Help Please....don't Believe This Is A Sc#24 But...

Need some help with this guy I have been trying to research and ID. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

As a follow-up, my opinion is that this is a Scott #21 (Type III)....... curious to see if my intuition is correct.

It is not #24. It looks like a Plate 4 Relief C, with the bottom frame line broken very likely a Type III (Scott #21).

I think you are correct:: 21.

C relief.???

Appreciate it Dudley.... a nice find (even if its not in the greatest shape). Any idea of what something like this would be worth on the interweb in said condition?

I'll attempt to answer that question. In the last 90 days I see 3 #21s that sold on eBay. One with a couple straight edges but better centered sold for $102. One with 3 margins, not bad appearing but described as a "space filler" with some faults and some repairs sold for $178.50. The last one was plated and had a cert and a light crease - sold for $255.

Hard to judge on just 3 sales, but maybe that helps. I use advanced search on eBay - checking the "sold" box - to investigate recent sales.

I agree with dudley and rg. Plate 4, relief C, Ty III, Sc #21.

As a somewhat meaningless aside, this is one of those stamps that Ashbrook would say: "it was a Ty III before its type characteristics were cut off at the top". His point of course, being that its not a stamp that you would want, if you are collecting examples of Ty III. It doesn't show the type. As such, it is clearly worth less than a Ty III stamp that shows both top and bottom lines broken where you can actually see them.

The thing that Ashbrook never clarified was, ...well, if its not a Ty III, then what is it? If you read his writings carefully, then you can easily walk away with that impression. I mean, does that make it a 3c stamp, or what? Anyway, the type and Scott number are static, and are what they are whether you can see it or not. If it can be plated, and/or identified then it is what it is. So this is Scott #21. Value and desirability vary based upon how good an example of the type it is.

By the way - shannon - good call on your part to correctly identify this. These aren't easy.

Thank rlsny, I know not a very easy question to answer, was just looking for some initial guidance which you provided.

txstamp, thank you as well. I tried to do as much research as I could before asking for confirmation. The only thing that this guy has going for it would be that you can see the break at the top on the bottom of the next stamp :)
Not as desirable but its there!

"Anyway, the type and Scott number are static, and are what they are whether you can see it or not."

Very well said, txstamp, and this illustrates why plating of these classic issues is so important. The features traditionally used to define the various types refer in actuality not to the printed stamps as they come down to us with all their variations in centering and condition, but to the corresponding intaglio plate images.

Here is a fairly old PF cert that uses a tougher standard. There are plenty of people that think this is the way 1c 1851-61 stamps should be identified.

WSinclair:

I'm not sure the above cert/stamp you posted can be plated... but if you could plate it, and it turns out to be a position that is always type III, not IIIa, then would the PF change their opinion. I'm confused here.

I guess I understand if a stamp could not be plated, then you have to call it what it is based by the design characteristics available. Did the PF make attempt to plate the stamp? Perhaps a better explanation/footnote on the cert would include the statement that "a definite plate position could not be determined so based on its design and inability to assess bottom due to trimmed perforations, its a IIIa."

F relief stamps from plate 4 produce type III, IIIa, AND type Ia. I think with a higher resolution scan you could plate this stamp relatively easy????

my guess 51L4 (hybrid IIIa/III) and unfortunately not Ia

By the way, I would have submitted it as a Scott 19. May as well go for glory! LOL...Flaw under "U" of U.S. useful here.

I might be able to plate the stamp with a better image but I don't necessarily think it would be easy. It seems to be a bit of a worn plate impression but that could just be the image. I think nowadays the PF would typically call it what the position has been shown to produce whether you can see the characteristics or not. I have also seen cases where the PF is apparently just blazing their own trail. That might be OK if you can justify it and stay on the same trail from one submission to the next.

The stamp is ebay #311383736825.

If a stamp can be plated to a position that consistently produces a particular type, then it should be identified as that type, regardless of what features are actually present or visible on the printed stamp. However, I have always looked somewhat askance at the notion of a "default type." I don't think every stamp on the planet has to be catalog-number-identifiable. If, say, a One-Cent 1851-57 stamp cannot be unambiguously identified as to type based on either its visual appearance or on plating, then why can't we just say "type unknown"? Some Plate One Late Relief A stamps (Type IV, Scott #9) are identifiable only by the contours of their recuts (i.e., without any other plating marks). If I take one of these stamps and cut it at top and bottom such that the recut lines are no longer present, it seems to me illogical to then call it a Type II (Scott #7), as current practice would have it.

Next issue: many of these stamps NEED to be plated to determine proper Scott number. I'm under impression that the expertizing firms are NOT plating automatically unless you pay premium service. If they don't plate, mistakes will be made. There is a MAJOR mistake ....I think... (by PSE) in upcoming westpex auction with Schuyler regarding a Scott 7/9. Once the stamp image comes online on SAN, I will post it here for your opinion.