SC 71 Plate Scratch

I have a couple of stamps I found that I don't know what to do with. What would you do with them? I'm probably going to put them up for sale, but is it better to have a certificate to do so? The sc 71 has a scratch that extends to the E
William




The Sc267 carmine looks like something blew onto the die before it came down.

valleystamper, they may be out of my range to acquire, but I sure would be interested when you put them up. - Jeff

I'll keep that in mind. I don't have enough postings yet to list anything. I'm in the stage of figuring out what makes a rarety and what is an oddity.
William

you will be there soon enough and I will be following you. :)

William, the 267 is caused by plate contamination probably from either whiting or batting in the plate. When the plate went through the impression cylinder the ink was forced onto the portrait oval and the contamination prevented the inking in the affected area.
The images of the 71 were of too low resolution to get a real good view of the edges of the anomaly. I don't believe it is a plates scratch for 2 reasons.
1. A scratch will leave a thin inked line and the image appears to be a uninked/underinked bar bridging the "G" and "E".
2. This is an area that has 3 inking issues: an upward "hook" expending from the center of the back of the "E", a "nipple" from the center of the back of the "E" and a "bridge" between the "G" and "E" (similar to the appearance of yours). These anomalies seem to be more prevalent in the later issues as plate wear probably made them more prominent.
Later today I will post some pics of these anomalies for you to compare.
EDIT: Almost forgot, the 71 is a very nice copy.

I agree the term scratch isn't relative to this issue. Plate wear is probably a better explanation. The E has some other "wear " issues. The (here goes another bad term for lack of knowing) arms top and bottom look to be missing detail. Howver the rest of the impression seems to be clear without defect. Do these types of oddities command a premium? Is this considered in the same vain as double transfer? The issue with the 71 also brings up a similar stamp. I have a block of 16 Sc 583. The stamps have always showed wiping marks and over-inking. There are three stamps in this block that have a thin white mark across the head. This wouldn't be from plate wear. Did they make the dies a totally different way as to have the same streak etched into the metal before engraving?
William

William, the 583 was printed on the Stickney rotary press. Unlike the flat plate where the plate was polished by hand the rotary press had a blade the "squeegeed" the excess ink from the plate. If the blade became worn, inproperly adjusted or had contamination on the edge it would produce these wiping streaks. Its kind of like a windshield wiper.