Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

1c 1851 Plate 4 Stamps

Previous Page | Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 227 / Views: 18,227Next Topic
Page: of 16
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
2394 Posts
Posted 12/14/2019   4:49 pm  Show Profile Check sinclair2010's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add sinclair2010 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
745 Posts
Posted 12/14/2019   8:47 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Caper123 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'd agree Winston tho not a standout plating mark to hang ones hat on.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1412 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   10:23 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2293 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   3:38 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
2394 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   5:20 pm  Show Profile Check sinclair2010's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add sinclair2010 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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 :)
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2293 Posts
Posted 12/16/2019   10:55 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
A markup pointing to spots of interest on 26R4 from my earlier post.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 02/09/2020   11:03 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Njs900 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
745 Posts
Posted 02/09/2020   5:35 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Caper123 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'd agree with 30R4. Nice stamp!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
900 Posts
Posted 02/09/2020   7:40 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rgstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
http://goscf.com/t/47245

Link to imperf cousin... it took me a lot of time to figure it out
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 05/09/2020   6:08 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Njs900 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2293 Posts
Posted 05/11/2020   3:19 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2293 Posts
Posted 05/11/2020   3:55 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2293 Posts
Posted 05/11/2020   4:12 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by txstamp - 05/11/2020 4:14 pm
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 05/11/2020   4:50 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Njs900 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2293 Posts
Posted 05/11/2020   5:27 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
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.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 16 Previous TopicReplies: 227 / Views: 18,227Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2021 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2021 Stamp Community Forums
It took 7.61 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05