1851 - 1857 1 Cent Franklins. 1922 Article By Ashbrook.

I'm digging for information on the 1 cent Franklin types and stumbled across this February 1922 article in the "American Philatelist" by Stanley Ashbrook.

http://books.google.com/books?id=A5...%20v&f=false

Interesting reading, but certainly much of this information has been updated by Neinken and others.

I'm specifically looking at for Type V vs Va info. In 1922, which I think was before his first book on the subject, Ashbrook didn't seem to think there needed to be a type Va classification at all. After describing the type V, he went on to say:

"Such a description would include the Type V stamps which have 'almost complete side ornaments' and for which there is no necessity to list a separate type."

Not sure exactly what info you'd like but the question of the listings was discussed here not long ago.

https://goscf.com/t/34914

In this post I didn't really mention specifically what I'm looking for, I just found it interesting that in 1922 Ashbrook hadn't yet called it a Va and didn't think that the Va should have a separate sub-type. (error in my original post, I had it as "type" rather than "sub-type")

I did see the earlier discussion, but by that point Ashbrook did decide to call them Va rather than lumping them in with the V.

I think I have a better understanding now on the A-F relief plates, but I would like to know more about what occurred with either the relief or the plate itself (specifically plate 5) that created both Va and V types. I think the Va relief came first, but then what part of the process was changed to create a plate with all Va stamps on the right plate and a mixture of V and Va on the left plate.

Ray

Raymodj, I'm sure Winston, Art or Ray.Mac can expand on this--- but I think when it was discovered that the design of the one-cent Franklin was too big for the plate, a portion of the design needed to be burnished (erased) out and that's what caused all the design differences creating all the different listings for the Franklin. Only #5, which is one position on on plate #1 wasn't burnised.
The difference in the V and Va is in the amount of erasure done to the left side on some positions on plate 5; most if not all of the right pane and some of the left pane. I don't know if its know why some were erased more than others.

This may not explain what you want to know--as I said there are at least those three mentioned above that know a lot more than me about this issue.

I'd think that the experts would be lobbying Scott for at least a sub-listing for the Va. The difference between a 6 and 6b isn't anymore significant to me.

Laydown of the transfer roll was made from the right to the left, and the original transfer roll was damaged prior to laying down the far left columns, making both Type V and Type Va on Plate 5. The new transfer roll was then used on the next plates..... This is seriously paraphrasing, and it is much more involved than this......

AND....in Ashbrook's book on the 1c 1857, there was no Plate 5, because all of the Type Va stamps were assumed to be Plate 6. Then between the time that the Ashbrook book was printed and the Neinken book was printed, a strip of 2 and a strip of 3 were discovered that had both Type V and Type Va stamps, and then a large block of the plate was purchased by Neinken, and one of the stamps had identical plating marks to an identified position on Plate 6--- thus with those findings it was determined that all Plate 6 stamps were actually Plate 5, and no Plate 6 stamps have ever been discovered-- and if they do exist, they will be from the newer transfer roll (Type V), not the original from the Va stamps.

Hope this helps, Ray

Thanks Ray, I knew you could clear that up for me. Since they had to make a make a new transfer roll, they did a little more relief trimming. Hope I got that right, in a VERY general way.

In the article I attached above, Ashbrook mentioned plate 6 many times and I had read that plate 6 was most likely never used. Made me wonder if he was calling plate 7 plate 6.

Thank you too, Al. Ashbrook certainly didn't have all the correct information at hand when he recommended against a separate sub-type for the Va's.