1c 1851 Plate 2 Stamps

I just got in 4 1c Franklins that were indicated as type IV and plated. The first one I checked was indicated as 82R2 and written on back in pencil. Plate 2 is not type IV. So I checked Doporto site for 82R2 and I did not think that the match was good enough. I think I found the correct position as 45R2. It has a long horizontal scratch across the head, same as Doporto's copy but they said that it is not indicated in Neiken's drawings. The mark's in the "O" of "ONE" match as well. All of the ornaments seem to match.

Nice find, jaxom100.

The guide dot is also consistent with 45R2. Well done!

That horizontal plate scratch is very consistent on this position. I had several copies, and I recall noting that as well.

Thanks guys. I am still a beginner plater but I am working hard at learning. The more that I look at them, the more that I think that I can create a program to ID them with a questionaire. I will attempt something when I feel more confident in my plating.

I learn something new every night. I found out last night that the relief A dingle also occurs on the relief B plate 2 row 9 stamps as well. This is the kind of information that I am trying to gather.

This stamp looks nice. I think I replated it correctly. That plate scratch on the head is really sharp. Good addition to my collection. I also noticed that Doporto site missed a spot for 44R2.

I think that 100R2 is an A relief.
I may be wrong, but its been my working theory for some time. Neinken listed it as a "B".

I based my argument solely on the dingle.
The 90R2's I've seen didn't show a dingle, while I believe I see one on 100R2.

If you understand the origin of the dingle, then you understand my argument. Now 90R2 may have a faint dingle -- I haven't studied enough copies to be sure, but the ones I saw didn't appear to show one.

I don't have the sesquicentennial book with me here, to check, if they covered 100R2 in the article or not. They might have, and probably already long since answered this question -- I'm just raising it here, in the context of the dingle, since the state of the dingle on 90 and 100R can pretty much answer the question, and also help thoroughly help educate people on what the dingle is in the process.

The 9th row would be 81L2 to 90R2 (20 stamps). I think I saw the note on 83 or 84R2.

Owing to the way the plate was entered, you will typically see a dingle on 9th Row B reliefs. That is 81-90L and 81-90R on a transfer roll #1 plate.

What I'm suggesting, is that there may be no dingle on 90R2. My thinking goes back to the 1990s and may or may not reflect what was sorted out in the end. I raise this just to make you think about the dingle and its implication on how the plate was entered.

Yes 100R2 is an A relief. It is shown
and described as such in Doporto. Below 100R are remnants of a B relief (11th row) which further establishes this. I have a copy of 100R showing this which I will scan and post here when I can.

This is the same thing that happened on plate 1 early until TC&C realized that they should use the A relief a a guide relief to produce a B relief bottom row without the 11th row mess.

100R2 showing 11th row top remnants of B relief.

Njs - Very very neat. Thanks for posting.

The 100R2 that I used to have was cut close at the bottom, so I was deprived of an 11th row.

That is really cool, and certainly all taken together, conclusively shows that its an A relief.

Here is one that I just got in. My first pair.
I figured a pair should be easy to plate. I will try again tomorrow.
I am happy to add this pair to my collection.




PS: Someone would have to be crazy to split a pair like this.

I have still been unable to plate the pair above. I am starting to think that maybe it is a plate 3.

Try plate 1L

Good luck. Plating is so tough for me. I once had a stamp I thought was a perforated 99R2, but turned out not to be after submitting for expertization.

The thing is, plating from Ninekin's book is fraught with problems, mainly that these are illustrations and not photographs. Not that I could plate any better from a photograph. I looked in some Siegels catalogs at 99R2's and realized I was off base.

To be any good at it, one must have a lot of stamps, preferably strips and pairs, arranged in a complete or near complete plating. Only then can one begin to plate individual stamps, but even then their are numerous pitfalls that only experience may resolve.

AJ, there is the plating archive with all their photos and indicated markings. I am working on plate dot charts and gathering photos from Siegel (with their permission) and tagging the numbers and sources and building a decent database. I am getting better at plating and I am looking to make plating easier.

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

Njs, it does not look like the lines are a recut #9. There are a lot of plate scratches between the two stamps. The right plume is too full to be a type IV. I notice most type IV are weak on the plumes.