1c 1851 Plate 1-Late Stamps

Rick, how about 40R1L?

I do not see the doubled line above the "U" in "US" at top left under the ornament. That is why I passed on 40R1L. Although, I only see that on the Doporto image, not on images in my database. The ornaments match the 40R1L closely. I wish there was more marks to go by.

What do you guys think on this one, 20R1L or 40R1L?

jaxom, I vote for 40R. I have a copy of 20R1L in a strip of three (18-20R) that clearly shows the dot in E of ONE per the Neinken drawing. Your stamp does not seem to have this.

Jaxom, look at Dudley's 20RL1, in particular at where the top line recut begins and ends and compare it to yours. That, along with the missing dot in the 'E' would lead me away from that choice. Have you consulted the 40R in Siegel when looking at the doubled line above the 'U'? I only ask as that stamp (part of an unused block of 4) was my reference in arriving at the 40R choice.

If it is not 20R1L then the 40R1L is the only choice left. Thanks guys. It looks like you were right Caper.

Here is my latest additions to my reconstruction. I needed all 10 stamps.
I need 7 more to reach the half way point.

The bottom line on your 49R1L isn't broken, but its getting close.

If I recall correctly, 67R1L was another position - in addition to 89R1L, that is known occasionally as having a broken bottom line in late impressions. Yours is getting pretty worn but not broken yet.

Way to go, jaxom! Keep us up to date on your progress.

To follow up on txstamp's comment, the inclusion of broken-frame line copies in a Plate One Late study adds some spice to the mix. I am on the lookout for such examples. Here is a copy of 67R1L on cover in which the bottom frame line is just barely hanging in there.

Cool. The fun challenge is to find one that is not 89R1L.
They exist, but are actually quite difficult to find.

Here are a couple candidates. The first is 50R1L (though I'm unsure weather it is just wear making the bottom line weak), and 91L1L.

The top stamp has an abrasion at the Bottom Line which makes it look broken, but I doubt that it is.

The bottom stamp 91L1L looks to me to be an inking issue, as I don't recall seeing any legitimate breaks in that position - at least not on (earlier) impressions circa 1853 which yours appears to be.

I should add - very nice 91L1L.

Yes, gorgeous triple transfer, Caper!

Here is one that I have been looking at for about a week. It is plate 1 late with relief A. I narrowed it down to 6 choices mainly using the top recut and eliminating positions with a definite plating mark. To narrow it down from those 6 choices at top of the image, I used the incompleteness of the top of ornament Z1. Two were not complete and the other 4 were. That left me with the choices of 54L1L and 38R1L. After considerable effort, I began looking at the placement of the small remainder of ornament L from the stamp to the left. In my opinion it is level with the dark spot on ornament A. It appears that 53L-54L are even and 37R-38R the 38R is lower. It appears this mark would more fit the 53L-54L spacing. So I am under the impression that the stamp in question is 54L1L. Any thoughts would be appreciated.