Watermark Or No Watermark

I can't find a watermark on a stamp; it's a 10cent Webster Scott illustration A94, Scott #258 if no watermark Scott value of $19.00, or 273 with watermark Scott value of $2.25. As a general rule, if a watermark cannot be found, does one assume the cheaper valued stamp? Is there any written/unwritten rule in stamp collecting in such a case, no matter what the stamp?

is this a new stamp or a used stamp? the reason I ask is a used one even though the book says its real good both are very common and can be had for 2.00 or less.
A double line WM is usualy easy to see if your good at watermarks because it covers more area. If you are new to watermarks get some common stamps that only come in 1 kind of watermark and practice.
You cant have a rule that says if you dont see a watermark its the cheapest one because we wouldnt have any unwatermarked stamps if we decided that.
Small things help looking for watermarks, I use ronsonol ( other brands dont even work as good) and a black plastic watermark tray, only do it in good light, sit by the window in the sunlight for good natural light.

The stamp is used. Maybe the better question is, if a stamp is watermarked can it always be detected? I would think not, but I'm certainly no expert. That's why I'm asking. Let's assume it can NOT always be detected. Therefore, if a stamp has no detectable watermark, is it assumed to be the lesser valued stamp (which the book says has a watermark)? My point is, how can a dealer or anyone honestly state "I'm selling this stamp at the higher value because I cannot show you a watermark"? How does one prove the absence of something? I don't want to limit this discussion to this stamp; I'm sure one can find either one of these very cheaply.

That is big problem in stamps, you have to decide wether you trust a seller to have correcly ID the stamp when you buy them. I put together sets of washington franklins so if I cant tell I usually just save them up and put up an auction that is general and jut claims these are washinton franklins.
I try to buy albums of stamps if it looks like a good deal so I take alot of them apart and very seldom do I get one with everything right, people cant even get perfs correct let alone watermarks.
One day someone will come up with a SURE way to tell but untill then it will always be a problem.

leoh,

Watermark detection is discussed on this site periodically. In fact, just last month. We concluded that the best method of detection is to wet scan the stamp and then view it on the computer where you can "play" with it (Tinting, brightness, size, etc). There is a very good writup about watermarks on the Stampsmarter 1847 website. Perhaps you could obtain the stamp "On Approval" and see if you can find it. Worth a try.

Jack Kelley

All other details being equal, I would think that if a watermark can not be detected, the assumption would be that there is no watermark. If there is a drastic difference in value with the unwatermarked variety being by far the more valuable, then sending it to an expertizer for authentication becomes desirable. If the stamp's watermark is notoriously difficult to detect, an expertizer might well opt to not offer an opinion as to the stamp's identity even though he could not detect any watermark. But in most cases, I suspect other details (perfs, paper type, etc.) would serve to narrow the choice to a single stamp.

On this issue, the double line watermark should be easy to see if you are using your fluid correctly. I would say if you don't see a watermark - you can assume it is actually un-watermarked.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I tried to scan it with Clarity fluid but it dries up too fast. I'm pretty sure it does not have a watermark. After I scanned it I realized what a poor stamp it is, badly off-center, a small stain, and a possible tiny tear. But I'm glad to have had this discussion with you, for the future.

leoh, please post a scan of the stamp. Experienced dealers/collectors will be able to make a pretty good guess without seeing the stamp in fluid. There are other characteristics that can sometimes help differentiate 1894's from 1895's, such as color, perf appearance, etc.

I'd guess it's 1894 unwatermarked, Scott 258. That 1894 set is known for its poorly-cut perfs. It's certainly not foolproof, but if you're not seeing a watermark, and the perfs look like this, it's a pretty good bet it's unwatermarked IMO...

Thanks, srailkb. I appreciate it.