1c 1851 Plate 4 Stamps

This is a stamp I am going to list on eBay. After a long plating session, my conclusion is that it is 66R4. Everybody agree?

I'd agree Winston tho not a standout plating mark to hang ones hat on.

Plate 4 is notoriously difficult for sporadic plating marks. I'd agree with Winston on this one as well--evidence of vertical guide line at upper right.

The U/V and Q1 orns are strong on 66R4, but they are weak here, so it can't be 66R4.

It is 26R4.

Note:
- Dot touching Orn L
- Dot in C of CENT

I appreciate everybody weighing in. A tough one to plate. 26R4 is indeed a match. Must have been all of those misplated 26R4's in the Siegel database that threw me... ducking :)

A markup pointing to spots of interest on 26R4 from my earlier post.

30R4




This position is shown as 68R4? in Neinken. The consistent plating marks, especially the strong dot on head and white space above G of postage, are marked. How later findings and research established the position as 30R4 is outlined in Doporto under 30R4.

The scratch at upper left appearing on some copies is shown below.

I'd agree with 30R4. Nice stamp!

http://goscf.com/t/47245

Link to imperf cousin... it took me a lot of time to figure it out

This position, 59R4, an F relief, was shown in three figures and given half a page of analysis by Ashbrook/Neinken. Pages 273-74 in Neinken.
I refer you there.

This copy shows the full top and bottom of the position (sad left side) which would be exceeding rare in a perforated copy as the normal vertical perforation setting is smaller than the full F relief image.

The top shows the bottom of 49R4 which would have been a Type IC if it had its bottom.



59R4

59R4 is absolutely an interesting plate position.
Its one of the few (only?) 6th row F reliefs where the plate finishing/burnishing missed the guide dot.

It seems to me that with the early impression 59R4 at the 1c plating archive, here:
http://www.slingshotvenus.com/Frank...Pos59R4.html

And the one you - njs - posted, along with the one I used to have - here:


Maybe one could make some observations about plate 4 plate wear.

Incidentally, the 59R4 above was, along with another 1c stamp, the first two 1c stamps I ever bought. In 1985 from Richard Champagne. I "think" I still have the cover that he lifted it from.

njs - I don't see the strong dot up high in the hair on your copy.

It looks like maybe there is a surface abrasion which may have removed it?

It is consistent and quite strong on the other two copies.

I just checked the (now stampless) cover that the 59R4 I posted used to be on, and it is an Armitage correspondence cover. See Chronicle #199 for this correspondence from Chicago, IL to Exeter IL.

The usage is highly likely July 1857, which would be an early plate 4 use. The correspondence spans that year and others.

Hi Tex,

Aside from the stamps you referenced and my copy, I have access to a database (which I am not permitted to share) which has images of 15 copies of this position. The eight perforated copies all have dots. Five of the seven imperf copies do not have dots. One explanation could be that the dot was created early in the use of the plate.









a

njs - interesting. I'm certainly familiar with how quickly plate 4 changed appearance/wore over time; that dot seemed promising, as a consistent item. Its interesting to me that it isn't - and from your comment, it disappeared on the 'later' impressions, assuming the LIFO theory of print-stacking and usage.

To readers - the plate 4 perforated stamps typically exhibit much better, fuller impressions than the imperforate ones do. This seems counter-intuitive, since the plate is known used several months before perforated 1c stamps are known. During this time, of course, the stamps were imperforate, but often exhibit worn-looking impressions. A commonly offered explanation for this is that a print run was made and sheets stacked. The sheets were then used in a LIFO (last in first out) fashion. Once perforations came around, there were still many early-printing left-over sheets towards the bottom, which were then perforated.

Now that "dot" seemed like it would be a fairly deeply impressed item. Hearing that it disappeared, temporarily made me run through the thought process of whether this plate was subsequently re-entered - with the dot being associated with the re-entry. I'm inclined to dismiss the idea that the plate was re-entered, because we just don't see enough double transfers, and other such evidence. 58R4 is a possible such example, if I recall, but other than 10R4, there is little such evidence.

I guess I'll stick with the LIFO idea, and assume that this dot was shallower than it looks.