Scott Number? 1857-61 1c Franklin

Stallzer

Are you suggesting we cannot generalize that my 2L1L, although very worn impression, is from a very late date (1857). And we cannot generalize that your stamp above obviously has a much finer impression suggesting an early printing?

Thanks

Correct. Neinken states that the plate was showing signs of wear in 1854 and that the stamps printed closer to the cleaning of the plate lacked detail compared to the stamps printed later after the cleaning of the plate.

Your 2L is a late printing. At least 1856 ( edit: I will say that I don't specifically remember the differences between 1855-56 and 57 impressions - but after examination - they exist and are mostly separable). The later the impression the stronger the recut appears.

I'm glad you mentioned the plate cleaning - that doesn't get mentioned much. It caused a dramatic change in appearance in the stamps after the cleaning. I used to have covers showing good examples of the 'dirty' impression right before the plate was cleaned in 1854, and right after. Night and day in appearance. Prior to the cleaning the stamps look horrible - very muddy in appearance - dirty is a good adjective. After the cleaning, the impressions are much cleaner, but start to show definite wear. They are very recognizable once you know what to look for.

This goes back to my earlier comment - collect several dated covers by each 6-month period, and sort them. The impressions will be all different, but largely repeatable and with patterns of color, impression and overall appearance which will become clear to you once you study it carefully as such. I had this down pretty well many years ago, and I mostly remember what they all look like, but its been awhile and I parted with that collection way back (so I've probably forgotten some subtleties). This aspect of one-cent study I'd liken a lot to the 3c 1851 color studies, which are equally interesting. You can date 3c stamps by color and impression, just as you can date plate 1-late stamps. Its just that fewer people understand the nuances of the one-cent stamp, since this aspect of it has been studied less. It is well written up in Neinken -- but you need material to look at while you are reading it.

That 1R1L is late 1852 - I think the CDS says JAN so Jan 1853.

The unused 9R - the gum staining has messed up the color just a bit, but it can still be dated based solely on impression - my memory for detail just isn't quite that good after more than 10 years since doing this.

I do have some new covers I've been accumulating - with no real goal other than buy stuff I like -- eventually I'm sure I'll try to reconstruct a dated study, as I enjoy that. The fun part about it, is you can buy whatever kind of covers you like - circulars, ugly/pretty, cheap/expensive, transatlantic mail, domestic mail, whatever. Sort em and put a glass on them.

Totally off the topic of perforated stamps but since we are showing top row Plate 1L stamps here are a couple 9-10L1L.

that is a nice pair!

Stunning pair. Really pops out. Reminds me of one of the many reasons I collect this stamp - its aesthetic beauty, especially when you get a really nice copy like these.