6 Or 9?

No, this isn't a 1c Franklin question, but rather a cancel question.



Either way I really like it as it is fancier than most numeral cancels and it is a nice strike.

As long as I am showing numerals, here's another:



Its a negative (reverse) number 10. Often the negative numerals and negative letters really obscure the stamp underneath, but this one I can still see I am looking at a Jackson.

Both of these marks are illustrated by Blake and Davis in Boston Postmarks to 1890. The radiate numeral is given the number 1848 on plate 103. In that group they seem to read it as a "6" however, it is equally telling that for the series they assign no number "9." Flip a coin, I guess.

I love the strike on yours, as well as the centering on the stamp Its a great item all the way around.

The numeral "10" item is given the number 1885 in plate 105. Those are ID numbers, not year dates.

If these cancels are of particular interest to you, then you are well advised to get a copy of the book I mentioned above. Mine is the Quarterman reprint of 1974, but it first came out in 1949 as Postal Markings of Boston, Massachusetts to 1890.

Two beautifull examples. Love nice postmarks.

essayk - thank you for the Boston ID's.




And both stamps are sound. I take a different approach than some. Instead of looking for a nice cancel and hoping the stamp is sound, I start looking for sound stamps and hope for a nice cancel, although if the cancel is nice enough I will give some on centering and condition. The 2 purple stars I pictured in the Stars thread fall into this category as they both have minor issues (the 2c looks like it was bumped from the side when it was wet, and the 6c has some light wrinkling).

Both cancels and stamps are beauties! Thanks, also, to essayk, for the Boston cancel reference. I have "rediscovered" that I have this book! Looking at the radiate numeral plate, I am also curious about the absence of a "9" example. Seeing that the "6" and "9" in plate 102 have similar appearance, and that there are two different examples of the "6" in plate 103, unless there is a separate corroborating evidence of this radiate "6" being a "6", I would suspect that it may be a "9"... But without it, it's just idle speculation!