U.s, Scott #9 1c. Franklin

Hello All,
I don't have much experience with the early U.S. issues, but far as I can tell this is Scott #9?
Thanks,
Will

You are correct , Scott #9. Hard to tell for sure from my IPhone but looks to be recut twice on top and once on bottom. I will look again later when I am in front of a screen bigger than 3 inches

Hope you don't mind if I jump in here rather than starting a new thread Will

I just got this the other day as a #9 and hope someone else can verify it for me. I don't have a lot of experience with these early issues either.

thanks

Yes Mike, Scott #9 recut once on bottom. And for the record I personally like when people add to existing threads. Now when someone searches Scott #9 they have more than 1 good scan for comparison. Think of the nice compendium we'd have on just this one type if everyone added a scan.

Thanks!

Thanks stallzer as well. Always good to have multiple pairs of eyes to confirm things. Aside #9 we could have a mega thread for Scott 65 and it's many shades and another on the Banknote issues.

I agree the first stamp is a Type IV, #9 but the second stamp looks like a Type II, #7 to me. The blue line at bottom that sort of looks like a recut is blue ink from a pen or something.

After your response Sinclair I enlarged the picture and see what you are referring to and I'm sure you're correct that it is an ink pen or something along those lines.

I'm going to scan it at a much larger resolution to see what you guys think

thanks for taking a look. I see that pen mark now too

Battlestamps, Mike33 and anyone else: Left of the 0 in "one" there is what appears to be a letter S. This S seems to be doubled.

As I am not too familiar with this stamp; is it actually an S and is it supposed to be doubled as it appears?

PS: I researched on line but could not find any clear example to compare this stamp to.

Thanks

I too noticed that line and the blob of ink touching it. They both are of the same shade and the ink blob is not consistent with the cancellation. It looked to me like an aborted attempt to strengthen that curved line, in which the pen got a bit out of control (or something like that). It's not quite the same blue as the printing, so I have some doubt about its originality. But this is outside my normal range of study, so take it for what it's worth.

Nobody who knows these stamp in their right mind would try and alter a type II to make it look like a type IV. The type II and the type IV are similar but the type IV's will have the curved lines outside the labels recut at top or bottom or both.

Thank you for your informative posts. Of course, now I just have to research and research in order to become knowledgeable about everything concerning A5-A9.

Oh, I must apologize as I was referring to the pic that Mike33 posted.

Coming in a little late here, but original poster's stamp is indeed Scott #9, position 86R1L (double transfer, visible in "ONE"). Compare the image below (covered by fair use guidelines) from Richard Doporto's great 1-Cent Plating Archive at http://www.slingshotvenus.com/Frank...ive_top.html

Welcome dudley. Thanks for contributing and also using a reference to comply with fair use guidelines.