Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
What am I missing? Thanks for any help.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
You've misinterpreted the catalogue. The first was issued in 1973 with upright watermark. The second issue from the 1975 issue was actually printed in 1979 and has a sideways watermark.
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo,
Thanks for your quick response, but I am still confused. I read the Cat as follows:
Scott #277 issued 1973, WM 314 Upright.
Scott #277a issued 1975 - 78, WM 373 (does not say if upright or sideways)
Scott #316 issued 1976 - 81, WM 373 (does not say if upright or sideways)
I may be reading the WM wrong as it is difficult to see, but my best guess is 373.
Wait!! I think I got it. The 316 is unwmkd? and the only stamps that are WM in the 1976-81 issue are the 316 and 317. Believe I was reading that backwards. If correct, please confirm.
Thanks for all your help.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
Mel,
The Scott catalogue is kind of confusing on this one. Scott #316 is actually unwatermarked. Check the snippet below, which is above Scott #316. Watermark 373 is only on #320-323, with the rest being unwatermarked. Notice the comma after (#320-323)... that is what the catalogue is trying to tell you. I also double-checked it in my Scott Specialty album for Hong Kong and Scott #316 is titled as unwatermarked there also.
Linus
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
And good luck trying to actually see the watermarks!
Login to Like
this post
If this is unwatermarked, then its from the third series issued in 1976. I only have a Gibbons reference at the moment and it is SG342.
These series can be confusing as the actual issue dates of individual stamps tend to overlap.
Login to Like
this post
Thank everyone for your help. It is quite confusing. I believe I figured it out in my previous post as Linus pointed out. I was reading it wrong. Sheepshanks, you are correct regarding the watermark. That probably also added to my confusion.
Reason number 37 I do not collect world wide. I will stick with my Washington/Franklins.
Again thank everyone for your help. Knew I could count on SOR members.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo, I thought I would answer this one with a snippet from the Scott catalogue, as Scott #316 is from the third series, and Scott is very tricky in their titles.
Sheepshanks, Watermark 373 is especially difficult to see, but if you collect blocks of 4 like me, you have a better chance of seeing the pattern.
Linus
Login to Like
this post
Ah to be able to afford to collect in multiples. Seriously, I have the greatest of difficulties trying to watermark stamps on coloured paper or of deep, rich colour ink and more so when the stamps are used.
On a different kick, I find that my eye (could be my brain, if I had one) draws a line down the back of the Machin head on GB stamps when looking for phosphor lines.
Oh the joys of watermarks and tags.
Login to Like
this post
What I have noticed with stamps with Watermark 373 is that (this works for unused or MNH stamps) is that the back of the stamp has a greenish or bluish tint. Stamps with other watermarks generally have a white or yellow back. I am not sure if this is the gum, but it probably is.
Login to Like
this post
Michael, good point, I was not aware of that on mint stamps.
Mel and all... When I am looking at used stamps for watermarks, and before I look through a batch of Hong Kong for Watermark 373 on single stamps, I will get out one of my used blocks that I know has Watermark 373. Scanned below is one of those blocks. You rarely see much of the crowns of this watermark, so I just look for CA in a descending pattern. (I drew some light lines on my example below, just so you can see what I am talking about.) The CA stairsteps across the block. Sometimes you can see it easy and sometimes not. Once I see the pattern I am looking for, it becomes easier to see Watermark 373 on single stamps, but you will always have some stamps you are not quite sure about. Single stamps will look like one of the six in this block, CA at the top, CA in the middle, or CA across the bottom, because it's a repeating pattern. Hope this helps.
Linus
Login to Like
this post
Linus,
The pic of the upper right stamp in your post is exactly what I was seeing. That is why I thought it was WM 373.
This is what I get for trying to sort, as Dave would say, a "hoard" of stamps. Winter project. Do not worry, I have enough left over for a couple of more winters.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
Mel,
Your stamp is Hong Kong Scott #277a Wmk 373 sideways.
According to my Yang Hong Kong catalogue, in the 10 cent to $20 definitive set with Wmk 373, the 10c, 20c, 25c, 50c, 65c, and $1 are all sideways watermarked and the rest are upright watermarked. Scott leaves out this information.
As Michael would say, "Scott leaves out A LOT of information."
Linus
Login to Like
this post
How do you tell the difference between Hong Kong Scott #277a and #316. Both WM 373, Both Perf 14 1/2 X 14, Both are size 20 X 24 mm and both are bright purple. See image.
What am I missing? Thanks for any help.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
You've misinterpreted the catalogue. The first was issued in 1973 with upright watermark. The second issue from the 1975 issue was actually printed in 1979 and has a sideways watermark.
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Ningpo,
Thanks for your quick response, but I am still confused. I read the Cat as follows:
Scott #277 issued 1973, WM 314 Upright.
Scott #277a issued 1975 - 78, WM 373 (does not say if upright or sideways)
Scott #316 issued 1976 - 81, WM 373 (does not say if upright or sideways)
I may be reading the WM wrong as it is difficult to see, but my best guess is 373.
Wait!! I think I got it. The 316 is unwmkd? and the only stamps that are WM in the 1976-81 issue are the 316 and 317. Believe I was reading that backwards. If correct, please confirm.
Thanks for all your help.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Mel,
The Scott catalogue is kind of confusing on this one. Scott #316 is actually unwatermarked. Check the snippet below, which is above Scott #316. Watermark 373 is only on #320-323, with the rest being unwatermarked. Notice the comma after (#320-323)... that is what the catalogue is trying to tell you. I also double-checked it in my Scott Specialty album for Hong Kong and Scott #316 is titled as unwatermarked there also.
Linus
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Hong Kong ID Help
And good luck trying to actually see the watermarks!
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
If this is unwatermarked, then its from the third series issued in 1976. I only have a Gibbons reference at the moment and it is SG342.
These series can be confusing as the actual issue dates of individual stamps tend to overlap.
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Thank everyone for your help. It is quite confusing. I believe I figured it out in my previous post as Linus pointed out. I was reading it wrong. Sheepshanks, you are correct regarding the watermark. That probably also added to my confusion.
Reason number 37 I do not collect world wide. I will stick with my Washington/Franklins.
Again thank everyone for your help. Knew I could count on SOR members.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Ningpo, I thought I would answer this one with a snippet from the Scott catalogue, as Scott #316 is from the third series, and Scott is very tricky in their titles.
Sheepshanks, Watermark 373 is especially difficult to see, but if you collect blocks of 4 like me, you have a better chance of seeing the pattern.
Linus
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Ah to be able to afford to collect in multiples. Seriously, I have the greatest of difficulties trying to watermark stamps on coloured paper or of deep, rich colour ink and more so when the stamps are used.
On a different kick, I find that my eye (could be my brain, if I had one) draws a line down the back of the Machin head on GB stamps when looking for phosphor lines.
Oh the joys of watermarks and tags.
Login to Like
this post
08:41:11pm
re: Hong Kong ID Help
What I have noticed with stamps with Watermark 373 is that (this works for unused or MNH stamps) is that the back of the stamp has a greenish or bluish tint. Stamps with other watermarks generally have a white or yellow back. I am not sure if this is the gum, but it probably is.
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Michael, good point, I was not aware of that on mint stamps.
Mel and all... When I am looking at used stamps for watermarks, and before I look through a batch of Hong Kong for Watermark 373 on single stamps, I will get out one of my used blocks that I know has Watermark 373. Scanned below is one of those blocks. You rarely see much of the crowns of this watermark, so I just look for CA in a descending pattern. (I drew some light lines on my example below, just so you can see what I am talking about.) The CA stairsteps across the block. Sometimes you can see it easy and sometimes not. Once I see the pattern I am looking for, it becomes easier to see Watermark 373 on single stamps, but you will always have some stamps you are not quite sure about. Single stamps will look like one of the six in this block, CA at the top, CA in the middle, or CA across the bottom, because it's a repeating pattern. Hope this helps.
Linus
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Linus,
The pic of the upper right stamp in your post is exactly what I was seeing. That is why I thought it was WM 373.
This is what I get for trying to sort, as Dave would say, a "hoard" of stamps. Winter project. Do not worry, I have enough left over for a couple of more winters.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
re: Hong Kong ID Help
Mel,
Your stamp is Hong Kong Scott #277a Wmk 373 sideways.
According to my Yang Hong Kong catalogue, in the 10 cent to $20 definitive set with Wmk 373, the 10c, 20c, 25c, 50c, 65c, and $1 are all sideways watermarked and the rest are upright watermarked. Scott leaves out this information.
As Michael would say, "Scott leaves out A LOT of information."
Linus
Login to Like
this post