Scott #11

This was a new purchase for me. I have limited experience in early classics, so I have two questions.
1) This appears to be an early print of Scott 11, is that accurate??
2) I had considered soaking this off backing and trying to see if smudge on right stamp will clean up a bit. Is it advisable to do so?

This is perhaps a better example of color. I have tinkered with settings for scanner as in other thread. I cant get the histogram adjusted as shown. This is an older Epson scanner.

Both stamps in this pair show inner frame lines. That makes them Type II. Type II makes them, either 10A or 11A.

I don't have the experience or skill to plate these, on site. Some decent clues here though. The large guide dot, bottom right corner of (edit) right stamp. The distance between the stamps. The thickness of the lower frame line...etc.

Nice pair. I often prefer manuscript cancels.

Based on the color, which is not always accurate across the Internet, I would assume that they are #11A. If your second image has a more accurate color to your eyes, then they are not orange brown.

The piece that they are attached to does not add value, but does add structural support against damage.

If they were mine, I would soak them off and attempt to reduce the stain.

stampcrow probably meant the guide dot located at the bottom right corner of the RIGHT stamp.

Thanks DNA, true enough I meant RIGHT stamp. I should proof read my posts before submitting.

Thanks for the reply's. I thought the guide dot mentioned was lower left in margin, I see it now. Glad this pair has got a ID for it now. It wasn't Id'ed on ebay at time of purchase.
I seem to have hit a dead spot in revenues for the time being, and now going back to the classics and trying to get better identifications on my current items. I just bought my first Scott specialized catalog (2015) and am trying to learn the many different types of one stamp. I Purchased many items years ago on ebay, and now have to figure out which may be fakes too (early 20th Century). Looks like a great adventure back to general issues for the winter. I am certainly glad I stumbled across this forum as well. Such a wealth of info to be found here. Thanks all for your valuable input.

rwoodennickel,

I've plated your pair, and they were printed from plate 2L, plate positions 21-22R2L. This confirms the #11A ident.

I've compressed your image in one dimension to show a very distinct top frame line on the right stamp, 22R2L. The frame line dips down over "U.S.," then rises up across the first part of "POSTAGE." The earlier state of the plate (2e) shows a much straighter top frame line on position 22R, helping to eliminate that plate and the #10A ident.

To answer your other question, rwoodennickel, your stamps were printed in 1852, probably the latter half of the year. The plate only shows slight wear. The fine details, like on the top of Washington's head, in the triangles, and in the area around the button, show pretty well.

I created a chart showing the progression of plates and colors, that you can see on the USPCS web site if you Google "USPCS 3-cent plates." It's near the bottom of the "plates" page. Your stamp is either brownish carmine or claret.

Classic Coins you knowledge is amazing. I wouldn't even know where to begin to plate a stamp.

Classic Coins, if I may, what program can compress images like that?
Looking at the conventional image, I didn't see the bend in the top line. I think the nick in the paper distracted my eye...or something.

Thanks, carabop. For the 3-cent imperforates, getting the Chase plating prints from the Smithsonian is key to plating these stamps.

Color study is an interrelated study, but a more subjective one that requires examination of stamps "colorized" by color specialists.

Any way you look at it, the 3-cent imperforates are habit forming, and present endless challenges.

I am beside myself. How amazing is that plating effort from Classic! Thank you. I am getting good at the Srail test, now it seems I have some other wizardry to learn. I love how that image is rendered to see it from that angle. Thanks to all again for sharing your knowledge. Computer graphics are a great leap forward to make stamp collecting and identification easier and faster.

Stampcrow,

Any image editor can "compress" an image. In GIMP, I use the Scale Image function, unlink the width and height, and reduce the size of the dimension I want to compress.

Rwoodennickel,

With a general knowledge of plate characteristics, this pair could be narrowed down at a glance to either plate 2L or 3. The sheet margin and guide dot on the right stamp allowed me to narrow the pair down to two pairs on plate 2L in less than five minutes (the margin dot was no help at all). Compressing your image and using it to eliminate one of the pairs on the Chase prints took about five more minutes. Compressing the image simulates viewing the stamp at a low angle, which is exactly what I do with the Chase prints.

This pair was a breeze to plate. I've spent three hours trying to plate some stamps "in-hand," without succeeding.

I can only wish that I could use my old Epson scanner that I put into storage years ago when I "upgraded" to Windows 7, and it wasn't compatible. In my experience as a #10/11 color collector, Epson scanners reproduce colors much better than Canon.

@Classic,
I have an HP scanner as well, the specs are essentially the same for both. I chose the ole Epson because it was easier to use and rendered better color reproduction than HP. Feature set was more user friendly to me too. Thanks again for your efforts. We all seem to have an( or many) areas that we are really good at, and collectively can contribute to the community. I have focused on Match stamps for some time now. I am not an expert, but can usually make helpful comments regarding them and some Medicine as well. I am looking forward to going back in time before I became interested in Private Die,( At least for awhile, lol).
Edit: I repurposed that Epson from the side of the road. Great find.