1c 1851 Plate 1-Late Stamps

Recut :April-May 1852 timeframe seems likely.

EKU of 1L is June 5, 1852.

I have a 1E used on May 31; although of course, they could be used later.

I agree.

jaxom, nice to see you!

Thanks Dudley and Txstamp!
I am going to try again to add more stamps to my plate recreation.

I negotiated back and forth with a seller on a strip of 3 stamps until I got a price I was willing to pay. A second strip I eventually passed on. I noticed at the last offer that there was a possible crease across the top, maybe to a point that it was a repaired tear at the left part of it. Have to look closely sometimes. I switched it and made an offer on a group of 3 singles that I needed to fill some holes. Awaiting the counter offer.

Here is the strip that I purchased.
It is 26-28L1L. A nice, clean, used copy.

The seller took my offer on the 3 singles. They are 3L1L, 61L1L, and 83L1L. I also picked up another strip of 3 that is 16-18L1L. It will fit right above the last strip on my sheet. That gives me 47/100 on the left pane. I am pushing for the half way mark on my reconstruction.

Nice going!

This one will be much more difficult to plate. It is a #9, relief A, Single cut top and bottom. That would only narrow it down to 72 positions. There does not appear to be a shift, so that would remove 16 more positions, down to 56 positions. Would knock off 2 more positions knowing the stamp above was recut on bottom. That would leave us at 54 positions. I will look at it closer and see what I come up with.

I think its probably 57R1L - note the thick bottom recut from 47R1L at top.

I need a bit more time to get fully happy with this plating but it appears correct.

I received another strip of three today. It is position 38-40L1L. I like that it shows the center line at right.
Happy with the purchase.

Does your 40L show any of the big crack on it, from late impressions?

Txstamp, I do not see any sign of the plate crack on the 40L1L. I am showing an image of my single that I had in the 40L1L position which did not show the crack at left, the 40L1L from the strip in the middle, and the Doporto image in the right. What I did notice is that what I had indicated as 40L1L in my collection (which I originally showed on page 10 of this thread) does not match up. Ornament H1 is complete which it is not on the other two images. The second image is comparing the same corner of the 40L with the corner of the 20L from Doug's stamp in the database. It is a match. Also ornament H matches as well and the bottom plume which it did not on the 40L images. I think what I had labeled as 40L1L is actually 20L1L. I think this could be a definitive way to tell them apart. The third image is comparing the plating marks on 38L1L from my strip with Doporto images. That is a match so the strip is plated correctly. The last image shows what I had marked as 40L1L that I have been comparing here which I now think must be 20L1L.






I think that the plating drawings are so concentrated on extra lines, dots, marks and recuts that they are missing vital plating identifiers, the completeness of certain ornaments or the lack thereof. This is apparent in this exercise as well as the last one on the plate 2 with the short ornament N. These are important identifiers that are overlooked and never mentioned in plating drawings. They are just as important for assisting in the plating as the extra marks but rarely mentioned.

If memory serves, you are right, and I don't think that the Plate 1L drawings focused on ornament completeness or shortness so much, if at all. If I recall correctly, I want to say that is one of the big drawbacks of the 1L drawings.

The drawings for some of the other first contract plates do pay more attention to ornament completeness.

jaxom, nice catch.

Looking at the one I misplated as 40L1L, I do not think that it is 20L1L either. Ornament N is complete on this stamp and is broken on 20L1L. Also, the recut line at top on the left side does not seem to extend far enough on my stamp. Looking through my other choices, It has a good resemblance to 20R1L as far as top cut line and ornament completeness and the bottom cut line at the left side kind of curves up a little bit and the "N" of "ONE". What do you think?