Kevin is right, it is not a plate block...........
And talking about the 1c 1851-57 stamps, something about them that is rarely discussed is the fact that all of the different types are identified and defined by specific design characteristics. All of this info, along with pictures, is freely available in the Scott catalog and elsewhere. My point is to state my opinion that when a copy of a 1c 1851-57 stamp does not show clearly the EXACT design-defining characteristics that it should, it is *not* a very desirable stamp, except possibly to a specialist interested in plating.
To make my point a different way, a Scott #22 (Type IIIa) is defined by having an outer center frame line BROKEN AT TOP OR BOTTOM, BUT NOT BOTH. Therefore, if a copy does not clearly show a break because the full design is not present because the stamp was misperfed and the design was cut off, then even though plating CAN identify this kind of a copy as type IIIa, since you literally can't tell it's that type without plating, it is highly undesirable in my view.
And it is quite common to find 1c 1851-57s with part of the design cut away at either the top or bottom or both, and virtually all of these are, IMO, uncollectible. But to clarify as it pertains to this post, in the case of Ray's #19, that stamp is quite nice as an example of the type because it has a 100% full bottom. In that case, even though the top is cut away, it is still desirable because of the full bottom. But in fairness, the stamp that is a #23 with the top cut off, is not desirable as a good example of that stamp. That doesn't mean some collector with lower standards might not want it at a "bargain" price and surely there might be money to be made for someone who buys it as a cheaper variety then resells it for a profit as the true ID. In those cases, plating and/or expert certs help raise the price. |
Posted 05/23/2014 09:02 am
