Is This A #9 Franklin?

The top line looks recut on the left close to the middle, but the entire line is very strong, esp on the right. Is this a 9 recut top only, or ?

Why you don't show the entire stamps instead of a crop image ?

I wanted to keep the file size under 100k while still providing enough info to type the stamp. I also needed to convert to an acceptable file type.

Usually the recuts really stand out, but at least to my eyes, this one seems more subtle.

I believe the limit was raised to 200 kb a few months back.

None of the top row Type IV stamps are recut at top. When you have such a small margin or a margin that touches like you have at bottom, you should be careful that you don't have a recut that is merely scuffed off by surface abrasion. That may have happened to this stamp. A better image would be nice. Email it to me if you have to.

Unfortunately, this is the only image I have. Here it is in its entirety.

I'm eagerly waiting to hear answer on this one. Difficult To see bottom obviously, but I don't see recut at top
I find telling difference between 7 and 9 very difficult in some stamps. Some recuts are obvious .
I use to think I was incompetent in this issue, but now I know I'm not alone. I vote Scott 7 unless someone plates it

I can't say which it is without a better image.

Ok, thanks for your comments Sinclair. Very helpful as usual. I practice typing stamps I find online, so I don't own this one and don't have a better image.

It helps to know that none of the top row type IV are recut at top. I didn't know that, or forgot. Guess I need to break out the reference material again to see what else I have missed or forgotten.

Unmistakably "T" relief, coming from the top row of plate 1. Probably positions 3, 5 or 9 because of the dash in the margin at the UL corner and the weakness of the LL plume. So it's either a type IV OR it's a Type Ib, Scott #5A. Given the shade and impression it's probably a Type IV printed after the plate was cleaned. There's probably a pair of position dots at the upper right corner of the stamp design, under the cancellation ink.

What's screwing up ID'ing is that the stamp was torn from the sheet and the rough separation nicks the bottom of the design where the recut should be prominent, taking out tiny but critical ink bits. HOWEVER, every position producing a #5A was re-entered in the late state, and one typically sees evidence of the double transfer when the bottom has been recut, but I don't see it here. If it is a #9 then it's not position 5 because that's a big double transfer. REALY need a better scan.

There appears to be a faint vertical scratch just above the top of the stamp, in the margin - can't tell for sure. Position 5 has this line. If this could be confirmed as position 5 then it must be a type Ib, Scott #5A, because it hasn't the spectacular DT of the recut state.

Or maybe it's just past my bedtime and I'm seeing things.

It is late - should have specified right pane. Too bad you don't own it!

Tipzi, based on what you said I took a look at the Franklin Plating Archives and found that this stamp has some plating marks found on position 3 late. However, that position has double recut bottom that I just don't see. Especially the inner line under the C in cents. They didn't have an example of position 3 early. I am on a tablet, so forgive my crude arrows.

Edit: I do think I see two position dots, the bottoms just below the cancellation.

Yep, I'd say 3R1L is a good choice. The thing about recuts is that they are prominent in a worn impression but not so much in an early impression.

Well, I now have this stamp in hand. I haven't verified the plate number, but it is a 9. The unfortunate tear across the bottom goes into the bottom line, but this higher res scan shows the recut inner line.

Thanks for update ... High res scan really makes a difference!

Definitely 3R1L. A beautiful impression, and an important position specimen with the markings in the large top margin.