to sell stamps thats hard to ID?

>
> Curious
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul Wolf
> Logan, UTAH
>
>

--
/-----------------------------------------------/ \--\--\ \-- \--
/ mike /---\ \ \ \\ \
/ ae...@freenet.carleton.ca /-----\ \ \\-- \--
/-----------------------------------------------/