A20 Franklin #24

I believe I have finally figured out how to down load a pic from my mac.

Besides the small tear in LL and thins in the back could someone help me with some questions I have.
1st= Is it a 32L5 Relief D.
2nd= Is it a used stamp with the thins in the back? looks like it was lifted from album and has no cancel marks that I see. There is a little gum left
3rd= What the heck is the design on the back? Would it be a setoff? Somewhere years ago I read about a possible printing on the back of #24. Has anyone heard of this one or was it referring to the setoff.
4th= Is there anything you see that I don't good or bad as I am still learning?

I appreciate all of the replies as I think there will be a lot

GOOD thing....it is a very well centered stamp for the period.

It is not printed on the back....that is a reverse image of the 1c issue.
Franklin would be looking to the RIGHT is back printing.
Looks to have been stuck/removed from a album page.

Thanks Kevin504. I believe it has been lifted from an album or a cover. It's from a friend of a friend of a family member. If only it didn't have that tear and being a litte rough around the edges,I think the centering like you said is nice for the time of the stamp but I do think that is all going for it, but what the heck it's makes a good spacer. I'm going on line to check the plate position and see what I can come up with as I do not believe it is a 32L5 . What it is I don't know as I'm a Newby Stamper,but I don't see a whole lot of scratches down the sides but see stuff going on at top. Something new to play with!

Thanks again.

This does appear to be a Type V D relief, and could well be position 32L5 (the blurs in the lower portions of the letters "POS" are characteristic of this position). Obviously a much closer look than is possible from this image is called for in order to attempt a definitive plating, however.

I can't tell the color, but I am intrigued by the image you have on the reverse. My initial reaction was "album page transfer print." If it is black then I would stay with that. But on my monitor screen it looks blue like the stamp below it. If it is indeed blue, then I would test it for a setoff (which is a secondary transfer of the original ink and appears in reverse).

Something you can do to help the situation is soak the stamp and remove all the accretions on the reverse. If that design comes off, then it wasn't original to the stamp and you don't need it. If it is a setoff, soaking will not take it away. BUT ...

... if the stamp has lots of original gum and the image is floating on that, I wouldn't tamper with it.

Thanks dudley. To get the image to 100kb this is the size that appeared on the screen when I scanned the image at 1200. I went on line and was looking at plate positions and it did somewhat look like a 32L5 being new I wasn't for sure. I will try to enlarge the image. Is there anything special about this position or is it common meaning some position are better than others?

I don't think its an offset of a stamp on the back but it looks like a crude forgery might have got adhered to the back. Look at the lines behind Franklin and the lettering once, they don't look like anything in an album and certainly not from another 24.

essayk the biggest part of the back design is black but some places are blue which appears at the thins which is probably lost paper from being rip from what ever it was on and this shows on the back at the top left better than other places. I would soak it but it probably has about 40% of gum. One other thing is the front background came out black which is what it is but the back image the background came as blue. Can't figure that out. Thanks for the reply as it is most appreciated and also everyone else. Even if it is a lets say piece of crap I can still learn a lot from it. I have to start somewhere in learning more than I know presently.
Thanks

ILS you are surely over my head on that one. Sometimes if the forgery is in black an white maybe but I hadn't thought of a forgery being on the back of a stamp. So, you are saying it maybe a forgery of the same stamp design on the back of the original? Can you explain a little more about the lines and letters? Are the lines not straight and the O of cents a little small? Intriguing if so.
Thanks

NS, among #24's there are certain plate positions (Type VA's, double transfers, curl varieties, etc.) that are more desirable to specialists than others. Your stamp, if it is 32L5, does not fall into one of these special categories. That said, however, stamps from Plate 5 in general are scarce, so if that is what you have, especially with the centering (and if it is fault-free), then you have a very desirable piece. Also, with regard to the apparent offset design on reverse, if the stamp were removed from a very old album (from a time when it was illegal to reproduce stamp designs photographically), then it might very well have come from a space with a crude imitation of the actual stamp design.

Thanks again dudley. The back looks like there are some thins and there is a small tear at the bottom left, but does have decent centering. I'm no plating expert by far and in fact this is the first time looking at plate positions but have looked at some plate positions on line and to me it looks like a 32L5. As far as the album thing goes it is from a very old collection from early 1900- 1930s. It being a filler in my collection should I send it to B.W. to have him look at I mean it has some flaws and all, but maybe being from Plate 5 it may change things a little?
Thanks and thanks SCF for all the things you put up with; like the Newby Stampers like me.

I don't think it is from 32L5 but I may be wrong. Type V stamps from Plate 5 command a premium among specialists but that is about it. If it was one of those really beautiful, early printings from Plate 5 it may command a premium among another small subset of collectors who appreciate (and value) great color and impression. Your stamp is pretty much a space filler regardless of which plate it came from. Save your certification dollars...

NS, I agree with Sinclair that it would not be to your advantage to spend money certifying a faulty stamp. In a general collection this is a #24 like any other #24. To a specialist like me, however, it would be more than a mere space filler if it were an Plate 5 specimen.

If you are interested in learning to plate classic US issues then it is the faulty stamps you should begin with.

ETA: My apologies, I glossed over the mention of faults in the original post.

PS. NS, here's a link to the Plate 5 section of Richard Doporto's One-Cent Plating Archive, in case you hadn't found this resource yet. Scroll down to the link for Pos 32L5 in the pane at left for a detailed image.

http://www.slingshotvenus.com/Frank...inFrame.html

Thanks for the information sinclair2010 and again to you dudley. Nothing but a filler as I knew and a kinda crude one at that, but as mentioned prior it is a good stamp to start with. I'm still going to try to learn the plate position. I've been on the slingshot site some last night and some after I got home from the day to day grind.
Thanks again all.

You may not have enough free time, but the U.S. Philatelic Classics Society has a great resource available for download in their electronic library:

http://www.uspcs.org/resource-cente...nic-library/

Specifically "NEINKEN – United States One Cent Stamps of 1851 to 1861" found at http://d2jf3tgwe889fp.cloudfront.ne...okmarked.pdf

Tip: right-click that link and select "Save Link As..." Then open the file.