ID of US Stamp

Hi all. I have a brown series Scott US A140, Brown 4cents. Perf count
seems to me to be 12 x 12. I cannot make out a watermark, nor fragment
of same, even w/ watermark fluid. I am a real newbie w/ stamps, and was
wondering what I should do now?

Thank you for any suggestions.
--
dw

linxlvr wrote:
Hi all. I have a brown series Scott US A140, Brown 4cents. Perf count
seems to me to be 12 x 12. I cannot make out a watermark, nor fragment
of same, even w/ watermark fluid. I am a real newbie w/ stamps, and was
wondering what I should do now?

Thank you for any suggestions.
--
dw

Hello DW

It sounds like Scott #334
http://www.1847usa.com/images/334.jpg

4c orange-brown
Issue Date: Dec. 24, 1908
est. 200 million issued

Perf 12 (ie 12x12)
Wmk 191 - Double lined USPS in capital
letters, but please note that the watermark
misses or barely touches some stamps.

cat value: MNH $85.00 ; mint $42.50; used $1.00

Blair

Blair (TC) wrote:
linxlvr wrote:
Hi all. I have a brown series Scott US A140, Brown 4cents. Perf count
seems to me to be 12 x 12. I cannot make out a watermark, nor fragment
of same, even w/ watermark fluid. I am a real newbie w/ stamps, and was
wondering what I should do now?

Thank you for any suggestions.
--
dw

Hello DW

It sounds like Scott #334
http://www.1847usa.com/images/334.jpg

4c orange-brown
Issue Date: Dec. 24, 1908
est. 200 million issued

Perf 12 (ie 12x12)
Wmk 191 - Double lined USPS in capital
letters, but please note that the watermark
misses or barely touches some stamps.

cat value: MNH $85.00 ; mint $42.50; used $1.00

Blair

So it wouldn't be out of line to think it was a watermark stamp w/ a
missing watermark?
Just checking, like I said, I'm REAL new to all this.
--
dw

On 12 Jul 2006 12:12:19 -0700, "linxlvr" wrote:

So it wouldn't be out of line to think it was a watermark stamp w/ a
missing watermark?
+++++++++++++++
Welcome to the vagaries of Philately.

Perhaps more accurate to say that you have another US stamp where the
watermark is difficult to discern. Those are abundant.

Lots of luck, and enjoy.

S.

linxlvr wrote:

So it wouldn't be out of line to think it was a watermark stamp w/ a
missing watermark?
Just checking, like I said, I'm REAL new to all this.
--
dw

Hello again:

Well using the term "missing watermark" might usually imply an error
to some people. In this case, the watermark was applied to a row of
10
stamps but it basically only fully covered nine stamps letters per
row.

On the tenth stamp in the row, the last letter either just touched (or
just
missed) the stamp. It is not an error - it's just the way the
watermarking
worked out. It is also not rare as there were about 20 million of these

stamps produced. It would be best to include this note with the stamp.

I would consider it an "oddity" and not an error. It is of the same
value
as a regular warermarked stamp

Blair

Blair (TC) wrote:
linxlvr wrote:

So it wouldn't be out of line to think it was a watermark stamp w/ a
missing watermark?
Just checking, like I said, I'm REAL new to all this.
--
dw

Hello again:

Well using the term "missing watermark" might usually imply an error
to some people. In this case, the watermark was applied to a row of
10
stamps but it basically only fully covered nine stamps letters per
row.

On the tenth stamp in the row, the last letter either just touched (or
just
missed) the stamp. It is not an error - it's just the way the
watermarking
worked out. It is also not rare as there were about 20 million of these

stamps produced. It would be best to include this note with the stamp.

I would consider it an "oddity" and not an error. It is of the same
value
as a regular warermarked stamp

Blair
TY for all the replies, I found them all to be quite helpful.
--
dw