Scott #23 Type IV Franklin 1857 1c

Just got my new purchase. I'm aware of the less than pristine condition--the right cut edge, the likely reperf on the left, the ugly cancel--but I got it for really cheap on ebay, so I'm happy with it.

I did want to ask about Type IV fakes. Any insights into the typical things to look for? There seems to be a slight step-off on the left margin of the lower re-engraved line, but I've seen some online certified Type IVs that seem to have the same trait. Also the re-engraved lines don't appear to be perfectly even length throughout, but it might be ink blurring the line (e.g. top re-engraved line seems slightly thicker on the right end compared to the left).

Here is a 23 that I recently picked up if it's any help, don't know enough to determine if either is re-perfed.

lukusw,

The recut lines look authentic to me. There are plenty of irregularities in the recut lines on this plate. The "step-off" that you noted in the bottom recut line is visible on the probable plate position 45R1L. You can compare for yourself at slingshotvenus.com

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

This looks like a genuine #23, position 45R1L as Classic Coins said. Notice that it is recut twice at bottom: the inner recut between the E of ONE and the C of CENT does not extend all the way to the C, which is characteristic of the position.

WRT the original question. In my extensive experience with this stamp issue I have seen very little attempt at actually faking a Type IV perforated stamp (there is no point in faking a Type IV imperforate, since it is the most common imperforate type to begin with). On the other hand, it is very common to see other perforated types, especially Type II (Scott #20), misidentified as Type IV.

Dudley, thanks for the great info. I've seen lots of the cheaper #20, #22, #24 called type IV falsely, but I wasn't sure about faked type IV's.

And Dudley and Classic Coins--thanks for the plating help! :-)