Another ID Check - Is There A Way To Tell What This Is? #9?

SV, the second bottom recut would be seen in the area shown.



Edit: The red line on the oval under th "E" and "C" in "ONE CENT".

Daryl, I think you meant to ask if I disagreed that the top was recut twice.

What I am saying is it looks recut twice on top and once at bottom but the stamp doesn't seem to match any of the four positions that have those recuts. So either the scan is not good enought to confirm it is one of those four positions or it is not recut the way it appears in the scan. I am actually wondering whether it is just recut once at top. A better scan is required, period.

I checked my scanner -- 600 dpi is the best it can do. Pity! Do libraries or Kinko's or someone have scanners? My curiosity demands satisfaction.

Also, can someone explain or point me to the explanation as to how you can tell just from the scan that it doesn't belong in certain specific plate positions? Not that I doubt you, but to me it just looks like, um, an imperf that got cut out from some place - and a bit too close at top, at that.

Edit (add): SV had suggested a while back that the stamp might be recut twice at top and bottom, so I think it was indeed the bottom cut(s) that were being queried.

Jan, here is a scan from the Neinken book showing the recutting variations from plate 1L.



For your stamp, we know it's a type A by the ornaments on the top left and right having their tops erased. On the diagram, the heavy black boxes correspond to relief A. Looking for recut twice at top and once at bottom (which is what I think it is) we see the stamp could only be position 51L, 60L, 71L, or 77L. We can immediately rule out 71 as that position has an inverted double transfer, which you would be able to see as some lines running through the ornaments on the top and bottom left.

The actual plating requires a level of detail not visible in your scans, but you can look at examples of the positions at Slingshot Venus and compare them with the real thing. That said, I think it might be 51L1L as I think I see a slightly curved line running through the upper left.

Sinclair.. I was asking if you disagreed that it was recut twice on the bottom. I now agree with your assessment that it was recut once on the bottom.

Then we are all in agreement and I think Otto's plating is probably correct...